Share this story!            

EDITORIAL: Dangerous escalation in the Gulf

As the UN Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to slap new UN nuclear sanctions on Iran, it was listening closely to the news that the Iranian naval forces had taken 15 British sailors and marines captive in the northern Gulf. The British and Iranian governments disagree on whether the British forces were operating in Iranian or Iraqi territorial waters. Apparently, two British boats were conducting “routine operations in Iraqi waters” when they were overwhelmed by a larger force from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, which arrested the troops and took them to Iran, where the Iranians say they “confessed” to trespassing in Iranian waters. Ships from the Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy operate separately from Iran’s regular navy. They are normally armed with large machine guns, while officials say the British force was carrying only small arms.

The incident was “facilitated” by the fact that the border in the territorial sea in the approaches to the Shatt al-Arab waterway remains unsettled — and was casus belli in the Iran-Iraq war. The last time the Iranians captured six British sailors and marines was three years ago but they were released three days later. Those were friendlier days. Now the situation in the Gulf is very tense. Inside Iraq, there is a contest between Iran and the United States for domination in the country, and the Iranians have dug their heels in and will not be beaten back easily.

The latest action is ominous because it seems to be in retaliation for the arrests made last December by the Americans inside Iraq when Iranian officials and diplomats were arrested after their offices were attacked on the basis of “intelligence”. Two diplomats were released after a very strident protest from the Al Maliki government in Baghdad while four “officials” were kept for interrogation about the alleged “material” uncovered from them which, according to the Americans, was aimed at killing Iraqi and US troops. We should add to this “provocation” the Iranian allegation that the Americans did not issue visas in time for President Mahmud Ahmadinejad and his delegation to attend the Security Council session at the United Nations in New York.

Unfortunately, however, Iran is losing friends inside the Security Council as it goes on to its posture of defiance and confrontation. The latest “unanimous” Resolution 1747, co-sponsored by Britain, France and Germany, broadens UN sanctions already imposed on Iran in December for spurning repeated demands to suspend the nuclear fuel work. Once again, the five permanent members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, have joined Germany to call for new talks with Tehran to find a negotiated solution. The reinforced sanctions are bound to start biting. This was the Security Council session that President Ahmadinejad wanted to address.

Resolution 1747 bans all Iranian arms exports, freezes the overseas assets of 28 additional officials and institutions linked to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and restricts financial aid or loans to Tehran. More sanctions akin to economic blockade are threatened if Iran doesn’t comply in 60 days. Also, the US is openly trying to block the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project on the ground that its revenues will ultimately help to sustain Iran’s nuclear programme. But Iran’s response is in the shape of more defiance. The Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, has riposted by saying that the UN decision was “illegal” and “unjustifiable” because Iran’s “nuclear programme is purely peaceful in purpose”.

The Iranian government under President Ahmadinejad seems to be determined to face off the US and its expanding band of allies in the UN. And the reason is mainly Iraq, a territory that Iran is determined to bring under its sphere of economic and political influence. At the level of the common man, Iran’s economic outreach in Iraq is quite significant. Apart from the real estate of Najaf which is now mostly in Iranian hands, Iranian air-conditioners fill Iraqi appliance stores, “Iranian tomatoes ripen on the windowsills of kitchens here” and legions of white Iranian-made Peugeots sit in Iraqi driveways. Some Iraqi cities, including Basra, the southern oil center, buy or plan to buy electricity from Iran. The Iraqi government relies on Iranian companies to bring petrol from Turkmenistan to alleviate a severe shortage. Iraqi officials are reviewing an application by Iran to open a branch of an Iranian bank in Baghdad, and Iran has offered to lend Iraq US$1 billion. The economies of Iraq and Iran are becoming closely integrated, with Iranian goods flooding Iraqi markets and Iraqi cities looking to Iran for basic services. Above all, a majority of the politicians (Shia and Kurd) now controlling Iraq look at Iran as a helpful neighbour who will bail them out if they run into trouble with the Arabs or Turkey. It goes without saying that they would like Iran to become a nuclear power to play the role of their saviour.

This is a reality with which the international community must contend just as it contends with the prospect of Iran’s nuclear programme. There should be some give and take by both sides if the Middle East is not to slide into a bigger conflict. *

SECOND EDITORIAL: Sir Creek: how not to resolve the dispute

It is reported that Pakistan wants India to agree to a solution on the Sir Creek dispute before the two countries go ahead and declare their maritime and economic zones in the Indian Ocean. Sir Creek relates to the border that has to be drawn on a dried up creek in the Rann of Kachh desert. The Pakistani gambit seems to be that unless their maritime zones are decided “the two will suffer economic losses beyond 2009, when the UN convention on the Law of Seas will be implemented”. Since India can’t afford this, the argument goes, it will have to accept the Pakistani position on Sir Creek.

The creek’s length is 60 miles. Pakistan claims ownership of the creek, as mapped out in 1914, but India claims that the old demarcation was wrong and the “mid-channel” approach should be adopted. (The mid-channel approach is the international norm.) India wants the maritime zones decided before the Sir Creek issue is resolved. Pakistan seems to be using the deadline of 2009 for the Law of Seas to get India to sign up on Sir Creek. There is also the matter of Pakistan’s “historical mistrust” of India. But it would be wrong to link the Sir Creek issue to the maritime boundaries issue. It is a much better approach to take the two together, if the maritime agreement can be arrived at without a resolution of Sir Creek. No party should be seen to take advantage of the other side. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!