Opinion A problem called Iran

Despite hope that the negotiating parties have bought time to work on facilitating a breakthrough,the history of the current stalemate reveals that they might give in to their not-so-noble agendas. Although Iran has been bitten by sanctions,it may use the time to further enrich uranium at a faster pace. On the other hand,Israel has made no secret of its intention to act militarily to neutralise Iran’s nuclear capabilities. An attack by Israel is likely to involve the US,Britain and other European countries in the ensuing conflict. Since the economies of these countries are in a shambles,they may be delaying military action against Iran as that could further destabilise the world economy.

The substance of these talks appear non-negotiable. Thus,change in their procedure may promise the desirable result. Two inputs worth considering include live telecasts of the proceedings of the negotiations,and the involvement of a neutral mediating country to moderate them.

Due to the closed-door nature of the negotiation process,failures in the past have generated a blame-game where each party holds the other responsible for the failure. Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,in particular,has effectively used the opaqueness of such negotiations to his advantage in the past. On the other hand,the US has to avoid the mistakes it made before invading Iraq to regain some legitimacy in its actions vis-à-vis Iran. Such problems could be solved by ensuring total transparency in these negotiations,which could be ensured by the decision to telecast the proceedings live.

One may argue that it is against the norm to telecast diplomatic discussions on sensitive issues. However,most of the information related to Iran’s nuclear programme that is available to diplomats outside Iran is also available to the wider world through the IAEA documents posted on its website. The live telecast would only make public the stated positions of the conflicting parties for the world to see.

Iran should not have any objection to this proposition since it has always lamented that the West has been unfair to it. The live telecast would enable it to substantiate its claims. Similarly,the US should also agree to the proposition since,in its quest to isolate Iran,it has needed the support of the world community. The governments of the respective countries could help the US in the matter only if they have the mandate to do so,which could be successfully obtained only if the masses of these countries are convinced that it is right to do so.

The absence of an impartial mediator is also a major factor in these talks getting stalled midway,just like in Istanbul a year ago. It is worth noting here that the current negotiations are being held between several conflicting parties without a mediator. Among the constituents of P5+1,the US has imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran. The other constituents — Britain,France and Germany — are party to the conflict due to their membership of the EU,which has also imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran. While the rest of the P5+1 — Russia and China — have not imposed unilateral sanctions,they are seen as aiding Iran and therefore cannot be considered neutral. Iran,of course,is a conflicting party. This leaves us to find yet another country that can be accepted as neutral by all conflicting parties. This neutral country could then play the role of a mediator.

While it is wise to be concerned about the problem of nuclear proliferation,it is equally pertinent to find its solution with due sincerity. At a time when the world is facing severe economic crisis and the West Asian region is facing political turmoil,another military conflict in the oil rich Gulf would send the already burgeoning price of oil skyrocketing,further hurting the global economy. The major powers are thus obligated to resolve the current impasse.

Asif Shuja is research fellow,Indian Council of World Affairs,New Delhi