Russia's Three Statements Regarding the Sanp-Back Sanctions Issue

One Major FM statement and two by main UN Representative Vassily Nebenzia

On 20 September, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a major statement about its views on the snap-back sanctions issue which was followed by two separate statements by Mr. Vassily Nebenzia that were made to the assembled UN Security Council. It should be noted that China, Algeria and Pakistan all hold similar positions as they expressed orally and via their vote. When this move was announced back in August, Russia published a paper expressing why this move is illegal and violates the JCPOA that I reported on in full. We’ll begin with the MFA Statement then go to the two statements by Mr. Nebenzia.

On September 19, the UN Security Council voted on a draft resolution submitted by the Republic of Korea as President of the UN Security Council as a follow-up to the August 28 appeal by the United Kingdom, Germany and France regarding Iran's alleged material failure to comply with its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The Russian side has repeatedly pointed out the provocative and illegal nature of the actions of the European countries participating in the JCPOA and the South Korean chairmanship of the UN Security Council, which is under their influence. These actions have nothing to do with diplomacy and only lead to a further escalation of tensions around the Iranian nuclear program. Until the last moment, we explained in detail and in a well-reasoned manner the reasons why the above-mentioned European appeal cannot be considered a notification within the meaning of paragraph 11 of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which the British and the European Two are trying to shamelessly manipulate. Accordingly, the presidential draft put to a vote in the Security Council does not meet the requirements of Resolution 2231 and a priori cannot lead to the restoration of the previously lifted UN sanctions against Iran.

During a meeting of the UN Security Council on September 19, Russia, together with China, Algeria and Pakistan, strongly supported the preservation of the regime for the lifting of previous sanctions resolutions on the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). Predictably, the European instigators of the current growing crisis around the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as the United States, which together exerted unprecedented pressure on the non-permanent members of the Security Council, forcing them to show solidarity with their unsuitable position, spoke out against this. As a result, those who succumbed to blackmail and threats have not been able to clearly explain the essence of their objections to the fact that the restrictions that have long lost their relevance and were in effect before the conclusion of the JCPOA remain lifted.

The position of the Republic of Korea, which abstained on its own draft resolution, is noteworthy in this context. We perceive this as self-exposure and a sign that Seoul is well aware of the legal and procedural nullity of its initiative, as well as the inconsistency of European claims on snapback. Apparently, the chairmanship is aware of the likely disastrous consequences of the political campaign unleashed against Iran, which threatens to negate constructive cooperation between Tehran and the IAEA and push the Iranian leadership to take tough retaliatory decisions.

The results of the vote on the South Korean resolution only indicate that this document did not find support and was removed from the agenda. This fact does not impose any obligations on other states to revive past restrictions against Iran. The notorious "snapback" cannot be considered to have taken place. Claims by the Western camp to the contrary mean that these countries are desperately seeking to legitimize their earlier gross violations of Resolution 2231 and to subordinate the rest of the world to their confrontational and fundamentally flawed policies. Their diktat and their legal nihilism in international affairs must be resolutely rebuffed, and attempts to use the authority and powers of the UN Security Council to settle political scores with Tehran must be rejected.

For the United States and European countries, the moment of truth has come. They will finally have to answer the question with certainty whether they are seeking a political and diplomatic settlement or are they once again preparing for the "dirty work" of plunging the Middle East into a new tragedy, similar to the one that took place in June, when the nuclear facilities in Iran under IAEA control were the target of missile and bomb strikes by Israel and the United States.

The Russian-Chinese draft UN Security Council resolution on a technical postponement of the implementation of the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 for six months, which is on the table, provides a real opportunity to rectify the situation, create conditions for the effective implementation of the agreements reached between Iran and the IAEA in Cairo on September 9, and provide space for a vigorous search for negotiated solutions that will make it possible to remove any suspicions and prejudices regarding Iran's peaceful nuclear energy with due reliance on international law and consideration of the legitimate interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran. [My Emphasis]

Here’s the first Nebenzia statement:

Mr. President,

We have to take the floor on a point of order, because we do not see any legal, political or procedural grounds for any steps to develop the European claims to launch the snapback mechanism, including voting on the draft resolution submitted by the South Korean presidency.

We have repeatedly explained at various venues that the European parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) simply have no right to launch the mechanism provided for by OP11 of UN Security Council Resolution 2231. The United Kingdom, France and Germany themselves have chronically violated UNSC Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, including by imposing illegal unilateral sanctions against Iran to replace the restrictions that expired in accordance with the Plan. These countries also grossly violated the procedure for considering disputes provided for by the JCPOA, in particular, they did not launch the Dispute Settlement Mechanism in accordance with the prescribed procedure at the Vienna platform.

We would like to remind you that Resolution 2231 is an integral document and does not allow for a gap between it and the JCPOA, which has been and remains an integral part of it. Attempts by European countries to present the situation as if they have the right to use the "punitive" provisions of the resolution without fulfilling their part of the obligations are hypocritical and untenable from both a legal and political point of view. That is why we do not recognise the complaint submitted by Berlin, London and Paris to the Council within the meaning of UNSC Resolution 2231.

In this regard, we do not see any need for the Chairman-in-Office to take any steps, including the introduction of a draft resolution. The hasty putting of it to a vote by the South Korean chairmanship, although there is still more than a week before the expiration of 30 days, is also perplexing. We regret that the Republic of Korea has chosen the path of playing along with Western destructive approaches, to the detriment of its duties as an impartial chairman.

On the whole, what is happening today evokes the feeling of a clumsy spectacle aimed at creating a false "parallel reality" that has nothing to do with the political and legal foundations of the work of the Security Council. After all, it is no secret that the United Kingdom, France and Germany do not care at all about the fate of the JCPOA or the authority of the UN Security Council. Their only goal now is to use the Council as a tool in their unscrupulous game, as a lever of pressure on an undesirable state that defends its sovereign interests.

Here is a clear illustration of the fact that our European colleagues reject diplomacy at the root, preferring the language of blackmail and threats. Last week in Vienna, we officially proposed holding a meeting of all the original participants in the JCPOA in order to discuss, so to speak, "in the family circle" ways out of the current crisis. Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States responded to our proposal with a refusal.

Therefore, in other circumstances, we would not even take part in such a shameful spectacle in the Security Council, which is now unfolding at their behest. We are doing this today only because the content of the submitted document implies the preservation of the regime for lifting sanctions against Iran, which is in line with our long-standing principled position. However, this does not lend an ounce of legitimacy to either the European statements about the launch of the snapback, or the actions of the presidency to develop them. I ask you to record this in the minutes of the meeting.

Thank you. [My Emphasis]

And here’s the second:

Mr. President,

Today we have already stated our principled position of rejection of either the attempts of European states to launch a snapback or the actions of the presidency to develop them, including the introduction of this resolution. Our position on this matter remains unchanged. The fact that the Russian Federation voted in favour of the draft should not be interpreted as a change to it.

We supported the draft for only one reason: its only operative paragraph was on maintaining the lifting of UN sanctions against Iran. This is the only correct, politically and legally justified decision, which we have been talking about for all these years. The logic laid down in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) assumed the gradual lifting of all restrictions on Iran, and we are firmly convinced that there is no reason why they should not expire on October 18 of this year. and we have all witnessed how Iran fell victim to the aggressive actions of Israel and the United States in June of this year, and then trying to "crush" it with UN sanctions is immoral, unfair and illegal.

However, this is exactly what our Western colleagues are now trying to do. We would like to remind you that everything, including Iran's interaction with the IAEA, was going according to plan exactly until the United States took a destructive path in 2018 and officially withdrew from the deal. This was the "trigger" of the crisis around the JCPOA, the consequences of which the Council has to deal with now, but Western delegations are diligently hushing up this fact. Despite Washington's illegal and brutal actions, Tehran showed restraint at that time and continued to comply with its obligations in good faith for more than a year – I emphasise that for more than a year. Only after another round of pressure on it, Tehran took retaliatory steps, while regularly noting that these actions were reversible. Unfortunately, our European colleagues were not interested in returning to diplomacy even then and did not follow the path of a normal conversation, which was a chance in 2022, when the parameters for restoring the JCPOA were discussed.

Violations by the United Kingdom, France and Germany of their obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA have long become chronic. We are talking about their inability to comply with their obligations to ensure economic returns for Iran from the lifting of EU sanctions that were in effect until 2015, and their illegal decision to resume unilateral sanctions pressure after the JCPOA Transition Day on October 18, 2023.

Our country has repeatedly brought to the attention of the members of the Security Council its position that the United Kingdom, France and Germany do not have the right to use the procedure for restoring the UN Security Council sanctions regime against Iran, as provided for in paragraph 11 of the operative part of UNSC Resolution 2231. A party that fails to comply with its obligations under any contract or agreement deprives itself of the right to use the tools provided for therein. This is clearly evidenced by the so-called "clean hands doctrine", the principle of pacta sunt servanda, and the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice.

Against this background, the so-called "notification" of the "European Three" about the launch of the "snapback", distributed in the Council on August 28, has no legal and procedural force. It cannot serve as a basis for any decisions or actions of the Security Council. This position is set out in detail in the joint letter of the Foreign Ministers of Russia, China and Iran dated August 28, which was circulated in the Council.

Let us emphasize once again: from our point of view, there is no launch of the snapback procedure. The introduction of the draft considered today is a direct violation of Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, which is an integral part of it. For this reason, the Russian Federation does not recognize either the alleged steps taken or any further steps in this context.

We would like to remind you that there is a real alternative to the lawlessness taking place today in the Security Council hall. This is the Russian-Chinese draft resolution, which is in the blue, which provides for the technical extension of Resolution 2231 for six months while demanding that all original participants in the JCPOA immediately resume negotiations in order to find a diplomatic solution. We call on all sensible members of the Security Council to support it when we put it to a vote.

Thank you. [My Emphasis]

Seems pretty basic: The E3 violated basic contract law and thus voided their ability to do anything, almost as if they had dropped out like their Outlaw US Empire Master. I haven’t read anything by China, Pakistan or Algeria, but do know that they echoed Russia’s position meaning Russia wasn’t the only nation pointing to the illegality of the E3’s actions and the unseemly behavior by the South Korean UNSC Chair. Maybe Trump should have attacked some more Korean factories so they’s know where they stand in his racist eyes.

The Cairo Agreement between Iran and IAEA has already been annulled by Iran as a result of the illegal UNSC happenings. Here’s the key quote from RT’s report:

“The ill-considered actions of three European countries regarding the Iranian nuclear issue… will effectively suspend the path of cooperation with the Agency,” Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said in a statement cited by state news agency IRNA. [Emphasis Original]

The UNSC action is very powerful proof that Law and Justice are absent within the world and need to be made reality via another institution; otherwise, what we’ll have in the law of the garden, which in reality is the jungle. As I have suggested, a UN Charter 2.0 is now needed more than ever with modifications made to the Security Council eliminating the veto and other past mistakes in its organization. Obtaining consensus can remain provided all UNSC members are not in current or past violation of the UN Charter—some form of strict disciplinary measures must be added to the Charter for those members who violate it.

It’s become very clear that Iran’s nuclear program isn’t the issue. It’s Iran’s government and the fact it remains independent despite 46 years of attempts to destroy it led by the Outlaw US Empire and its Zionist proxy. The only weapons not used against Iran are nuclear—chemical and biological weapons were used at the behest of the Empire by Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War who covered up their use by Iraq. The longstanding crime spree that was begun by the Outlaw US Empire and UK proxy in 1953-4 so Iran’s hydrocarbon riches could be controlled by the Empire continues. When the Shah was in power, the Empire, nor any of its proxies had any trouble with Iran having a nuclear program because the Empire controlled the Shah. That all changed when Iranians revolted and regained their independence, and all signs today are they relish it greatly and will not cede it under any circumstances. And to defend their independence, Iran has developed very sophisticated high-tech missile and drone capabilities that have shocked the Empire and its Zionist proxy, although they lie about everything about Iran. Today’s Iran isn’t that of 2015—it has very powerful allies and is much better economically. Plus, as the 12-Day War showed, Iran’s populace came together in mass solidarity with the government and military against what are called the Two Satans—Big and Small.

The Genocidal Don and Bibi will again attack Iran with the big question being will either use nukes to attain their goal. And the other big question is, did Iran obtain a considerable upgrade to its AD suite? For if Iran can kill the planes and/or missiles bringing the nukes, it will save itself and much more—but if it does so, how will we know nukes were used? Obviously, in a properly governed world, this crisis wouldn’t exist. If Humanity survives the next war on Iran, global governance will need to be altered whether some nations like it or not.

And as an ending by-note, Venezuela has held talks with Russia on what the MFA called, “Russian-Venezuelan consultations on international legal issues.” Here’s the important portion of the Press Release:

We discussed in detail the issues of coordination at the relevant platforms of international organisations and practical steps to combat the practice of illegal unilateral restrictive measures (sanctions). The issues of the functioning of international justice bodies, including criminal justice, are considered separately. Specific mechanisms and tools for the implementation of common positions have been outlined.

The consultations confirmed the parties' firm conviction of the need to strengthen the rule of international law. Illegitimate sanctions were condemned, and rejection of the politicisation of international justice was expressed. The Russian side reaffirmed its full support for Caracas in its efforts to protect its sovereignty in light of current threats. [My Emphasis]

Trump has now blown up three boats and killed several dozen which merely adds to his bloody total—Genocide Don and Killer of Ukrainians. He had no business being at the Charlie Kirk funeral.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!