Nations Propose Iran Sanction Amendments
Edith M. Lederer
March 21, 2007
The Guardian
Original Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6496314,00.html

Indonesia, Qatar and South Africa have proposed amendments to a new U.N. resolution drafted by six world powers that would impose new sanctions on Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. 
Ambassadors from the 15 Security Council nations held informal discussions at Britain's U.N. Mission Tuesday ahead of a meeting Wednesday afternoon to discuss possible changes to the text. 
Germany and the five veto-wielding permanent council nations - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - agreed on the modest package of new sanctions Thursday to step up pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. 
But the 10 non-permanent council members - including Indonesia, Qatar and South Africa - were not part of the negotiations and only received the draft Thursday to consider and propose changes. 
The Indonesian and Qatari amendments, which were not released, were described as ``workable'' by one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because the talks were private. 
Indonesia's deputy U.N. ambassador Hasan Kleib told reporters as he left, ``Generally we don't like sanctions.'' 
South Africa's proposed amendments - if approved - would drastically weaken the draft resolution by authorizing a 90-day ``time out'' on all sanctions, dropping an embargo on arms exports, and eliminating financial sanctions targeting Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards and an Iranian bank. 
South Africa's U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, the current council president, said he didn't talk about his amendments at Tuesday's meeting but he did ask for clarifications about the political process and expanding the resolution beyond proliferation issues. 
The sponsors explained that the foreign ministers of the six countries backing the resolution would address these points in a letter, he said. 
Acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff called Tuesday's session ``a good meeting'' that gave backers of the resolution the opportunity to explain their approach. 
In December, the Security Council voted unanimously to impose limited sanctions against Iran for its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. 
It ordered all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs, and to freeze assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12 individuals related to those programs. 
Iran responded by expanding its enrichment program - and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains defiant. 
The proposed new sanctions in the draft resolution would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs - about a third linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps. 
The package also calls for voluntary restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran, and on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government. 
``I'm hopeful that we're close to a vote this week,'' Wolff said after Tuesday's meeting. ``There were some good ideas shared, some concerns. We will have to now take stock of others views and see which ones can be reflected without undermining the construct of this resolution.'' 
U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington ``We've reached out to the South Africans ... about our thinking behind the draft resolution as it stands now, and we will take a look at what might be included, from their proposed amendments, into the final draft resolution.'' 
A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the U.S. is confident that the major South African revisions will be eliminated and that the ``core principles'' of the resolution will be maintained. 
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the sponsors offered to give the non-permanent members, who are elected for two-year terms, time to consider the draft and ``we believe not to overly rush things.'' 
``We have to allow them to voice their concerns, and I'm sure in the end we're going to work it out,'' he said.