FOUR REALITIES ABOUT
NUCLEAR TALKS IN GENEVA . IRANIAN VIEW
Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh (IR) , - Geneva negotiations [between Iran and the
six world powers over Iran's nuclear energy program] wrapped up following three
days of heavy diplomatic wrangling after the two sides declared their decision
to continue negotiations within 10 days.
In this interval, to be sure, a lot of consultations and
brainstorming will take place in the capitals of seven countries that are
involved in nuclear talks – which in addition to Iran include the US, the UK,
France, Germany, Russia and China.
Apart from the guesswork and
analyses, which are based on the possibility of a deal between the two sides,
there are a number of noteworthy realities about the three-day negotiations in
Geneva which should be taken into consideration here.
1) PREVALENCE OF OPTIMISM OVER
PESSIMISM
At the end of every round of
negotiations, it is quite natural for critical political groups and currents to
take the opportunity in order to challenge the negotiations in their totality.
However, prevalence of optimism about the possibility of finding a solution for
the “case of the century,” is the main conclusion which can be drawn after
considering the reactions shown by the two negotiating sides, both during and
at the end of the nuclear talks in Geneva. In his press interview at the end of
the negotiations, the Iranian foreign minister [Mohammad Javad Zarif] said, “I
am not disappointed. Differences are natural. But the last session was very
good because it showed that the political resolve for achieving an agreement
does really exist.”
The United States Secretary of State
John Kerry also told reporters a few minutes after Mr. Zarif and [the European
Union foreign policy chief] Catherine Ashton held their joint press conference
that extensive progress had been made in nuclear negotiations with Iran. He
also noted that the three-day talks were characterized with “mutual respect,”
adding that through those negotiations the two sides not only managed to reduce
their differences, but also got closer to a single opinion.
Similar optimistic remarks were also
made by the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy Catherine Ashton, who heads the negotiating team of the P5+1
group of world powers in their talks with Iran, as well as by the Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
2) PREVALENCE OF REAL DIPLOMACY AND
NEGOTIATIONS OVER “OTHER OPTIONS ARE STILL ON THE TABLE!”
During the recent round of nuclear
talks, there was no room for such bullying remarks as “all options are still on
the table,” to which the Iranian government and nation are especially allergic.
Even John Kerry emphasized in his interview, which took part before the joint
press conference attended by Ms. Ashton and Mr. Zarif, that “diplomacy” could
be the best means of reaching the common goal of preventing the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. These developments clearly showed that,
firstly, the futility of the threat to use the military force to stop Iran’s
nuclear energy program, which is considered by Iranians as their inalienable
right as per the contents of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has been
proven beyond any doubt. Secondly, the involved governments have earned the
understanding that although the process of talks and negotiations may be time
consuming, it is much more valuable and will produce such lasting results as to
make it preferable to use of military threat and intervention. This is a sign
of the political maturity of the international community. After many centuries
that war has been present and overshadowed the life of humans, who made
recourse to it at any price, the governments are gradually coming to grips with
the reality that resorting to war would be followed by much more destructive
consequences than diplomacy. During the 19th and 20th centuries as well as in
early years of the 21st century, governments, especially powerful states, did
not hesitate to resort to any excuse for the use of military power against
others the latest examples of which were military occupation of Afghanistan and
Iraq as well as NATO’s military operations in Libya.
All those cases are now
being considered as dark points which came about through uninformed and
warmongering decisions made by certain big powers. On the opposite, the recent
agreement between the United States and Russia for the chemical disarmament of
Syrian government, instead of launching a military strike against the country,
was a sign that states are gaining a better understanding of how to settle
their disputes. Looking at the issue from this point of view, we would come to
the conclusion that the latest protracted talks between Iran and the P5+1 group
should be considered a turning point. Once disclosed, the contents of these
negotiations will serve as one of the best sources for the education of
students in such fields as international relations, international law and peace
studies in the years to come.
Part of what the former French
foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said during his
October 9 interview with the Persian service of the BBC confirms
this hypothesis. In part of that interview, he pointed to the experience of
using force in Afghanistan noting that the war in Afghanistan proved that
recourse to force cannot solve any problem. As a consequence, he added, the
mentality of the Western countries has changed because they have already two
major failures in Afghanistan and Iraq in the form of the US military
intervention in those countries, behind them. The former French foreign
minister also stated that even the case of military intervention of NATO in
Libya was a failure. De Villepin stated that all the past policies and dreams
about establishing peace by merely changing the governments have been
discarded, noting that the two sides to Iran nuclear negotiation seem to have become
more mature as a result of which, they have been following more realistic
approaches.
3) SHATTERING THE TABOO OF DIRECT
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN IRAN AND THE UNITED STATES
Although the negotiating sides
failed to achieve an agreement during these round of talks in Geneva, the
nuclear talks were marked with unprecedented bilateral and trilateral (attended
by Mr. Ashton) negotiations between high-ranking representatives of Iran and
the United States. This development has had no precedence since diplomatic relations
between Tehran and Washington were severed more than three decades ago. Let’s
not forget that even a year ago, if the representatives of Iran and the US
passed by each other at a corridor, met face to face, or even exchanged short
compliments, it would have been the most sensational news for major media
outlets. However, such contacts were made ordinary following a bilateral
meeting between the two countries’ foreign ministers on the sidelines of the
recent annual session of the UN General Assembly. Finally, this trend will make
it possible for both countries to establish direct contacts, especially with
the goal of engaging in dialogue aimed at solving countless problems and
misunderstandings that exist between Tehran and Washington as a result of more
than three decades of distrust.
4) PROTECTING NATIONAL POWER AND
SELF-ESTEEM OF IRANIANS
The following points are noteworthy
in this regard:
A) Some political currents inside Iran have been, and still
are, trying to prove that any form of negotiations aimed at finding a solution
to Iran’s nuclear issue and achieving a tangible result in this regard is
tantamount to withdrawal from Iran’s revolutionary ideals and submission to the
West. However, the speech made by the Leader of Iran Ayatollah Seyyed Ali
Khamenei a few days before the beginning of the negotiations, practically
thwarted a big part of such efforts. During that sensitive juncture, the Leader
said in a public speech that: “Nobody should label our group of negotiators as
submissive. These [people] are our own children and the children of the
[Islamic] Revolution. They have undertaken a difficult mission and nobody
should undermine an agent who is doing something [for the country].” The Leader
then added, “As I said before, I am not optimistic about these negotiations,
but by permission of Allah, we would suffer no loss through these negotiations
either and this experience will boost intellectual capacity of our nation. If
negotiations hit a result, so much the better. However, if they do not lead to
a result, it would mean that the country should stand on its own feet.”
B) It should not be forgotten that it is now Iran’s plan that
has been put to negotiation and bickering, not a plan or agenda put forth by
the P5+1 group. It goes without saying that this, per se, is a major
achievement for the country’s diplomacy.
C) Creating
a powerful atmosphere of empathy with and support for nuclear officials within
the domestic political sphere of Iran was another good result of the
negotiations. In this regard, the remarks made by various Friday Prayers
leaders across the Islamic Republic in support of the Iranian nuclear
negotiating team are worthy of consideration. Of special import are the remarks
by Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, which he made as Ms. Ashton and Messrs. Zarif
and Kerry were engaged in five-hour talks. The chairman of the Iranian
Expediency Council and the country’s former two-time president described the
five-hour meeting as “good evidence attesting to the seriousness of both
sides.” He continued by saying, “While certain people were trying to escalate
tension in the society and sow division on the eve of the negotiations by
labeling [members of] the negotiating team as submissive, the guidelines
provided by the Leader not only boosted the resolve of Iran’s political
representatives to go on with the negotiations, but also showed to the world
that the negotiators enjoy the support of the [Iranian] Leader and people
because if [the Iranian negotiators] were not serious, they [the P5+1 representatives]
would not be serious either and the foreign ministers of the P5+1 would not
have traveled to Geneva.”
Rafsanjani also described
negotiations in Geneva as “a serious turning point in the history of Iran, the
region, and the entire world.”
Rafsanjani’s remarks are, in fact,
indirect endorsement of what the former French foreign minister, Dominique de
Villepin, said in his interview with the Persian service of the state-run BBC
on October 9. While putting emphasis on the importance of such negotiations, De
Villepin said the fact that Iran has accepted to return to the negotiating
table and its attempt to resume playing the role of a regional player – of
course a regional player acting out a positive, rather than a negative role –
is a major factor which will change many equations. He added that the prospect
of Iran playing such a role has stirred panic in many quarters, most notably in
Saudi Arabia and other conservative monarchies of the Middle East, which are
especially susceptible to such changes…. Now, De Villepin said, the game will
change. He added that the change will not only affect the relations between
Iran and the United States, but also the whole strategic game in the Middle
East. Warning that the position of Israel should be also taken into account
when making any calculation, the former French prime minister emphasized that
irrespective of Israel’s position the entire strategic game in the Middle East
will undergo a radical change.
It seems that the changes have
already gotten underway. Regardless of what the short- or medium-term results
of the negotiations will be, there is no doubt that neither our region is the
same as it was one year ago, nor Iran, the United States and many global
equations are what they used to be a year before. Perhaps, understanding the
reason behind extreme anger that afflicts Netanyahu when he imagines
“progressing negotiations among seven powerful countries of the world” would be
easier with the above considerations in mind.
Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh, Iran Review. Mahmoud
Reza Golshanpazhooh is the Executive Editor of Iran Review.
Related articles:
Why France Played Wrong Tune in Nuclear
Talks?
http://nsnbc.me/2013/11/11/france-played-wrong-tune-nuclear-talks/
US Secretary of State rejects Claims
that France sabotaged P5+1 Talks http://nsnbc.me/2013/11/11/us-secretary-state-rejects-claims-france-sabotaged-p51-talks/
France wrecks P5+1 deal with Iran for
Arab money http://nsnbc.me/2013/11/10/france-wrecks-p51-deal-iran-arab-money/
Why France is Playing ‘Stupid’ on Iran. By Pepe
Escobar. Nov
13-13 http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/11/13/why-france-is-playing-stupid-on-iran/
New Iran Sanctions Would Risk War, White
House Warns Michael Mathes and Stephen Collinson, AFP November
13, 2013 http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/11/13/new-iran-sanctions-would-risk-war-white-house-warns/
=============
================
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario