Peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue is possible and China’s role should not be misread
　　The crisis regarding the Iranian nuclear issue appeared to be on hold, if not totally avoided, when the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a presidential statement on March 29, calling on Iran to resume suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities within 30 days. The backfire from Iran was quick and forceful. Tehran announced on April 11 that it had successfully enriched uranium to a level used in nuclear power stations for the first time and planned to press on with industrial-scale production.
　　“Today, our situation has changed and we are a nuclear country and we are talking to others from that position,” said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though he stressed that his country did not seek to develop nuclear weapons.
　　Iran’s declarations quickly drew concern from world powers. the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany met again in Moscow on April 18 to resume their talks over the issue. Whereas China and Russia criticized Iran’s action, they insisted that neither sanctions nor military actions would be helpful in the current situation.
　　
　　The U.S. is the key
　　
　　In appearance, the key to the Iranian nuclear issue appears to be whether Iran is willing to abide by international laws and commitments in tapping nuclear resources. However, if the general situation in the Middle East or overall post-Iraq war developments in the international community are taken into consideration, we can see that the crisis stems from the Bush administration’s foreign policy, its Middle East strategy in particular. The Iranian nuclear issue is essentially a political wrangle between Washington and Tehran.
　　Iran is situated at the geostrategic center where the Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia and Transcaucasia, a transitional region between Europe and Asia, meet. After the Cold War ended, U.S. military forces gradually filtered into Afghanistan, Central Asia and Iraq, leaving Iran as the last non-American-controlled fortress on the way from Central Asia through the Middle East to South Asia.
　　The United States now lists Iran as a member of the “axis of evil” and a rogue state. After the United States overthrew the Saddam regime in Iraq, Iran became the next ready target. Although the United States acquiesced to international mediation, it has never changed its tough stand over Iran’s nuclear issue. Washington has made its bellicose and threatening tone even stronger after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) referred the Iranian nuclear issue to the UN Security Council March 8.
　　In the overview of U.S. national security strategy released March 16, President George W. Bush even went on to single out Iran as the country that poses the greatest challenge to the United States. The first major foreign policy review since 2002 also reaffirmed the strike-first, or preemptive policy, which President Bush first outlined before the invasion of Iraq.
　　Immediately after Iran’s announcement of a new phase in uranium enrichment, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on “strong steps” from the UN Security Council. “It will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain that we maintain the credibility of the international community on this issue,” she said.
　　Since the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iran has always been a thorn in the side of the United States. For the last two decades, the United States has been Iran’s public enemy No.1 and “the Great Satan,” an evil corruptor that pollutes society and destroys personal morality. Tehran has always been alerted by U.S. offensive moves like economic sanctions, military enclosure and supporting anti-Iranian forces.
　　Therefore, Iran has regarded a tough anti-American stance as the core of its foreign policy as well as the standards in dealing with neighboring countries. Faced with pressure from the United States, Iran adopts a defiant attitude and tries to take advantage of the shift in the attitudes of other countries. When the United States consistently increased its threats over its nuclear program, Iran decided to advance nuclear studies by stripping off the IAEA seals on its nuclear sites and equipment in January, ending a two-and-a-half-year moratorium on atomic fuel research.
　　On April 13, President Ahmadinejad was quoted by the official Islamic Republic News Agency as saying Iran’s answer to those who are angry about its nuclear program is, “Be angry at us and die of this anger.” On the same day, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran’s nuclear program is “irreversible.”
　　
　　Diplomacy remains first choice
　　
　　For all the complications over the Iranian nuclear issue, diplomatic efforts remain the most probable resolution for the nuclear crisis and there is still room for maneuver by the IAEA.
　　First of all, the United States is not likely to launch military strikes against Iran. For the time being, the United States has its hands full in Iraq, which has already tainted its international image and practically exhausted its military and financial resources. Meanwhile, Iran has a population three times that of Iraq, a territorial area four times Iraq’s, a stronger military and a more cohesive national solidarity. Therefore, there is a slim chance for the United States to launch full-scale military operations. Once Iran is shown to possess nuclear weapons, and the United States has failed in its diplomatic efforts and other means to relieve the crisis, it would be likely to launch a precise strike at nuclear facilities. But such an action is risky even if it succeeded in annihilating the targets. Under such circumstances, a humiliated Iranian government might undertake strong retaliatory action, forcing the United States into an all-out war.
　　Second, Iran probably won’t stick to its hardline policies to the end. So far, Iran has been vigorously defending its position on nuclear development, insisting that it has the right to peaceful development of nuclear energy. For the time being, aside from the hostility from the United States, Iran’s position has upset many countries and organizations, including the IAEA, the EU and Russia.
　　A closer observation of Iran’s diplomacy from the former experience reveals that Tehran only backed off at the last hour and adjusted its position according to the reactions of the international community. If the final result were confined to economic sanctions from the UN Security Council, Iran would not concede. A harsher sanction policy matters little to Iran, which has been under sanctions for many years. However, if the punishment means military strikes, Iran would seriously consider major concessions.
　　Third, EU countries have views different from those of the United States, guided by diplomacy and economic interests in the Middle East. The reason the EU takes a tough stand is to force Iran back to the negotiating table by taking advantage of the authority of the UN Security Council. Once the situation is defused, the division between the EU and the United States would surface.
　　Fourth, Russia would commit itself to a peaceful solution of the nuclear issue. On the political level, the peaceful solution, which is in line with Russia’s position, would help to boost Russia’s role in international affairs. From the geopolitical perspective, a peaceful solution is vital to tightening the links between Russia and Iran. As for Russia, this could make way for its first real return to Iran since the end of World War II, forming a close partnership and smoothing its passage to the oceans in the south. Russia and Iran have already conducted close economic cooperation. Iran has become Russia’s important trading partner and the two countries have extensive areas for potential cooperation. In the nuclear energy area alone, Iran’s nuclear power station in Bushehr now under construction and other planned projects will bring in handsome economic returns to Russia. Therefore, Moscow has put forward proposals that don’t harm Iran’s basic interests. For example, Russia proposed to establish a Russia-Iran joint venture for uranium enrichment projects in Russia, which Iran has accepted in principle according to its foreign minister.
　　
　　China sticks to diplomacy
　　
　　Both developing countries, China and Iran share an interest in requiring a peaceful environment for development. If the nuclear crisis is mishandled, there will be tension and turbulence in the Middle East and the world at large. Such a scenario runs contrary to the interests of every party involved.
　　China’s position on the Iranian nuclear issue has been manifest and consistent. Out of the need to safeguard peace and stability in the Middle East and the world, China upholds the authority of the international nuclear safeguard mechanism and opposes any form of proliferation of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, China sincerely hopes to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic maneuvers and actively supports any suggestions helpful for the peaceful solution of this crisis.
　　China holds that Iran’s right to peaceful tapping of nuclear energy should be respected and meanwhile stresses Iran should comply with international obligations. Bias aside, Iran’s current nuclear activities have not breached the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The reason it has drawn loud outcries in the international community is that Iran has broken its promise in the agreement with the EU trio of Britain, France and Germany to suspend all uranium enrichment activities before solving the issue. Therefore, China has always hoped Iran would continue to fulfill its commitments to suspending all uranium enrichment related activities and cooperate with the IAEA to clarify all disputes. China believes that negotiation could address every party’s concern and consolidate their interests. China’s fair and unbiased stand has been acknowledged and supported by all parties.
　　It is true that China and Iran have enjoyed a traditional friendship and conducted cooperation in trade and energy on an equal and mutually beneficial basis. China and Iran used to engage in a sizable nuclear cooperation project. However, with the situation changing between 1995 and 1997, China gradually adopted the scheme of disengagement from Iran’s nuclear activities, starting with the suspension of export of technologies of nuclear power stations and gradually abolishing all cooperation initiatives. But these actions did not damage bilateral relations. Last year, the two countries signed a long-term oil and natural gas cooperation agreement.
　　Chinese UN Ambassador Wang Guangya told the press in New York one day after Iran’s announcement of the successful uranium enrichment that China expected Iran to be more cooperative. He said, “According to what they announced, certainly it is not in line with what is required of them by the international community, including the IAEA resolution and the Security Council presidential statement.”
　　
　　The author is a professor at the China National School of Administration

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Spotlight Ｂａｃｋ�。椋睢。簦瑁濉。樱穑铮簦欤椋纾瑁� inthespotlight thepoint