By Mehdi Honardoost*
In a world in which nations have learned from history how to solve their disputes through diplomacy and negotiations, we are witnessing bad omens of regressive trends toward political immaturity by non-diplomats who resort to unilateralism for imposing their own world order. These trends need more vigilance from those who have historically suffered the brunt of war, and from those who believe in the legacy of diplomacy and negotiation.
July 14, 2015 was an international milestone for the history of political negotiations, a determining time in which 10 years of the onerous task for settling an international dispute with peaceful means (in compliance with Article 2 of the UN Charter) came to the accepted result of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Germany and the European Union. The adoption of Resolution 2231 in the Security Council on July 20, 2015, which lifted all UN nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, evoked a new global optimism on the function of the UN and the Security Council in closing long-lasting hiatuses and peacefully resolving political stalemates. From that historic moment, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had regular access to all Iranian nuclear equipment and has numerous times reported Iran’s full compliance with its nuclear commitments.
The combination of international political rationality with an unprecedented “heroic flexibility” in foreign policy that occurred on July 14, 2015 could lead to a new successful pattern of constructive interaction for those other countries that bear a pessimistic attitude toward the international system. Unfortunately, this opportunity for international diplomacy was missed by the rise of a new administration on January 20, 2017 in the United States.
Assuming the illusion of unipolarism for the US, this new administration from the beginning resorted to international unilateralism and a bullying approach in enforcing economic benefits for the few, to the detriment of destroying historical political legacies of multilateralism and peaceful negotiation.
The US withdrawal from the JCPOA was not the only example of this unilateralism. Its exit from the Paris climate accord, the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council, and most catastrophically, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital are other examples of the list that should be seriously considered by those who have responsibilities for the future of peace and tranquility in international relations. The silence of the international community toward this unilateralism will create a schism between states and increase pessimism toward international organizations.
The arbitrary withdrawal by the US president from an international agreement was not related to Iran’s compliance with its commitments, but to the unilateral policies of a non-diplomat who didn’t have much knowledge of the four decades of resistance and defiance of a nation toward foreign pressures. What the Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in 2015 called “heroic flexibility” was an unprecedented permission for kicking off a new round of confidence building with an arch foe, and a genuine gesture toward the international community that Iran is ready for dialogue. This opportunity should have been seized by top negotiators of the JCPOA, not as a big challenge that needed to be passed. For a nation that had successfully spent eight years of an asymmetric war (1980-1988) with a coalition and undergone decades of sanctions and difficulties, this “heroic flexibility” was a political evaluation – an evaluation that could have resulted in confidence building and the trust of a nation toward the main actors of the international system, which could have begun a new era of constructive interaction between the parties.
In analyzing the main reasons of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, aside from political variables, the economic ones should also be considered. When Resolution 2231 passed by consensus in the UNSC and nuclear sanctions were lifted, Iran earnestly stopped the activities of many of its nuclear power plants and changed the function of some others in compliance with the agreement. Consequently, Iran’s economic interactions restarted with the world and obstacles in economic relations began to be removed.
The JCPOA opened Iran’s large market to the world and facilitated the easy export of gas and oil to countries that are economically considered to be US rivals. The JCPOA accelerated the rise of new powers in the world, those who could surpass the present position of the US. This was intolerable for a businessman who was now on the political saddle in the US. Therefore, regardless of the consequences of his actions, the US president needed to do something to reverse the situation.
The US withdrawal from the JCPOA was more a damage to the legacy of multilateralism and negotiations than a danger to a country that has undergone 40 years of resistance. Iran has successfully learned the lessons of cohesion and resilience, but has the international community learned how to resist unilateralism and save its legacy of cooperation that are mentioned in the UN Charter?
*Mehdi Honardoost is the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Pakistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment