Offer From Biarritz Not Good Enough For Iran

by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

From all accounts, Tehran is struggling to cope with the startling news in the weekend from the G7 summit at Biarritz that a meeting between the presidents of the US and Iran is to be expected in the “coming weeks”.

The cautiously optimistic tone struck by the French President Emmanuel Macron and the conspicuously positive attitude adopted by President Trump along with the fact that the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was actually present at Biarritz (with the prior knowledge and tacit concurrence of POTUS) — all these signalled that France’s back-to-back peace initiatives in the recent weeks with Washington and Tehran have come to a defining moment.

From Biarritz, Zarif took off for Tehran ostensibly to change planes for an onward journey to China as part of a previously scheduled Asian tour. Presumably, he briefed Rouhani on what transpired at Biarritz. Zarif is still on the Asian tour — China, Japan, Malaysia, etc., which are, interestingly, major buyers of Iranian oil.

If the Biarritz formula gains traction, these Asian countries have a key role to play in generating income for Iran out of oil sales, which apparently would incentivise Tehran to get into negotiations with the US.

En route to Beijing, Zarif tweeted, “Iran’s active diplomacy in pursuit of constructive engagement continues. Road ahead is difficult. But worth trying.” China’s foreign minister Wang Yi also spoke to Emmanuel Bonne, diplomatic adviser to French President Emmanuel Macron, by telephone on Monday. Bonne said France wanted to coordinate and cooperate with China to ease tensions over Iran and to maintain the 2015 nuclear deal, according to a report by official Chinese news agency Xinhua.

Iran’s FM Zarif (L) was warmly received by Chinese Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) in Beijing on Aug 26, 2019

The initial reaction from Tehran at the level of Rouhani also suggested that he may be open to the idea of meeting Trump. Notably, Rouhani said on Monday, “I believe we should use any tool to protect our country’s national interests. If I think that meeting someone helps solve the people’s problems, I will not hesitate. The principle is our national interests.”

Two days later, however, Rouhani’s Chief of Staff and key aide Mahmoud Vaezi, who is an influential figure in the foreign policy establishment, conspicuously moderated what the president had said. Speaking to reporters in Tehran on Wednesday, Vaezi said any meeting with the US officials will solve no problem and the US must come back to P5+1 negotiation table and respect its commitments to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Vaezi didn’t altogether reject the idea of a Rouhani-Trump meeting, but added a template that the negotiations must also involve other guarantor states — E3, Russia and China. On the other hand, an Iranian economic delegation is proceeding to France next week. It could be that Tehran is strengthening its bargaining chip as well as insulating itself from the risk of engaging an interlocutor such as Trump who is fickle-minded, lacks consistency and has no coherent policies — and, above all, is surrounded by a team that includes notorious anti-Iran hawks, especially the National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Meanwhile, we see a significant hardening of Tehran’s stance in an interview with the state TV given by the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Seyed Abbas Araqchi. Araqchi simply ruled out any negotiations with Washington so long as the sanctions remained in place.

In his words, “We are only talking with the European countries over our specific 11 demands (based on the JCPOA) and we will not negotiate with the US.” Vaezi’s remarks must be taken seriously, as was one of the key negotiators of the 2015 nuclear deal and is an authoritative voice. Vaezi underlined that that no country would accept to enter negotiations while being under “maximum pressure” because doing so would mean “surrender”.

The offer held out in Biarritz appears to be simply not good enough for Tehran. Why should Tehran “surrender” after successfully countering the US’ regime change agenda and “maximum pressure” strategy and has failed to reach the objectives behind its unilateral move to abandon the 2015 nuclear deal?

On Wednesday, Iran’s top military commander Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri pointedly reminded everyone that it has been the country’s deterrence power that effectively stopped the US from going ahead with its plans to wage a war against Iran.

Quite obviously, a lot of churning has been going on within the top echelons of the Iranian establishment, which involve multiple agencies at an institutional level and even factions that would have congruent political interests or different priorities at any given time. The influential Majlis has not voiced an opinion. The bottom line is that all power centres would be waiting for the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to speak publicly.

M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

 

Career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, who served as India's Ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and Turkey (1998-2001).

Rifts Emerge Between Trump and Western Allies at G7 Summit

French President Emmanuel Macron and President Donald Trump participate in a G-7 Working Session on the Global Economy, Foreign Policy, and Security Affairs the G-7 summit in Biarritz, France August 25, 2019

U.S. President Donald Trump insisted on Sunday that he was getting along well with leaders at a G7 summit in France, but rifts emerged with his Western allies on issues ranging from his trade war with China to Iran, North Korea and Russia.

The G7 gathering is taking place against a backdrop of worries about a global economic downturn and coincides with an era of international disunity across an array of matters.

“Before I arrived in France, the Fake and Disgusting News was saying that relations with the 6 others countries in the G-7 are very tense, and that the two days of meetings will be a disaster,” Trump wrote on Twitter shortly before meeting new British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

RELATED:
 'We Don't Need China', Trump Says as Wall Street Plunges

“Well, we are having very good meetings, the Leaders are getting along very well, and our Country, economically, is doing great - the talk of the world!”

Tensions were quickly on show, however, as the first full day of talks between the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States got underway in the Basque coast resort of Biarritz in southwest France.

Before leaving Washington Trump stepped up his tariff war with Beijing in a battle between the world’s two largest economies that has spooked financial markets, and called on U.S. companies to move out of China.

Britain’s Johnson voiced concern on Saturday about creeping protectionism and said those who support tariffs “are at risk of incurring the blame for the downturn in the global economy”. Sitting across from Trump on Sunday, he said: “We’re in favor of trade peace on the whole, and dialing it down if we can.”

Asked if he was being pressed by allies to relent in his standoff with China, Trump said: “I think they respect the trade war.”

“NICHE ISSUES”

Underlining the multilateral discord even before the summit got underway, Trump threatened the meeting’s host, saying Washington would tax French wine “like they’ve never seen before” unless Paris dropped a digital tax on U.S. technology companies.

Leaping into the fray, European Council President Donald Tusk, who takes part in the G7 discussions, warned the EU would respond “in-kind” if Trump acted on his threat.

“This may be the last moment to restore our political community,” Tusk told reporters on Saturday, giving a bleak assessment of Western relations.

Looking to broaden the scope of the debate, French President Emmanuel Macron has invited several African leaders to discuss problems facing their continent, while leaders from India, Australia, Chile and Spain are due to attend a dinner on Sunday where the focus will be on the environment and other issues.

However, senior U.S. officials accused Macron of looking “to fracture the G7” by focusing on “niche issues” rather than major global concerns.

France denied this, pointing to Sunday’s initial session covering the economy, trade and security - areas that used to draw easy consensus but are now sources of great friction.

Trump upended last year’s G7 meeting in Canada, walking out early and disassociating himself from the final communique.

DIFFERENCES OVER IRAN, NORTH KOREA, RUSSIA

In Biarritz, Trump appeared to brush aside French efforts to mediate with Iran, saying that while he was happy for Macron to reach out to Tehran to defuse tensions he would carry on with his own initiatives.

European leaders have struggled to tamp down the brewing confrontation between Iran and the United States since Trump pulled his country out of Iran’s internationally brokered 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on the Iranian economy.

France said G7 leaders had agreed that Macron should hold talks and pass on messages to Iran. However, Trump, who has pushed a maximum pressure policy on Iran, distanced himself from the proposal, saying he had not even discussed it.

Trump also appeared at odds with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe over the seriousness of North Korea’s series of short-range missile launches.

Trump, who prizes his relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, told reporters the launches did not violate an agreement and were in line with what others were doing. Abe, standing beside him, said they breached U.N. resolutions.

The missile launches have complicated attempts to restart talks between U.S. and North Korean negotiators over the future of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

There was also disagreement in Biarritz over Trump’s calls for Russia to be readmitted to the group of advanced economies.

Johnson said G7 leaders had a “lively” discussion about Russia and Trump, asked if his case for Moscow to be brought back into the fold had made headway, said it was a “work in progress”.

At the start of the day, Trump said Britain would have a major trade deal with Washington after it leaves the European Union. Asked what his advice on Brexit was for Johnson, he replied: “He needs no advice, he is the right man for the job”.

While the transatlantic rift is the starkest, there are also deep divisions within the European camp, with Johnson making his G7 debut at a time when he is struggling to persuade EU capitals to renegotiate Britain’s exit from the bloc, which Johnson has said will happen on Oct. 31 come what may.

Macron added to the internal EU strains by unexpectedly threatening on Friday to block an EU trade deal with a group of South American states over Brazil’s handling of fires that are ravaging the Amazon rainforest.

Germany and Britain both voiced deep concern about the fires, but said shooting down the ambitious Mercosur trade accord would not help save the Amazon.

US will defeat EU army

Finian Cunningham

The testy slap-down by US President Donald Trump to the idea of a European army was telling. Any notion of the Europeans stepping away from American "protection" would be anathema to Washington.

That's because American power is not about "protecting" Europe. That's just the vainglorious, propaganda mythology. In reality, it's all about Washington maintaining a lucrative protection racket in Europe, imperial control over supposed "allies", and militarily targeting Russia as the main objective.

The idea for a European army was floated again last week by French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron has been particularly keen on the European Union forming its own military, independent from the US.

Speaking on a tour of World War I battlefields in northern France, Macron said: “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America.”

In response, Trump immediately took Macron to task, saying his remarks were "insulting". In a subsequent meeting in Paris for WWI commemorations, the French leader appeared to backtrack under pressure, trying to assure his American counterpart that a European army would be "complementary" to the US-led NATO alliance.

Still, the proposal of Europe going its own way from the US has not been abandoned. This week, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told German business publication Handelsblatt that Europe must "stand up to the Trump administration" and not be afraid to assert its own power as an "empire".

Le Maire said in an interview, "Everybody knows it takes guts to stand in the way of Donald Trump's administration. The people of Europe have had enough of the babble from Brussels. They want to see action."

Echoing Macron's comments last week, the senior French cabinet minister said that Europe must become a "peaceful empire" in order to stand up to China and the US.

Le Maire also challenged Germany to back the French plans for creating an independent force — "political, financial and military" — from Washington. "We have talked about it for a long time. Now it's time for decisions."

These are certainly pushy words from the French leadership. But the idea of Europe taking on a more assertive, independent international role from the US has also been growing among Germany's political class in recent years. The residual shame over Nazi Germany's horrors seems to be gradually fading as Berlin strives for more global influence.

There are several factors in why the EU seems to be becoming more estranged from its erstwhile transatlantic partnership with the US. Under the Trump administration, tensions have intensified over his barracking about NATO expenditures; his browbeating over perceived "unfair" European trading practices; the threat of sanctions on Iran hitting EU multi-billion euro investments with Tehran; and the walking away from the Paris Climate Accord.

In this quarrelsome context, the notion of Europe forming its own military security organization takes on even greater appeal. France's Macron seems especially ambitious to rejuvenate European and French global standing. Having its own continental army augments that ambition.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has welcomed the proposal. Moscow views such a development as moving towards a more multipolar world and away from the unipolar would-be dominance of the US.

At a glance, one would think too that Washington might also endorse European defences being independently bolstered. After all, for years, American politicians have been bitterly complaining that Europe is a "freeloader" on US military protection. Trump has taken the grievance to new heights, aggressively badgering European nations to stump up more spending on their military to "share the burden" more evenly with the US.

There is a conceited American myth that Washington is the "chivalrous protector" of Europe, as portrayed in countless Hollywood movies, such as Spielberg's ‘Saving Private Ryan'.

Since 1945, tens of thousands of US troops stationed in bases all over Europe are said to be there out of noble duty to defend allies, so goes the myth.

Such a conceited narrative is then used by Trump to castigate Europeans to spend more on defences and "share the burden".

However, notice how the American tune suddenly shifts if the Europeans actually begin to propose setting up their own defences. If the issue were all about "sharing" costs of defence more equitably, then logically Washington should welcome the move towards a European army.

But that is not the real issue. Washington would never accept Europe becoming independent in terms of military power, because military power through NATO is how the American ruling class exert their hegemonic control over Europe.

Recall that NATO was set up in 1949 in the aftermath of the Second World War with the expressed objective to, "Keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down". Note that while the civilian post of secretary general of NATO can be held by Europeans, the military organization is invariably commanded by an American armed forces general.

NATO is America's "protection racket" in Europe. It has grown to a 29-member bloc which has expanded over recent years all the way to Russia's borders. This US-led military matrix sprawling over Europe gives Washington huge leverage over European policy and a vital projection of force at Moscow.

Moreover, European members of NATO are obliged to spend their military budgets largely on American weapons, including Patriot missiles and fighter jets. European nations are lined up to buy hundreds of the latest-generation and wildly overpriced American F-35 warplanes.

If Europe somehow created its own army to satisfy the vanity of politicians like Napoleonic Macron, then Washington stands to lose tremendous strategic control over Europe and the latter's relations with Russia. It also stands to lose trillions of dollars flowing to the Pentagon's military-industrial complex that props up American capitalism.

Washington for all its rhetoric about "protecting allies" and "burden sharing" is not going to let that happen. European fanciful talk about setting up its own army would be viewed by US imperialism as an intolerable act of insolence. But the tensions over the issue do show one instructive thing: US relations with Europe are not the partnership. It's all about domination.

The author of what you heard is Finian Cunningham, famous analyst specializing in political affairs.