Brussels, 13/05/2002 (Agence Europe) - On Monday, the Fifteen did not manage to approve an negotiating brief for an agreement between the European Union and Iran. Talks faltered on whether to not to include political clauses in the agreement. Discussions have now been postponed to the General Affairs Council of 17 June, with the return of Coreper working groups in the meantime. The Council is totally divided on the issues. The United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Portugal insisting for the issue of human rights and the fight against terrorism being included in the body of the agreement. The Presidency, Belgium, Greece and Italy, backed by the Commission, insist that political issues be dealt with outside the agreement, by, for example, in an exchange of letters on terrorism and a joint declaration on the political dialogue. France shares this opinion. These countries highlight the considerable delays in ratifying political agreements. "The perverse effect" of this state of affairs is that trade clauses will be implemented well before political agreements, through an interim agreement, stressed a European diplomat, for whom it would be preferable that things be clearly defined and political and trade issues linked together from the outset. In fact, all agree on the goals, on the content of the agreement, on the need to link trade co-operation with political issues, but disagreement concerns how to achieve that, the Commission stresses. Talks in council were especially on the confrontation of arguments between European Commission Chris Patten and British Secretary of State Jack Straw. By June, the Presidency will seek to align the two positions. One can envisage that trade agreement containing clause referring to texts on political dialogue, or even to stipulate in the negotiating brief that that trade agreement may not be concluded before the political texts have been adopted, states a diplomat.
The National Council of the Iranian Resistance, political wing of the MKO group included on the EU's list of terrorist organisations on 19 April, organised a protest before the Council of Ministers on Monday. The demonstrators, from throughout Europe, according to the organisers, were protesting about the inclusion of their organisation on the EU's black list. They were adamant that the EU had taken that decision under pressure of the Iranian authorities, in exchange for contracts of a value of 7 billion euro. "The EU may open up its trade to Iran, but not in the context of such an exchange of procedures", declared A. Khodabandeh, member of the organisation. The demonstrators were to adopt a declaration stating that the terrorist label placed on them by the EU "was not worth a dime" to the eyes of Iranians, and that it was a "disgraceful arrangement".
End-November, the European Commission presented a draft negotiating brief for a trade and co-operation agreement with Iran. It drew it up in response to Iran's attitude, following the 11 September attacks, as well as because the Council had asked it to when it had a debate on Iran in May 2001. In December 2001, the European Parliament said it was in favour of enhancing co-operation between the EU and Iran: the Michael Gahler Report (Germany, CDU) recommended stepping-up co-operation on political issues (human rights, nuclear and chemical weapons, and weapons of mass destruction) and economic (opening up to foreign investments and privatisation). You may recall that the EU began its political dialogue with Iran in 1991.
The Council adopted short conclusions on Iran. These conclusions confirm "the agreement on the substance and objectives" and the will of the Council to take a decision at its June session. The Council, moreover, "reaffirms its willingness to strengthen relations with Iran".