....Q: ....Mr. President, among the conditions which you described, you said in the world, one of the most serious issues is about nuclear weapons which threatened a good part of the mankind, one of the dilemmas of the nuclear visions is that nuclear enrichment is essential both to creat nuclear fuels for power plants which brings help for various parts of the world and also identical process is able to produce nuclear weapons for the world, now your country and the U.S. and many other countries have argued about your nuclear program and you claimed that it is for peaceful purposes in other words the enrichment would be to provide nuclear power. The U.S. has argued no. We think you intend to produce nuclear weapons. I don't know who, I don't know what the truth is, but that is not the basic problem. The basic problem is that once you have the capability of enriching nuclear material, building a nuclear bomb is simple.
And there is no way to distinguish between enriching Uranium for peaceful purposes and for weapons purposes. So let's suppose that the U.S. for example says, we believe you, we believe you have only peaceful intentions. It is my judgment that you still should not enrich Uranium because if you do, the reaction is likely to be in Egypt for example, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey and in a number of other countries around the world. They intend to do exactly the same thing. That would be a world, which would be much more dangerous for all of us and particularly for you because you would be in the worst position, in that case that if you agree to suspend and negotiate for security regime which with take care of your security. We do not have a perfect in the world, but I am sure if you are going down the path, its' much worse.
A: Thank you very much for having tried to offer a friendly recommendation, I have a question to ask you. Do you originally accept that other nations can use fuel - cycle or not? Does N.P.T. let other nations have it or not? Does it let or not?
Q: Yes it does allow it.
A: How? With the permission of America or within the framework of the IAEA’s regulations? If we accept one right, then we must let it get operational. If we are worried, we must then stop chemical and biological researches. Does any wise and sage person make such a decision? Will the right of a nation be stopped? Just due to this reason that maybe others ask for something. Don't those people, producing new bombs fast, pose any danger for the world? Don't other people have weapons in our region? They do have weapons, but the U.S. administration doesn't feel worried, why? Are they really disagreed with weapons? You must know that the nuclear subject is a political one, not a legal one, because we work under IAEA. When we have oil, do we have a right to order the countries to stop oil-exploration? Can we stop the right of others?
We are a member of IAEA. We have also signed the N.P.T, and we are working within its framework. What problem is there that all of the members use their rights? Do you think if all nations use nuclear energy, they will make bombs? This is false. If a person recommends something, he must first proceed it himself. I believe if these four of five countries dismantle their bombs, they themselves are also relieved, and they won't be suspicious to others. Our activities are absolutely peaceful. We are so much confident .Last year we offered a suggestion in the U.N, which allows everybody to participate in our activities, now I say the same. We are so much confident and opened the doors and took journalists and showed them our establishments. These establishments are at medical, agricultural and energy services. Why do you make them secret that will then get diverted? They can make their works transparent, U.S. and England make their works transparent as well, and they let authorities check their establishments. Last year I suggested that a disarmament committee would be formed, and the suggestion won votes, but they didn't let it get operational. In fact those who have weapons, they must dismantle their weapons, and relieve the world. We are at the beginning of the enrichment, is it so worrying that they cause so much megaphone? While there are some people in our region that the U.S administration equipped them with nuclear weapons.
We believe that the nuclear bomb age has ended and anyone investing on it, has made a mistake. U.S. is also mistaken in this regard. Because it doesn't have a chance to use and this is not effective. Other nations won't give up before bombs, also nuclear bombs can't protect a government. If it could, it would protect Soviet Union. Soviet's nuclear lids overweighed the US’s, but it cracked down. Today nuclear weapons don't bring superiority. But regarding the peaceful energy, it is the necessity of nowadays. You know the condition of oil. The oil reserves are near to end, but today's demand is ever increasing, which needs pure energies. Which energy excels the nuclear energy? I think the system must be changed. All the members of IAEA must be able to have this energy, but the inspection teams should be strong to visit and prevent, they must also do the same thing for chemical and microbiological weapons, because they are also deadly. With deprivation on scientific technology is it possible to unravel the problem. We have to learn to use properly, and this is practical, I believe this is right and achievable.
Q: Thank you Mr. President, I may say so to take note this respect, the second part of your answer seems to me to be more to the point than the first part. In the first part you said that you have the right to enrich. but as a leader of a country, that's in my personal judgment, is not a sufficient, answer. I mean, the question I asked you is why you insist on that problem given that it is causing you problems elsewhere in the world, about whether you have the right to do so, I ask you why you so want to do it. The answer you gave to that was that you want Iran to have nuclear power. I too am supportive of having nuclear power and believe this is part of your right to reach that powerin your government, but if you can have the nuclear power without enrichment - that's a technical fact- so the question remains why given the problems the rest of the world proceeds with these particular activities in you country and given the fact you will have the nuclear power without doing. you are so intent upon exercising this right, we ask ourselves why? So that is to you very clear to use, but you are not clear with us of why you are insisting upon that.
Let me tell you. My answer to that Mr. President is that I don't want any spread of the capacity for enrichment. I don't think that's good for any of us. It's not because Iranians by nature are less trustworthy than other people around the world, it is not because those who historically enrich for example the French are more virtuous than the Iranian but it's not good for any of us to have enrichment spread as nuclear power spread, so it's not about you. It's about a general public.
A: I would like to make some points clear for you. You said that the world is worried. It is not true. U.S. is not all the world, even if America and all the Europe are together; they don't represent the whole world. Last week we had the N.A.M. conference, 118 countries supported Iran's right. They are representing countries and are the world's community. Then the worry is in the U.S .Of course in the U.S. administration and in 2 or 3 European states. Why are you worried? Don't be worried. But what you said was that we don't produce and we purchase from others, do you think it is a legal suggestion? A person who is able to produce something will be told not to produce the thing then he will receive it from others! Why? I am able to produce as I can produce wheat and rice. Can I tell you not to produce oil? I will sell it to you. Do they accept this from us? This is not a correct word that I don't produce oil, and then I stand begging in front of others. Do you think it is right? Nations must be free to enjoy their legal rights. Let me talk to you about historical experiences. You know that in our plan there is a production of 20 thousand megawatts of power through nuclear fuel intended. So far we have had a few contracts from the west for the supply of fuel, which all of them were result less and cancelled, and the west violated their commitments. Nearly 50 years ago we had contract with America, which was unilaterally cancelled. We have had a contract with Germany for building a power plant, Germany unilaterally cancelled it. We had participation contract with France to produce fuel, and for many years France kept our reserves and didn't meet its commitments. Canada was the same. How can we trust? We don't have any confidence, because the contracts we have in front of us haven't been met by them. Let's talk about other things apart from the nuclear topic. Even the contracts related to the supply of Helicopters and Airliners spare parts haven't been met. There are 25 years since the European countries didn't sell us Airliners. Under which guarantee can we act? While we ourselves are able to produce and we are also regarding the laws, we are also under the supervision of the IAEA, and we have been most cooperative and obedient. In terms of religion, we are prohibited from moving to nuclear weapons, we represent a religious rule. Why mustn't we have the fuel-cycle? The Boushehr power plant has a contract, do you know how long it has taken for it?
It took 30 years, and is hasn't gotten completed yet! Because it is under political decisions. We can't put our country's fate under political decisions; we must improve our country, and have to produce. I suggest America to stop its fuel-production-cycle for 5 years, we are ready to supply the fuel after five years with a fifty percent discount, and we guarantee this word. We are a nation that has accomplished all our commitments so far. We don't have even one unaccomplished commitment. And unlike western friend countries, we are a promise-keeper....
Ahmadinejad's Personal Memos
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/en/some-notes
