8/16/19, “Russia’s Sound Proposal for Gulf Peace," Strategic Culture Editorial
“There is an eminently reasonable and feasible way to avoid conflict in the Persian Gulf, and to secure peace. The principles of multilateralism and international law must be adhered to. It seems almost astounding that one has to appeal for such obvious basic norms.
Fortunately, Russia has presented a roadmap for implementing a security concept in the vital waterway based on the above principles.
Russia’s deputy envoy to the United Nations, Dmitry Polyansky, outlined a possible international coalition to provide security for commercial shipping through the strategically important Persian Gulf. The narrow outlet accounts for up to 30 per cent of all globally shipped oil on a daily basis. Virtually every nation has a stake in the safe passage of tankers. Any disruption would have huge negative consequences for the world economy, impacting all nations.
The Russian proposal, which has been submitted to the UN Security Council, is currently being considered by various parties. Crucially, the security concept put forward by Moscow relies on the participation of the Gulf nations, including Iran. Rather than being led by an outside power, the Russian proposal envisages a region-led effort.
This multilateral arrangement for cooperation between nations is solidly within the principles of the UN Charter and international law. Potentially, it can build trust and positive relations, and thereby reduce the climate of tensions and uncertainty which have intensified over recent months, primarily between the United States and Iran.
Washington [whoever that might be] has blamed Iran for several sabotage incidents on commercial shipping since June. The Americans have not provided any proof for their claims. Iran, for its part, denies any malfeasance and instead has pointed to “malign conspiracy”aimed at stoking tensions, or worse, precipitate an all-out military confrontation between the US and Iran.
Significantly, too, the problem of alleged sabotage and danger to shipping followed the increased deployment of US forces in the region during May, ostensibly to counter anticipated “Iranian aggression”.
One thing for sure is that the US proposal for a naval coalition led by Washington, purportedly to “protect shipping” in the Gulf, is a non-starter. Most nations have rebuffed the American plan. Germany, France and other European Union states have given it a resounding pass. Even Arab nations allied with the US, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have demurred on the idea. Significantly, too, the Gulf states have refrained from following Washington’s line of fingering Iran for the unknown sabotage incidents.
After weeks of lobbying for its US-led “navy coalition”, Washington appears to have recruited just two other partners: Britain and Israel.
The term “coalition” is therefore a misnomer in this context. It also has no credibility as a force serving to uphold international law and security. The position of the US-led axis is one of outright hostility towards Iran. It is premised on the flawed assumption that Iran is the “problem”.
Any such extra-regional military force is by definition a source of further insecurity and tensions in the Persian Gulf, as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has noted. Arguably, any such US-led deployment is illegal because it is not mandated by the UN Security Council. The US plan relies on a unilateral imposition of [US taxpayer funded] American force along with a coterie of allies who have a long history of facilitating Washington’s militaristic adventures.
Indeed, moreover, one can easily perceive that the US claims about maritime security and safe passage are dubious. What Washington appears to be doing is cynically using “security concerns” as a cover for forming an aggressive front against Iran. The real purpose is to augment the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy towards Tehran in order to coerce that nation into ceding to American strategic demands. This US policy is, of course, illegitimate, arguably criminal. But it is being concealed, as the Americans usually do, with the pseudo-image of acting as the world’s “policeman”.
By contrast, it may be hoped that the UN and the nations of the Gulf region move forward to embrace Russia’s proposal for a genuinely cooperative, mutual effort to maintain peace. The only way forward is through multilateralism, mutual respect, dialogue and adherence to international law. Conflict is a lose-lose scenario. Peace is win-win.
Surely, if any party cannot support such a reasonable proposition,then the telling question is: why not?A negative response strongly suggests there is a disingenuousness about putative “security concerns”, and that an ulterior, sinister agenda is actually at play.
It should also be borne in mind that the present mounting tensions in the Persian Gulf have come about because the Trump administration took the reprehensible step of repudiating the international nuclear accord with Iran. That accord was signed by Iran, the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union back in July 2015. The international treaty was endorsed by the UN Security Council. When Trump walked away from the US legal obligation last year, all the tensions that we now see with Iran have transpired.”…
[Ed. note: I agree with everything in this editorial except the statement that Iran signed the Obama nuclear deal. I’m not sure it was a “US legal obligation” either, but I’m just addressing Iran’s signature. Not that its signature is a game changer. The whole thing sounds like a sloppy mess. The US shouldn’t be involved in this kind of thing. In any case, so far I haven’t found one source that says Iran signed it. I’m posting from US News, 1/21/2016. I’m aware of Mr. Zuckerman’s bias but the matter of Iran’s signature seems to be factual: 1/21/2016: “President Barak Obama never submitted his Iranian nuclear deal for ratification by the Congress because he knew it would have no chance of passing. That does not make the United States unique: The Iranian parliament has never approved it either (that body passed a heavily amended version)and the Iranian president has never signed it. The Iranian cabinet has never even discussed it. In other words, Iran is not legally bound to do anything, something which a [Obama] State Department official admitted last November [2015] in a letter to [then] Kansas GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo of the House Intelligence Committee, in which she stated the deal “is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document.“ Instead, the official wrote, its success “will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures” and our “capacity to reimpose and ramp up our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments.” And how is that going? So far so good for the Islamic Republic. Per Taheri, Britain now has lifted the ban on 22 Iranian banks and their companies which had been blacklisted because of alleged involvement in nuclear-linked deals; German trade with Iran is up 33 percent; China has signed deals to help Iran build five more nuclear reactors; Russia has commenced delivering S300 anti-aircraft missile systems and is angling to sell planes to the Islamic Republic; and France has sent its foreign minister and a 100-strong delegation to negotiate big business deals. Nations that weren’t in the P5+1 are also scrambling to get into the act. Indian trade with Iran is up 17 percent, for example. And the country’s nuclear project? It is “fully intact,” the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, said in October. And with international inspectors last week certifying that Iran has, thus far, complied with the provisions of the agreement, oil and financial sanctions on the country were officially lifted and as much as $100 billion of its frozen assets were released. That all marks a substantial payoff for a deal whose ongoing strictures on Iran are, essentially, nonbinding. Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry claim that their nuke deal with the “moderate faction” in Tehran might encourage positive changes in Iran’s behavior. That hasn’t happened. Instead, Iran has acted with impunity, safe in the knowledge that Obama will minimize and talk around its violations, lest his centerpiece foreign policy accomplishment prove illusory. “Obama won’t do anything that might jeopardize the deal,” Ziba Kalam, an adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, said in October. “This is his biggest, if not the only, foreign policy success.”” 1/21/2016, “A Bad Deal Off to a Worse Start,” USNews.com, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Chairman, Editor in Chief]
(continuing): "As Russian envoy Dmitry Polyanksy told the press conference at the UN recently it is incumbent on Washington to return to the nuclear accord. Until then, for Washington to pose as some kind of security arbiter in the Middle East is too ludicrous for words.”
................
No comments:
Post a Comment