11 July 2008: Last month more than 50 Iranian and international scholars, officials, and experts met in Tehran, Iran at the 18th International Conference on the Persian Gulf, organized by the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS)—a government-run Think Tank attached to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In context to the rising tensions between Iran and the international community, recently marked by a British government announcement to freeze Iranian assets, the title of the conference was promising: “Grounds for Regional Cooperation, Stability and Security”.
The opening key note speech of the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was marked by mellow phrases of cooperation: “The Islamic Republic of Iran considers regional cooperation and convergence as a priority to its foreign policy”, he said during his speech, adding that “none of us can provide its security solely”.
On the other hand he criticised the foreign—mainly American—presence in the region while stressing that “imported security through foreign presence destabilizes the Persian Gulf Region”.
Most of the speakers including experts and scholars from Jordan, Uzbekistan, South Africa, Germany, Ukraine, Italy, China, Russia, Japan, Serbia, Iraq, Pakistan, France, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Egypt, India, Greece, and even the U.S.—underlined the necessity of consensus and dialogue as well as the need towards an independent and coherent security paradigm in partnership. But the understanding of this approach varied.
In my lecture “Persian Gulf Security in the 21st Century”, which opened the first panel, I argued for a multilateral and peaceful approach in strong cooperation with the European Union. Many participants disagreed.
Dr. Ra´fat Ghanimi Al-Sheikh from Egypt promoted well-known views of Islamic nationalism. “There is no Shia. There is no Sunni. There is only Islam. With the American occupation of Iraq, we found our common enemy”, he said while pointing out that “America will decline within the next 20 years.” He was relatively isolated with his aggressive views.
In a very controversial speech, in which most of the participants disagreed, Dr. Ukeru Magosaki from Japan´s National Defense Academy echoed a Japanese trauma. Regarding the Iranian nuclear ambitions and in context to experiences of Japanese nationalism with U.S. strategy he warned: “Wait with your efforts just some several years. Otherwise the U.S. will attack you. They will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.”
The most interesting remarks came from Dr. Selig S. Harrison, Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, DC and the only participant from the U.S., who presented a Seven-Point-Proposal for solving the aftermath of the Amercian occupation in Iraq. His strategy builds on a step-by-step withdrawl of American troops combined with the establishment of an intra-regional security partnership including all littoral states of the Gulf.
The main issue during the conference was not the discussion of the essential strategic challenges within the region but the conflict of nomenclature of the Gulf. Tautologically, the Iranian participants underlined the label Persian Gulf, indicating Iran´s claim in the region.
Between the lines, many Iranian speakers pushed nationalistic approaches and ideas. They stressed the legitimacy of Iran´s claim on Abu Musa Island as well as on the two Tunbs Islands, which are also claimed by the United Arab Emirates.
Their position towards the United States was often marked by enmity. Many speakers saw in the U.S. the cause of regional instability and war.
The “Historic Atlas of the Persian Gulf”, which was presented at the end of the conference—published recently by the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS)—documented nothing but Iranian supremacy within the Gulf region as well as its claim on several islands in the Gulf, including Bahrain.
In this context, it is not surprising that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were not present on any panel during the conference.
But, compared to recent speeches of President Ahmadinejad—in the streets of Tehran the people call it “action talk”—it is remarkable that the Islamic Republic of Iran even organized such a dialogue-oriented conference. There was a fruitful discussion due to the miscellaneous field of experts in the conference. Against typical expectations, street-popular agitation against Israel or the United States was rare.
Dr. Luciano Zaccara, Director of “Arabic and Islamic Countries Election Watch” at the Autonomous University of Madrid, brought it to the point: “The direction of this conference is right and symbolizes a first step. But with increasing Iranian nationalism, I see many problems in the horizon.” |
