It Pays to Unbelong
IIPM BBA MBA Institute: Student Notice Board
West’s shifting of the goalpost on Iran and its disregard for the Turkey-Brazil brokered Nuclear Swap deal has jeopardised the legitimacy of the UNSC, says Saurabh Kumar Shahi
SAURABH KUMAR SHAHI
Just a week before the Turkey-Brazil brokered Nuclear Swap deal, I, like many other Iran watchers, was pretty optimistic about its outcome. We had info that the deal will cover all the aspects of the previous deal that the West offered last October. However, a European diplomat friend of mine pricked my confidence just a night prior to the announcement. Casually, he put forward a question which I was not prepared for. “What if we shift the goalpost?” he said, with a smirk on his face. I did not take it just as another bout of cynicism which many diplomats suffer from. I, at least, was sure what fate awaits the deal. As the week unfolded, both I, and over and above, my diplomat friend, were right.
As it happened, the US had yet again shifted the goalpost on Iran in order to warrant that the face-off wasn't resolved even with Iran’s concession on the Uranium swap deal. And also, by doing so, the US has abandoned its own Uranium swap deal bid. Now, this should come as no revelation since experts have long maintained that Uncle Sam's present stance, like its earlier stands, was purely intended to drag out the confrontation rather than resolve it. The matter is now pretty clear: the US still persists on zero enrichment in Iran, a presumably unattainable touchstone proposed to avert a resolution.
Several of the pro-western analysts decrying Turkey-Brazil Swap deal--popularly called Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) deal--are harping on the fact that Iran never stopped producing enriched uranium since the Americans put forward the first version in October last year. This, according to them, means that albeit some of the low enriched uranium goes to Turkey, “the residual would be adequate to produce a theoretical nuclear weapon if Iran ever wished to exercise Article X of the NPT and broke out of the NPT regime. This analysis, nonetheless, completely discounts the fact that the initial offer by the US never reflected that Iran should stop enrichment. So, discontinuing the enrichment was by no means a part of the bargain. “Actually, this aspect was the real disclosure of the initial proposal, for it was broadly understood as an implicit US acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich Uranium. It was, in effect, LEU generated at Natanz that was to be swapped over for new fuel cells,” says noted Iranian watcher and proliferation expert Cyrus Safdari, while talking to TSI. Moreover, the alarm of Tehran achieving “breakout capacity” is hogwash and relies merely on pretexts as, technically speaking, any nation with a nuclear programme could hypothetically produce bombs. Going by the IAEA’s own assessment, presently 42 nations can swiftly make nukes if they so desired, which essentially means that it is not an Iran specific issue. On the posturing front, the regime in Washington has suffered a credibility setback of biblical proportions. Therefore, understandably, the US is acting swiftly to reclaim the initiative and summon up the impetus. And to do that, Washington will need not merely to unravel the deal, but essentially discredit the whole idea of parley and negotiations with Tehran. However, above all, the regime will do whatever possible to badly humiliate Turkey and Brazil and show them their “right place”.
“Two confident and growing economic powers, from what the world once referred to as the ‘Third World’, have now asserted critical political sway on a prestigious global security question. Turkey and Brazil, thus, have signalled that Washington can no more unilaterally characterise conditions for managing such matters,” says Flynt Leverett, noted Washington based Iran analyst, while talking to TSI.
Therefore, the unfolding excitement of the deal and the knee-jerk reaction of the Obama regime to quickly move a draft sanctions resolution in the United Nations Security Council will have long-term consequences on the texture of international relations. For those who still question the viability or the possibility of the post-American world, the deal is a wake-up call.
Also, by countering Brazil and Turkey’s astonishing diplomatic coup by an egotistical show of the Big-5’s power, the Obama regime has taken an itinerary that could not only inflict serious damage on America’s reputation but also on the legitimacy of the Security Council itself. It Pays to Unbelong And as coming weeks will unfold, getting the P-5 to see a common ground on a considerably diluted and deficient draft resolution in UNSC is far easier than managing the mandatory nine assenting votes to pass it. In all probability, even though Washington is able to hammer in new rounds of sanctions through an extremely fractured and divided Security Council, the initiative will profoundly damage its credibility. By now, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has already started questioning the UNSC’s “credibility” to resolve Iranian impasse. And if the US torpedoes the TRR deal before giving it a chance, as it will do in all probability, expect Turkey and Brazil to dent UNSC’s legitimacy with a generous help from “non-aligned” nations. As it happens, NAM is not dead as of yet.
So, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement of the text of new draft of sanctions before even officially going through the nitty-gritty of the TRR deal reflects extensive disrespect, to say the least, for Brazilian and Turkish diplomatic pains. But what has the US achieved? Merely a watered down text.
To bring the Russians and the Chinese on the table, the US had to drop any idea of a prohibition on fresh ventures or other ideas that could have hampered Iran’s capability to generate and export hydrocarbons.
Secondly, Washington, on the insistence of Jewish lobbies, had asked for a wide-ranging, all-inclusive stoppage on arms sales to Iran, but it will have to be content with restrictions on sales of a few definite types of weaponries. It had also asked for a complete embargo on fiscal transactions with the Revolutionary Guards and its subsidiary entities. However, it settled for the enforcement of earlier endorsed asset freeze and movement curb to specific elements from Guards’ ranks.
Clearly, with a masterstroke, Turkey and Brazil have changed the rules of the engagement in particular and the game in general. Rami Khouri, a Middle East expert based in Beirut sums it up well. “Iran and Turkey symbolise something new and potentially momentous in the region: Muslim-majority nations that are politically poised and have guts to stand up to the US and Israel. Washington and Tel Aviv stay perplexed on how to deal with such a phenomenon.”
Now, a deservingly short comment on Indian foreign policy. While we harp on the same string of being the next superpower, Turkey and Brazil, political non-entities till not very long ago, stole the show from under our nose. In Tehran, our position as a lackey Third World nation was reinforced. That Ali Ardashir Larijani gave 20 minutes to S M Krishna after literal pleadings reflects our stature in the region.
Given the hyperbole our media and MEA indulge in, it should have been India that brokered the deal. Krishna, on his part, later came up with obtuse-sounding and ad nauseam repeated maxim of every-nation-has-the-right-to-see-its-interests, but he, his entourage, and his maxim all appeared to be completely out of sync and out of place.
It is not surprising that Iranian experts consider India’s recent overtures to Iran as merely a bargain-chip for India’s relation vis-à-vis America. Krishna’s, probably insincere, reaction got a second page mention in Tehran Times and, god forbid, third page snippets in Iran Daily. That explains everything.
For more articles, Click on IIPM Article.
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2010.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri and Arindam chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Run after passion and not money, says Arindam Chaudhuri
IIPM BBA MBA B-School: Rabindranath Tagore Peace Prize To Irom Chanu Sharmila
IIPM Prof Rajita Chaudhuri: The New Age Woman
IIPM’s Management Consulting Arm - Planman Consulting
IIPM makes business education truly global
Planman Consulting: The sister concern of IIPM
Planman Consulting
Social Networking Sites have become advertising shops
West’s shifting of the goalpost on Iran and its disregard for the Turkey-Brazil brokered Nuclear Swap deal has jeopardised the legitimacy of the UNSC, says Saurabh Kumar Shahi
SAURABH KUMAR SHAHI
Just a week before the Turkey-Brazil brokered Nuclear Swap deal, I, like many other Iran watchers, was pretty optimistic about its outcome. We had info that the deal will cover all the aspects of the previous deal that the West offered last October. However, a European diplomat friend of mine pricked my confidence just a night prior to the announcement. Casually, he put forward a question which I was not prepared for. “What if we shift the goalpost?” he said, with a smirk on his face. I did not take it just as another bout of cynicism which many diplomats suffer from. I, at least, was sure what fate awaits the deal. As the week unfolded, both I, and over and above, my diplomat friend, were right.
As it happened, the US had yet again shifted the goalpost on Iran in order to warrant that the face-off wasn't resolved even with Iran’s concession on the Uranium swap deal. And also, by doing so, the US has abandoned its own Uranium swap deal bid. Now, this should come as no revelation since experts have long maintained that Uncle Sam's present stance, like its earlier stands, was purely intended to drag out the confrontation rather than resolve it. The matter is now pretty clear: the US still persists on zero enrichment in Iran, a presumably unattainable touchstone proposed to avert a resolution.
Several of the pro-western analysts decrying Turkey-Brazil Swap deal--popularly called Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) deal--are harping on the fact that Iran never stopped producing enriched uranium since the Americans put forward the first version in October last year. This, according to them, means that albeit some of the low enriched uranium goes to Turkey, “the residual would be adequate to produce a theoretical nuclear weapon if Iran ever wished to exercise Article X of the NPT and broke out of the NPT regime. This analysis, nonetheless, completely discounts the fact that the initial offer by the US never reflected that Iran should stop enrichment. So, discontinuing the enrichment was by no means a part of the bargain. “Actually, this aspect was the real disclosure of the initial proposal, for it was broadly understood as an implicit US acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich Uranium. It was, in effect, LEU generated at Natanz that was to be swapped over for new fuel cells,” says noted Iranian watcher and proliferation expert Cyrus Safdari, while talking to TSI. Moreover, the alarm of Tehran achieving “breakout capacity” is hogwash and relies merely on pretexts as, technically speaking, any nation with a nuclear programme could hypothetically produce bombs. Going by the IAEA’s own assessment, presently 42 nations can swiftly make nukes if they so desired, which essentially means that it is not an Iran specific issue. On the posturing front, the regime in Washington has suffered a credibility setback of biblical proportions. Therefore, understandably, the US is acting swiftly to reclaim the initiative and summon up the impetus. And to do that, Washington will need not merely to unravel the deal, but essentially discredit the whole idea of parley and negotiations with Tehran. However, above all, the regime will do whatever possible to badly humiliate Turkey and Brazil and show them their “right place”.
“Two confident and growing economic powers, from what the world once referred to as the ‘Third World’, have now asserted critical political sway on a prestigious global security question. Turkey and Brazil, thus, have signalled that Washington can no more unilaterally characterise conditions for managing such matters,” says Flynt Leverett, noted Washington based Iran analyst, while talking to TSI.
Therefore, the unfolding excitement of the deal and the knee-jerk reaction of the Obama regime to quickly move a draft sanctions resolution in the United Nations Security Council will have long-term consequences on the texture of international relations. For those who still question the viability or the possibility of the post-American world, the deal is a wake-up call.
Also, by countering Brazil and Turkey’s astonishing diplomatic coup by an egotistical show of the Big-5’s power, the Obama regime has taken an itinerary that could not only inflict serious damage on America’s reputation but also on the legitimacy of the Security Council itself. It Pays to Unbelong And as coming weeks will unfold, getting the P-5 to see a common ground on a considerably diluted and deficient draft resolution in UNSC is far easier than managing the mandatory nine assenting votes to pass it. In all probability, even though Washington is able to hammer in new rounds of sanctions through an extremely fractured and divided Security Council, the initiative will profoundly damage its credibility. By now, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has already started questioning the UNSC’s “credibility” to resolve Iranian impasse. And if the US torpedoes the TRR deal before giving it a chance, as it will do in all probability, expect Turkey and Brazil to dent UNSC’s legitimacy with a generous help from “non-aligned” nations. As it happens, NAM is not dead as of yet.
So, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement of the text of new draft of sanctions before even officially going through the nitty-gritty of the TRR deal reflects extensive disrespect, to say the least, for Brazilian and Turkish diplomatic pains. But what has the US achieved? Merely a watered down text.
To bring the Russians and the Chinese on the table, the US had to drop any idea of a prohibition on fresh ventures or other ideas that could have hampered Iran’s capability to generate and export hydrocarbons.
Secondly, Washington, on the insistence of Jewish lobbies, had asked for a wide-ranging, all-inclusive stoppage on arms sales to Iran, but it will have to be content with restrictions on sales of a few definite types of weaponries. It had also asked for a complete embargo on fiscal transactions with the Revolutionary Guards and its subsidiary entities. However, it settled for the enforcement of earlier endorsed asset freeze and movement curb to specific elements from Guards’ ranks.
Clearly, with a masterstroke, Turkey and Brazil have changed the rules of the engagement in particular and the game in general. Rami Khouri, a Middle East expert based in Beirut sums it up well. “Iran and Turkey symbolise something new and potentially momentous in the region: Muslim-majority nations that are politically poised and have guts to stand up to the US and Israel. Washington and Tel Aviv stay perplexed on how to deal with such a phenomenon.”
Now, a deservingly short comment on Indian foreign policy. While we harp on the same string of being the next superpower, Turkey and Brazil, political non-entities till not very long ago, stole the show from under our nose. In Tehran, our position as a lackey Third World nation was reinforced. That Ali Ardashir Larijani gave 20 minutes to S M Krishna after literal pleadings reflects our stature in the region.
Given the hyperbole our media and MEA indulge in, it should have been India that brokered the deal. Krishna, on his part, later came up with obtuse-sounding and ad nauseam repeated maxim of every-nation-has-the-right-to-see-its-interests, but he, his entourage, and his maxim all appeared to be completely out of sync and out of place.
It is not surprising that Iranian experts consider India’s recent overtures to Iran as merely a bargain-chip for India’s relation vis-à-vis America. Krishna’s, probably insincere, reaction got a second page mention in Tehran Times and, god forbid, third page snippets in Iran Daily. That explains everything.
For more articles, Click on IIPM Article.
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2010.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri and Arindam chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Run after passion and not money, says Arindam Chaudhuri
IIPM BBA MBA B-School: Rabindranath Tagore Peace Prize To Irom Chanu Sharmila
IIPM Prof Rajita Chaudhuri: The New Age Woman
IIPM’s Management Consulting Arm - Planman Consulting
IIPM makes business education truly global
Planman Consulting: The sister concern of IIPM
Planman Consulting
Social Networking Sites have become advertising shops
Labels: Arindam Chaudhuri, IIPM, IIPM-Admission-Detail, IIPM-New-Delhi
Rashmi Bansal Publisher of JAMMAG magazine caught red-handed, for details click on the following links.
posted by IIPM: A Leader in Academic Excellence @ 5:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home