Indonesia abstains in UN vote on Iran
April 16, 2008 by Raka Tantra DP
Filed under Diplomasi
The United Nations Security Council has passed a resolution imposing new sanctions on Iran for its controversial nuclear program. However, Tehran vowed to continue its nuclear program because it deemed the action as illegal and politically motivated. The council approved the resolution by a vote of 14-0 with Indonesia alone abstaining. Indonesia was represented by Marty Natalegawa as Indonesia’s Ambassador to the UN.
Russia’s UN Ambassador and the chairman of UN vote on Iran, Vitaly Churkin, stated that UN Security Council resolution number 1803 has been legitimated with 14 supporting voice and 1 abstain voice officially. This resolution gives extra sanctions for Iran. There are traveling banned for individual and companies who have contribution on Iran’s nuclear promotion, assets freezing for Iran’s official which were interlocked with nuclear program, and bans trade with in goods that have both civilian and military uses.
Marty Natalegawa told that Indonesia is not convinced that more sanctions are the most sensible way to go and would therefore abstain from voting. He said in his remarks that the goals of the previous two revolutions were being achieved and that Iran was cooperating with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). “Essentially, we are not convinced that more sanctions, however incremental, well-targeted and reversible will move us forward in resolving the question of Iran’s nuclear program or whether it would only give a potentially negative impact at a time when progress is being made,” said Ambassador Natalegawa.
From that meeting of IAEA, they have produced two resolutions. First, Iran needs convince UN and every country that all suspicions about intending of Iran to use its nuclear program for military purposes are wrong. Second, this nuclear problem will be reported to UN Security Council. Indonesia disagrees with the seconds but approve first resolution. So, it made Indonesia to choose abstains on the voting.
Abstaining was the safest option for Indonesia. Indonesia doesn’t have any clear-cut ideas to resolve the issue. Besides, this isn’t one of those issues where government of Indonesia needs to specifically support or oppose because it doesn’t directly affect interest of Indonesia.
Beside of that, some people said that abstaining was an indecisiveness of Indonesia. They stated that Indonesia should have fully opposed the resolution if we are to comply with our soft-power foreign policy to uphold dialog. Sanctions are only groom radicalism. The sanctions can make Iran more to be sunk away. It calls on all countries to exercise “vigilance” in entering into new trade commitments with Iran, including granting export credits, guarantees or insurance.
Iran’s UN Ambassador, Mohammad Khazee gave his appreciation to Indonesia who didn’t support the resolution. He rehashed that Iran would never give up its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. Two previous Security Council sanctions resolutions have demanded that Iran stop enriching uranium, but Tehran has not complied and says it is its legal right to continue enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. Many countries fear Iran’s actions are intended for the production of nuclear bombs, not energy.
The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report that Iran has made progress in providing information about its nuclear program, but not enough to prove it is developing its nuclear program solely for peaceful purposes.
Hi Raka! How is Jogja?
I do miss Malioboro a lot.
It’s interesting to read your article.
On this issue, I think Indonesia has taken a better step compare to previous position in UN Security Council. As you know, Indonesia gave vote to give sanctions before. But now, it has changed.
But I agree with you, that Indonesia doesn’t have a clear cut ideas to resolve the problem. The reason is, Indonesia will keep their policy in line with their strategic interest. Which one benefit me? Which one suffer me? Come back to realism.
Nice one mate.
In contrast to Verdinand’s comment above, I think Indonesian decision to support previous United Nation Security Council was right. Qatar, another Middle East on the same region with Iran before, also did it. Russia and China, two countries considered to have strong bilateral relationship with Iran, also said yes for sanctions.
I guess Iranian uranium project was not transparent enough of that time. Indeed, UNSC had come to Iran to inspect Iranian uranium enrichment project of that time, but it was also reported that those inspectors were not allowed to enter some certain places. People accused Indonesia for submitting to the USA, an argument which I totally disagreed with.
Indonesian fundamental foreign policy are Free and Active. Indonesia was submitting neither to the USA nor Iran. I would say IAEA is independent organization, they were furious when American Senate clandestinely misreported Iranian Uranium enrichment project. Moreover, credible Muhammad el Baradai himself was an Arab, and he questioned Iranian project on that time. On second principle, Indonesia involved itself actively on debate that time by arguing that diplomacy should be continued and positioning itself against military intervention in Iran.
Henceforth, Iran has shown some signs of improvement in sense that it has become more and more open on its nuclear project. Thus, this time, I second Verdinand, Indonesia casted its right to vote correctly.
Just my two cents.
I concur with Indonesia’s position on UN security council. To abstain is the best solution to ensure Indonesia is not percepted by anti-iranian states that as Iran’s supporter, and consequently, we ensure Iran that we give support although it is limited.
i agree with indonesia’s position in this issue..
abstain is the best option for indonesia,,,
JAYALAH TERUS INDONESIAKU!