In a couple of articles in the LA TImes, Francois Nicoullaud, the former French envoy to Tehran, is trying to hide is the true reason why the Paris Agreement negotiations fell apart.
If you remember, under the terms of the Paris Agreement, Iran suspended enrichment for what was supposed to be only a few months, in return for the EU-3's promise to present Iran with a negotiation package. Specifically, the Iranians made it perfectly clear from the outset that they would NOT accept a demand for permament cessation of enrichment. The EU-3 first dragged out the "temporary" suspension for 2 years, rejecting Iran's requests to meet their obligations in time. When Iran finally decided to restart enrichment, the EU-3 presented Iran with an offer that one analyst called an "empty box in pretty wrapping" that among other insults, demanded that IRan permanently cease enrichment -- a total breach of the Paris Agreement.
However, contrary to those facts, this is how Nicoullaud spins the history:
LAT: There was this window of opportunity from 2003 to 2005 when Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program, but then restarted. What lessons can we draw from that experience, if any?
Nicoullaud: One basic mistake on the part of the West, of the Europeans, was to think that we could seduce Iran with carrots. The Europeans tried to put together some kind of package containing civilian planes, oil drilling equipment, power plants, economic cooperation, membership to the World Trade Organization. ... But the package could not take form as long as the Americans were not ready to lift their economic sanctions. And furthermore, it was basically a wrong approach to reward Iran for not trying to produce a nuclear bomb. Being a member of international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is Iran's simple duty to remain away from such a endeavor. So we created a sort of bazaar atmosphere, which was very detrimental to the negotiation.
Of course, there was no evidence then or now that IRan was "trying to produce a nuclear bomb" as Nicoullaud claims, and furthermore, it was the EU that was already obligated to do some of the things that they kindly offered to do -- for example, international law already requires sellers of civilian airplanes to provide spare parts for it, and international law already requires the EU-3 to respect other nations and not attack them or undermine their governments. Like I said before,o the EU-3 "offer" to Iran consisted of either things that they were already obligated to do, things that were not binding upon them, and things that only ultimately benefitted themselves.
Comments