Foreign Minister Celso Amorim defended the Brazilian-Turkish agreement to solve the nuclear dispute with Iran. Now, the others have to show that the same sanctions adopted are the best path, he said to Alexander Fanta and Christoph Prantner.

STANDARD: The veto powers and Austria voted in the Security Council for new sanctions against Iran. Was it a mistake?

Amorim: History will show it. In May, we have proposed a deal with Tehran, which some, if not all veto powers, have supported. We could not be hopeless and pressured and then vote against it. Beside that, I am very skeptical that the sanctions will have the effect expected by its proponents.

STANDARD: Experts say that the agreement between Brazil, Turkey and Iran, on the other hand, went out of outdated calculations. Iran would still hold enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb.

Amorim: We have never said that the opposite would be the case. The agreement was intended to build confidence. In October, it was welcomed by the veto powers and approved by the former IAEA chief, Mohammed ElBaradei. Who could be a better witness than he? Of course, there are still many open questions left. But confidence building is confidence building. It was not about solving all questions, but to negotiate further.

STANDARD: In the end of the 1990’s, as the Brazilian Ambassador to the UN in the Security Council, you were engaged in the negotiation of sanctions against alleged mass destruction weapons in Iraq. Will the nuclear dispute with Iran take a similarly inglorious way?

Amorim: In Iraq, we have learned something: one should not be so naive to assume that people will not do all they can do regarding this matter. But one should also not be so naive and believe in everything secret services say. Everyone accepted that Saddam Hussein had large stocks of chemical weapons. It took 200,000 dead to prove it wrong. Information that Iran could be a nuclear-armed state should be seen with skepticism. The best guarantee to prevent this is having nuclear inspectors in the country. Our agreement would have strengthened this cooperation. Now the others have to show that sanctions are the better way.

STANDARD: What are the chances that Israel will soon attack Iran's nuclear facilities?

Amorim: It would be sheer madness. I do not think this is imminent. Israel has important allies who must work to ensure stability in the Middle East.

STANDARD: It is nice that you trust the Iranians...

Amorim: It is not about trusting Teheran. It's about benchmarks that need to be set and respected. If Iran is prepared to transfer 1200 kilos of uranium to Turkey, that means something.

STANDARD: Still, President Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Amorim: We reject such statements. And he has restrained himself lately. The best way to prevent that such rethoric becomes reality is to go on with the negotiations.

STANDARD: After the repression of student protests in 2009, President Lula said that they were “crying losers”. Brazil is very reserved in his statements against Tehran. Why?

Amorim: I do not interpret what the president says. It is important to me that there is no interference in the internal affairs of any country. That does not help. When it comes to human rights or the humanitarian situation somewhere, we prefer that to be addressed calmly. There are situations in which a conviction is the only way out. But this is not always effective.

STANDARD: There are rumors of a Brazilian nuclear weapons program.

Amorim: These are unfounded. We had IAEA inspectors in our facilities. Sometimes people see ghosts. Sometimes people are also interested in seeing ghosts to justify their policies with them. Brazil is an emerging world power and is becoming increasingly important for world trade. Today, there are no trade talks in which Brazil does not participate. The same applies to financial markets. Today, we help Europe in supporting Greece. They want to find something to keep us outside the main forums, such as the Security Council.

STANDARD: Will it be easier to get a permanent seat on the Security Council with good relations with Iran and Cuba?

Amorim: We do not want to be included in the Security Council through bribery. Also, if we have to give up our opinion and views of the world for a seat on the Security Council, then we should refrain. This is both mine and President Lula’s opinion. We do not want to be someone who just says “yes”. We want to act in a constructive way.

STANDARD: Brazil's ascent is closely linked with friendly relationships with authoritarian regimes. Why? Is Brazil also such a factor in world politics?

Amorim: I do not know what you mean by "good friends". Regarding Iran, we were less interested in helping Iran than in helping world peace. Also in Iraq, we were no friends of Saddam. We only thought that the final solution was not a good one. We wanted a good solution. Dizem hoje: “Why don’t you face these countries any more? The question is not about being friends with these countries; it's about not isolating these countries. Isolation and accusations may be good for public opinion, but they do not solve the problems of the world. (DER STANDARD, print edition, 06/22/2010)

Personal