Target Centermass

Day: May 17, 2005

  • Iraq and Iran Pledge an Era of Cooperation

    Warning: take this with a freakin’ major grain of salt.

    Iraq and Iran pledged Tuesday to turn the page on nearly a quarter-century of war and bitter rivalry during a visit here by Iran’s foreign minister, who expressed support for Iraq’s new Shiite-led government.

    “I have no doubt this visit will open up significant new horizons for cooperation between the two countries,” the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, told a joint news conference after talks with his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharazi.

    “Post-Saddam Iraq is a new Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, far removed from its bellicose predecessor,” Zebari said.

    Iraq may be at peace with its neighbors, but its neighbors, most notably Iran and Syria, are certainly not at peace with Iraq.

    He also said Iran had pledged to cooperate on security and not provide any support to the insurgency.

    Kharazi said: “We will not allow terrorists to use our lands to access Iraq. We will watch our borders and will arrest infiltrators, because securing Iraq is securing the Islamic Republic.”

    I don’t believe Kharazi’s first sentence but do believe the second. It all depends on what one thinks Iran means by “securing” Iraq.

    Iraq, struggling to contain insurgent attacks that have killed more than 400 people since a new government was unveiled three weeks ago, has accused neighboring countries of not doing enough to secure their borders.

    Kharazi, the highest-ranking Iranian official to visit Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein two years ago, assured his counterpart that Iran would not interfere in its neighbor’s affairs.

    “Iraqis are in charge of their own affairs,” he said. “Any interference would be an insult to the Iraqi people.”

    “It is in Iran’s interest to support by all possible means the Iraqi government,” he added. “It is not in the interest of any of Iraq’s neighbors to see the current situation continue because it would have negative consequences on the entire region.”

    Again, I don’t believe the first sentence of the last paragraph but have no problem accepting the truth in the Iranian’s following sentence, if one defines “current situation” as a growing, popular democracy. That is certainly something that would have negative consequences for the current radical rulers of Iran.

    Baghdad and Tehran re-established diplomatic ties in September, although many issues, including a peace treaty, remain unresolved following the devastating 1980-1988 war that left about one million dead.

    Relations between Iran, with a Shiite majority, and the interim Iraq government set up by the United States in June 2004 were awkward.

    But the formation this month of a Shiite-dominated government has helped ease relations. Many of the new Iraqi ministers spent years in exile in Iran, an archfoe of Washington, and Zebari made a point of repeatedly speaking in Farsi during the news conference.

    The need to counter-balance Iranian influence is a key part in why the inclusion of the Sunnis into the new government is needed. That is meant to buy short-term viability while working towards long-term stability.

    Kharazi’s visit comes against a backdrop of increasing tension between majority Shiites and previously dominant Sunni Arabs in Iraq, where a recent series of tit-for-tat killings have raised the specter of a sectarian war.

    Iran would love an Iraqi civil war, as the Shiites would crush the minority Sunnis and Iran-friendly radical clerics would potentially grow in popularity and influence. Syria would settle for a civil war, if only to prevent a free and economically successful Arab democracy as a neighbor.

  • Security Council Expansion Proposed

    The nations of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have unveiled their proposal for a large expansion of the United Nations Security Council, including more than doubling the number of permanent members.

    Japan, Brazil, Germany and India – known as the Group of Four nations – who are seeking permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council, presented a draft resolution Monday calling for the council’s expansion.

    The draft, unveiled at a meeting of representatives from about 70 countries, calls for the creation of an additional six permanent and four nonpermanent seats.

    The draft also states the new permanent members should be elected at the U.N. General Assembly, which should then adopt a revised U.N. Charter bearing the names of the newly elected members no later than two weeks after the vote.

    The four countries aim to have the resolution adopted by the end of June in the General Assembly and new permanent members to be elected in mid-July.

    Two-thirds of the 191 U.N. member countries – or at least 128 votes – must vote for the resolution at the General Assembly for it to be passed.

    Monday’s meeting, at Germany’s permanent representatives office in New York, aimed to explain the resolution and solidify support among the 70 or so countries believed to be in favor of the proposed expansion.

    With approximately 70 countries viewed at favoring UNSC expansion, I feel that enough momentum can be attained to garner the others needed if the proposal is put forth in a flexible, go-along-to-get-along manner. A strong argument in its favor is the current make-up of the permanent members of the council, with its strong European representation and lack of membership for South America, Africa and the Arab nations. The Group of Four are all deserving nations when judged on their populations, economic strengths, and prominence globally and in their respective regions. These four obviously aim to be among the six new permanent members, but one wonders which six would eventually attain the prize. Germany would only add to the Eurocentricism already present, Africa and the Arab nations still must be considered but have no obvious candidates, and at least two unnamed nations must be selected. Expect Italy, also desiring a seat, to push for a voice in this matter.

    Will the four nations go forward with enough flexibility to successfully manage passage? They will if they follow Japan’s lead.

    The latest draft, which the four countries initially had expected to finish in early May, was delayed by almost two weeks, mainly due to prolonged debate between India and Japan, according to sources.

    The sources said Japan and India had argued fiercely over the wording of the document as India insisted the new permanent members “shall have” the same veto rights as the so-called big five, while Japan supported a compromise under which new members “should have” veto rights.

    Japan feared a direct demand for veto rights would inevitably invite opposition from such countries as the United States.

    The current version states that the new permanent members “should” have the same “responsibilities and duties” as current permanent members.

    But Japan’s proposal to insert “in principle” to further weaken the demand for veto rights was omitted.

    Any new permanent nations should be happy with their constant presence on the council; expansion of the veto power would only serve to render the UNSC more hamstrung than it has already become. For that matter, though I expect it to pass in some form or other, I personally oppose this expansion. The greater the numbers involved in making a decision, the less likely a decision will be actually be made.

    If expansion must be, I would argue for the inclusion of Australia, Brazil, India and Japan. Heck, throw in Israel and Syria, give them both veto power, pick up a six-pack and tune in to watch the UN dismantle itself.