Iran Committed To Non-Proliferation Treaty, Foreign Minister Says
Iran remains committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its safeguards agreement, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday, a day after Tehran enacted a law suspending cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
"Our cooperation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will be channeled through Iran's Supreme National Security Council for obvious safety and security reasons," Araqchi wrote in a post on X.
President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday enacted the legislation passed by parliament last week to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, a move the U.S. called "unacceptable."
Araqchi's comment on X was in response to a call from Germany's Foreign Ministry urging Tehran to reverse its decision to shelve cooperation with the IAEA.
Araqchi accused Germany of "explicit support for Israel's unlawful attack on Iran, including safeguarded nuclear sites".
Iran has accused the IAEA of siding with Western countries and providing a justification for Israel's June 13-24 airstrikes on Iranian nuclear installations, which began a day after the U.N. agency's board of governors voted to declare Tehran in violation of its obligations under the NPT.
Western powers have long suspected that Iran has sought to develop the means to build atomic bombs through its declared civilian atomic energy programme. Iran has repeatedly said it is enriching uranium only for peaceful nuclear ends.
IAEA inspectors are mandated to ensure compliance with the NPT by seeking to verify that nuclear programmes in treaty countries are not diverted for military purposes.
The law that went into effect on Wednesday mandates that any future inspection of Iranian nuclear sites by the IAEA needs approval by Tehran's Supreme National Security Council.
"We are aware of these reports. The IAEA is awaiting further official information from Iran," the Vienna-based global nuclear watchdog said in a statement.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce told a regular briefing on Wednesday that Iran needed to cooperate fully with the IAEA without further delay.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Why do we pretend SCO still works? China runs it, shields Pakistan, sidelines India
The SCO has two key units: the Secretariat in Beijing, and the Executive Committee of the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) in Tashkent. The SCO Secretary General and the Director of the RATS Executive Committee are appointed by the Council of Heads of State (CHS) for a three-year term. Zhang Ming of China and RE Mirzaev of Uzbekistan assumed office in January 2022. It is strange, if not ironic, that neither the RATS Director (Mirzaev) nor any other member intervened in India's favour to redraft the resolution in a way that respected New Delhi's concerns and sentiments. Singh's remarks on the importance of countering terrorist technologies, including the use of drones for cross-border smuggling of weapons and drugs, and his warning that traditional borders are no longer sufficient to guard against threats in an interconnected world, appeared to fall on deaf ears among the 10-member group, led by Beijing. His reminder of the joint statement on 'Countering Radicalisation leading to Terrorism, Separatism, and Extremism', issued during India's Chairmanship of the SCO, also failed to evoke any positive response or change of heart. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation's Defence Ministers' meeting, held in Qingdao last week, ended without adopting a joint statement. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign the communique, as it made no mention of the Pahalgam terror attack, nor included any condemnation of Pakistan, the country from where the attack was sponsored. Also read: SCO is not an anti-Western club. India's presence is a guarantee against it India's blind spot at SCO India should perhaps have anticipated the outcome of the SCO meeting, considering recent developments and its own positioning in UN bodies. After the heinous Pahalgam attack by the 'Resistance Front', a proxy of the UN-designated terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) — in which, as the Defence Minister mentioned, victims were profiled based on religious identity and shot, China offered diplomatic support to Pakistan. It neither condemned the attack in 'Srinagar city, the summer capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir' (as China referred to it), nor acknowledged India's position, instead calling for an 'impartial probe'. The initial report from Xinhua ended with a terse line: 'A guerilla war has been going on between militants and Indian troops stationed in the region since 1989.' After India's 'pause' in military action against terror bases in Pakistan, China was among the first to praise Pakistan's so-called peace efforts. In a phone call with his Pakistani counterpart Ishaq Dar, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described Pakistan as an 'iron-clad friend', and reaffirmed support for its 'sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national independence.' In this background, it was likely futile to expect the China-led SCO to condemn Pakistan for its role in terror attacks on India. India should have also taken note of Iran's presence at the SCO meeting, considering Tehran is not happy with New Delhi's position on the Iran-Israel conflict. In June this year, India distanced itself from an SCO statement condemning Israel's 'aggressive actions against civilian targets [in Iran], including energy and transport infrastructure, which have resulted in civilian casualties, [and] are a gross violation of international law and the United Nations Charter.' India had communicated its concerns to Tehran and other SCO members but did not participate in the discussions or consent to the statement. Although Iran became a member of the SCO during India's Chairmanship in 2023, China's economic engagement in Chabahar and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) gives Beijing greater leverage with SCO members. Also read: PM Modi didn't skip SCO due to US influence. India has its own independent agenda An alternative to SCO India must now seriously reconsider its involvement in the SCO, where China's writ runs large, Russia's interests are protected, Pakistan's terror networks are never condemned, and India's legitimate interests and concerns are consistently ignored. Even when India was admitted to the SCO at Russia's insistence, China ensured that Pakistan joined simultaneously, serving as a counterweight to India. Founded in 1996, the Shanghai Five began as a forum for political and economic dialogue among select Eurasian countries, especially China and Russia. One could argue that China, uncomfortable being seen as a mere Asian power, expanded the SCO to include newly independent post-Soviet states to broaden its geopolitical reach. There is no denying that a new and resurgent Russia may want to regain its strategic footprints in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and other former Soviet territories. India and Russia could independently explore the creation of an alternative economic platform, comprising Central Asian countries, Afghanistan and Iran, with BIMSTEC and IBSA as observers, to tap into energy and mineral resources and a counter-terrorism network. Meanwhile, India should suspend border talks with China and demand political representation from Tibet, which remains under Chinese occupation. Given the Dalai Lama's recent statements that his successor will be chosen through traditional religious norms, China has no role in the spiritual or political future of Tibet. The Tibetan people, many of whom live in exile in India, cannot remain displaced indefinitely and must return to their cultural homeland. If China continues referring to Kashmir as 'India-controlled Kashmir,' there is no reason India should not assertively refer to Tibet as 'China-controlled Tibet.' Furthermore, if the conflict in Kashmir is described as a guerilla war since 1989, then the ongoing struggles in Balochistan and Xinjiang, which were forcibly annexed by Pakistan in 1948 and by China in 1949, can also be termed guerilla wars for liberation. There are also reports of a China-Pakistan tie-up to form a new South Asian regional bloc to replace SAARC. If that materialises, India must launch its own alternative to SCO, one that is more inclusive and economically credible, and offers genuine cooperation on terrorism. Seshadri Chari is the former editor of 'Organiser'. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Why a letter by Chhattisgarh's forest department ignited protests
In 2020, when forest communities living near Chhattisgarh's Achanakmar Tiger Reserve laid claim to their legal right to conserve and manage the forest, they faced an unexpected roadblock. The district authorities asked them to get a no-objection certificate from the forest department. Activists pointed out that this defied logic – the Forest Rights Act, 2006, under which the communities had filed the claim, had been enacted to rectify historical injustices to forest-dwelling communities, many perpetrated by forest administrators in the name of conservation. It sought to restore the traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities, which effectively amounted to a curtailing of the powers of the forest department. Recounting the episode, an activist from the Achanakmar Tiger Reserve Sangharsh Samiti said the communities had to resort to a lengthy process to advocate for their rights, holding several meetings with officials of the forest department, the tribal welfare department, and even the chief minister. 'It took us four years to finally get the rights,' said the activist, who requested anonymity. A recent letter sparked fears that those hard-won rights stood threatened again. In May, the Chhattisgarh forest department issued a letter that effectively amounted to giving itself overarching powers to manage forests where communities' rights under the Forest Rights Act had already been recognised. The letter, dated May 15, cited an older 2020 letter, which stated that the forest department would be the nodal agency for any work pertaining to such forests. Although the 2020 letter was withdrawn after a wave of protests, the new letter ignored that withdrawal, and cited its order as one that was in force. The letter stated that these forests would be managed through working plans prepared by the forest department – these plans follow an approach that takes into account details of tree cover and ecosystems, and estimates of how much carbon was stored in the forest. Experts argued that under the Forest Rights Act, this process should not be controlled by the forest department. 'This is completely violative of the letter and spirit of the act,' said Sharadchandra Lele, a distinguished fellow with Bengaluru-based Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment. Lele has served on an expert committee that looked at how the Forest Rights Act was faring in Chhattisgarh. He explained that according to rules formulated by the ministry of tribal affairs, once a community's rights are recognised under the law, the community itself is to form a committee to draw up a conservation plan, based on which it will manage and protect the wildlife and biodiversity of the forest. 'Gram sabha is a statutory body and fully empowered to take on this responsibility under the act,' he said. 'The forest department is neither the nodal agency, nor does it have the power under the act to stop the community's management plan.' In June, Chhattisgarh's forest department issued a clarificatory note of a single line, stating that rather than serve as the nodal agency, the department would 'play a coordinating role for the verification of community forest resource rights'. But this did not quell the disquiet – on July 1 and July 2, gram sabhas across several districts in Chhattisgarh, including Kanker, Surguja and Bastar, participated in protests, demanding a withdrawal of the May letter. Late evening on July 3, the forest department withdrew the letter. But experts noted with concern that while issuing the withdrawal, the forest department stated that it was awaiting model community forest management plans based on working plans from the tribal and forest ministries. Lele said the department's 'repeated invocation' of such plans 'reveals that it still wants to impose highly technical and irrelevant formats on communities'. Scroll emailed the state's forest department, seeking responses to criticisms over the recent letter – this story will be updated if it responds. Supporting role At the central level, the Union tribal affairs ministry, and not the forest ministry, is the nodal agency for the implementation of the Forest Rights Act. Experts pointed out that this was in effect an acknowledgement that the interests of forest administrators and communities are often at odds. 'The act envisioned to have either a neutral body as the nodal agency, or at least a body that would favour the welfare of the forest communities,' said a development practitioner who has previously worked on the implementation of forest rights in the state. Under the act, the forest department was only given a supporting role – it was responsible for physically verifying the extent of forest land in sites under consideration, providing maps and documents to communities that would help them compile evidence in support of their claims, updating forest maps when rights were vested with communities, and training gram sabhas in the implementation of the act and forest management. In some ways, Chhattisgarh's apparent attempts to grant greater powers to the forest department are in contrast with its record – it is India's leading state when it comes to recognising forest rights. As of March, the state had recognised 52,000 claims by communities to access and use forest produce. Further, of these, more than 4,000 claims to manage these forests had been legally recognised, the recent letter notes. But experts said, as in many states, in Chhattisgarh too, the forest department had often failed to perform even its supporting role adequately – for instance, in many instances, it had not provided forest records to gram sabhas, and not imparted training to them. 'Communities do need support from the forest department to prevent poaching or illegal tree felling,' said Anubhav Shori of the Chhattisgarh Van Adhikar Manch. 'But the forest department does not want it to be an actual partnership, and instead wants full control.' Forest departments' interference Forest departments in several states have had a long history of interfering in the Forest Rights Act process. In 2010, two years after the act began to be implemented, a committee headed by NC Saxena, a former secretary of the Planning Commission, published a report after examining the role of the departments across states. It found that in some states, such as Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh, it was playing a 'much greater role' than intended under the act, and inserting 'various conditions and screening processes that are not required or even permitted under the Act.' This included, in some instances, asking forest guards to take up Forest Rights Act work instead of the tribal welfare department, or allowing forest department officials to veto decisions of district level committees. Lele, who was also a member of this committee, said they had recommended that the forest department only provide 'support' and 'not engage in hands-on management' in areas where communities' rights over forests had been recognised. He added, 'But since this committee report, there has been no clarification or implementation of the recommendations. That is why the forest department is constantly trying to reassert its power that it has lost when communities get rights over forest resources.' 'Scientific' management plans By asserting that community forests would be managed by the forest department's plans, Shori argued, the May letter appeared like an attempt to impose a 'unilateral directive' and 'curtail community participation in forest management'. Such a move would be particularly unjust given that 'an estimated 8,000 more villages are still awaiting similar recognition' of their community rights, he noted. Activists were also worried about the recent letter's mention of drawing up plans for the 'scientific management' of forests. Given that the letter seemed to seek to limit the rights of communities to manage their forests, they argued that such an assertion implied that their traditional strategies were flawed. 'When forest fires occur in these forests, the forest department works with the communities to douse it,' said the activist from the Achanakmar Tiger Reserve Sangharsh Samiti. 'Forest officials alone are not enough to patrol these large extents of forests. They take our help through joint forest management committees. So now how is it that suddenly traditional knowledge is not scientific?'
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
External Affairs Minister Jaishankar on 500% US tariff threat over russian oil: ‘We'll cross that bridge when we come to it'
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said on Wednesday (local time) that the Indian embassy and ambassador have been in touch with US Senator Lindsey Graham regarding the bill on Russia and India will have to cross that bridge if it comes to it. While addressing a press conference, Jaishankar stated that India's concerns and interests on energy, security have been made conversant to Graham. When asked about US plans to impose 500 per cent tariffs on the import of Russian Oil, Jaishankar said, "Regarding Senator Lindsey Graham's bill, any development which is happening in the US Congress is of interest to us if it impacts our interest or could impact our interest. So, we have been in touch with Senator Graham. The embassy, ambassador have been in touch. Our concerns and our interests on energy, security have been made conversant to him. So, we'll then have to cross that bridge when we come to it, if we come to it." Graham's sanctions bill on Russia would impose a 500 per cent tariff on imports from any nation that purchases Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products, The Hill reported. The bill has over 80 co-sponsors in the Senate, potentially making it veto-proof. After the war erupted between Russia and Ukraine, the US and Western nations imposed sanctions on Moscow. However, India has continued to purchase Russian oil. Earlier in May, Lindsey Graham said he is in touch with US President Donald Trump regarding the bill. Republican lawmakers have indicated they are worried about moving the bill but are waiting for approval from Trump before bringing the legislation to the floor. When asked whether Trump is giving instructions on when the bill will come to the floor, Graham stated, "We are separate entities coordinating with each other," The Hill reported. Graham is proposing a carveout for his Russian sanctions bill to exclude nations that help Ukraine's defence, protecting them from a 500 per cent tariff for trading with Russia.
