(AP)
Updated: 2007-09-12 19:15

Backing Iran, nonaligned nations on Tuesday rejected "interference" - an allusion to US concerns about the International Atomic Energy Agency's newest Tehran probe.

Norma Miguelina Goicochea Estenoz of Cuba also expressed support for the work of the agency and Mohamed ElBaradei in her capacity as head of the agency's nonaligned board members.

A nonaligned statement delivered by the Cuban ambassador cited the pact, under which Iran is cooperating with the IAEA, as saying Iran will be treated "in a routine manner" if it holds to the agreement and fully answers all questions posed by the agency.

That would mean an end both to UN sanctions and the threat of new ones for Iran's refusal to end uranium enrichment - a position strongly opposed by the United States and most other Western countries.

The US was scheduled to speak on Wednesday.

Before the start of the board meeting Monday, diplomats told the AP that ElBaradei's decision to agree on an action plan setting mileposts for what Iran has to answer and when without consulting the board had led to Western concerns that he has overstepped his authority. They demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential information.

In comments to reporters directed at the West, Goicochea Estenoz called for "noninterference in the work of the agency," adding that nonaligned countries offered "full support for the professionalism" of ElBaradei.

Separately in her statement to delegates, she said the nonalignment movement "strongly rejects any undue pressure or interference" put upon the agency.

Despite their reservations about the plan, Washington and other nations backing new UN sanctions against Tehran have toned down initial criticism because they have realized that opposition could backfire.

Too much criticism could leave the impression that the US, France and Britain, the most vocal backers of new UN sanctions, did not care about resolving the issue that had sent Iran's nuclear file to the Security Council in the first place - its refusal to cooperate in dispelling suspicions about past nuclear activities.

      1   2     

      1   2