[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 12337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                AGREEING TO TALK TO IRAN UNCONDITIONALLY

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my 5 minutes 
at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by recent news that the 
administration has offered to put an end to our 26-year-old policy of 
refusing to speak with the Iranians. While this is a positive move, I 
am still concerned about the preconditions set by the administration 
before it will agree to begin talks.
  Unfortunately, the main U.S. precondition is that the Iranians 
abandon their uranium enrichment program. But this is exactly what the 
negotiations are meant to discuss. How can a meaningful dialogue take 
place when one side demands that the other side abandon its position 
before the talks begin?
  Is this offer designed to fail so as to clear the way for military 
action while being able to claim that diplomacy was attempted? If the 
administration wishes to avoid this perception, it would be wiser to 
abandon preconditions and simply agree to talk to Iran.
  By demanding that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program, the 
United States is unilaterally changing the terms of the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty. We must remember that Iran has never been 
found in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty. U.N. inspectors have 
been in Iran for years, and International Atomic Energy Agency Director 
ElBaradei has repeatedly reported that he can find no indication of 
diversion of source or special nuclear material to a military purpose.
  As a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has, according to 
the treaty, the ``inalienable right to the development, research and 
production of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without 
discrimination.''

                              {time}  1845

  Yet, the United States is demanding that Iran give up that right even 
though, after years of monitoring, Iran has never been found to have 
diverted nuclear material from peaceful to military use.
  As my colleagues are well aware, I am strongly opposed to the United 
Nations and our participation in that organization. Every Congress I 
introduce a bill to get us out of the U.N., but I also recognize 
problems with our demanding to have it both ways. On one hand, we 
pretend to abide by the U.N. and international laws, such as when 
Congress cited the U.N. on numerous occasions in its resolution 
authorizing the President to initiate war against Iraq. On the other 
hand, we feel free to completely ignore the terms of treaties, and even 
unilaterally demand a change in the terms of the treaties without 
hesitation. This leads to an increasing perception around the world 
that we are no longer an honest broker, that we are not to be trusted. 
Is this the message we want to send at this critical time?
  So some may argue that it does not matter whether the U.S. operates 
under double standards. We are the lone superpower, and we can do as we 
wish, they argue. But this is a problem of the rule of law. Are we a 
Nation that respects the rule of law? What example does it set for the 
rest of the world, including rising powers like China and Russia, when 
we change the rules of the game whenever we see it? Won't this come 
back to haunt us?
  We need to remember that decisionmaking power under Iran's Government 
is not entirely concentrated in the President. We are all familiar with 
the inflammatory rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad, but there are 
others, government bodies in Iran, that are more moderate and eager for 
dialogue. We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a 
war in the Middle East. We cannot afford to continue on the path of 
conflict over dialogue and peaceful resolution. Unnecessarily 
threatening Iran is not in the interest of the United States and is not 
in the interest of world peace.
  I am worried about pre-conditions that may well be designed to ensure 
that the talks fail before they start. Let us remember how high the 
stakes are and urge the administration to choose dialogue over military 
conflict.

                          ____________________