Middle East: Iranian Discussions

Image credits: yeowatzup

 

In her newest piece, Features Online Columnist Thea Osborne talks about the Iranians’ talks…

The recent Iran talks in Geneva, despite ending inconclusively, are being generally hailed as a step in the right direction. The talks, between the US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and Iran, lasted three days and were focused around reaching a deal in which Iran would promise to curtail their nuclear programme in return for a reduction in international, particularly US, sanctions against the country.

Iran’s nuclear policy and capabilities are immensely unclear and therefore perceived as a potentially lethal threat to the region and particularly to the States’ allies Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is known that Iran has a nuclear programme and it considers it as a matter of national pride and technical achievement that it should be allowed to continue to do so as is permitted through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The treaty allows nuclear power for domestic civil power but Iran’s programme is on a far larger scale than that and is thought to be close to levels needed to make a bomb. There is, therefore, a need for transparency about Iran’s ambitions for the programme, which it insists is not for a bomb, and outside investigations and regulations in their enrichment programmes. Naturally Iran will not agree to this without clear incentives, not necessarily simply concerning sanctions, but also its wider position in the region and its relationship with the US.

The talks concluded with a statement from the exhausted-looking Iranian foreign secretary, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. In their statement both suggested progress had been made and refused to clearly comment on the apparent “scuppering” of the talks by France: the surprise spanner in the works in the form of French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius’ refusal to accept a stopgap deal which aimed at defusing tensions and creating more time for discussion and negotiation. The hiccup appears to have caused much fury amongst diplomats and speculations as to French motives.

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu
Image credits: IsraelinUSA

Unsurprisingly due to their long-term hatred and rivalry, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken out clearly about his disapproval of Iran’s ‘deal of the century’. Having spent much to the last twenty years propagating the unfathomable dangers that emanate from Iran it understandably seems to come as quite a shock and upset to Netanyahu that his best friend and supporter, the US, is willing to discuss the lifting of some of its thirty year old sanctions on Iran.

Another key ally of the US, Saudi Arabia, is also concerned about the new Iranian-US diplomacy. As the dominant Sunni nation within the region Saudi Arabia has had a long-term rivalry with Shia-dominated Iran; it recently played out, with horrific results, that the two nations backed, funded and armed opposite sides within the Syrian civil war. Saudi Arabia, however, has been less vocal than Israel about its view, partly due to the way that the Saudi monarchy does things and partly to ensure not to be seen as siding with Israel in a public debate.

It has been suggested therefore, that France’s lack of cooperation at the Iran talks was a measure to try and gain favour with Israel and Saudi Arabia, particularly when they might be disappointed with their previously unwavering American ally.

It is undeniable that both the US and Iran seem willing to make more effort than either have been before. The US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif took part in at least eight hours of bilateral talks; by far the most contact between the two nations since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. More progress, even if inconclusive, has been made in the last week than in the last ten years, and with further talks arranged to begin on the 20 November there seems hope for a deal to be reached.

However, Iran and the US, are perhaps two of the most secretive, proud and self-motivated countries in the world, and there is little doubt that they will both be holding back certain bits of information along with strict agendas as to what they are willing to agree on. That alone is an incredibly daunting and insecure start to negotiations. Moreover, when it is combined with the complications of the complex power relations surrounding any international deal involving a Middle Eastern state it seems, as illustrated by the unlikely example of France in the latest talks, that there is immeasurable potential for upset and derailing.

Thea Osborne, Features Online Columnist

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

North Korea: Where do we currently stand?

Image credits to giladr

As events in the Korean Peninsula continue, Features Editor Imogen Watson takes account of the stability of the region’s future.

To many of us born in a certain generation, in a certain part of the world, the events leading us to the situation of today on the Korean Peninsula are lessons learnt in history books, and often only partially remembered. Isolated, inverted North Korea has always to us been a quirky country in Asia with a funny regime, bizarre fascination with its leaders, and an immense talent in putting on a well-choreographed mass display. Also in indoctrination. Good luck to you if you were interested enough to want to visit, as you will just as likely get in as North Koreans will get out.

Apart from a few citizens, what has got out of North Korea? Well, as is quite evident in recent weeks, international threats. Thus far we have avoided serious, large-scale conflict. But North Korea has been speaking out again lately, and just how worried ought the rest of the world to be?

Of course, the US is acting. As the world’s only remaining superpower, with big allies in South Korea and Japan, and relations to maintain with China, as well as being the main fear and supposed target of North Korea, it is not half surprising. Seoul has moved two warships to its coasts as a reaction to Pyongyang’s moving missiles around.

The whole situation sounds precarious, and it is. Wrongly-chosen words or the seemingly smallest of slip-ups could legitimately tip a balance that rests on that knife-edge which so often comes into play with the Korean Peninsula. But in that is a point worth making: threats, words and videos have often been broadcast in the past by the North Korean state. Residents of Seoul going about their daily business are yet to be particularly concerned, with one telling the BBC, “This tension has existed for more than fifty years, so I don’t see the difference this time.” Is there in fact something which makes this a bigger worry than normal?

A section of the De-Militarised Zone between North and South Korea.
Image credits to Justin Ornellas

The US has been flying planes over the peninsula, panicking Pyongyang. Pyongyang is moving weaponry, and Seoul is reacting. North Korea, despite never having ended the previous one from the 1950s, has openly declared an official state of war with South Korea. Whilst this all may yet come to nothing, and could well be action to give the new leader of North Korea Kim Jong-Un some standing both abroad and at home, the escalation is enough to set teeth on edge. With such a volatile state, proceedings must be cautious and thought-through. Having previously attacked the South, there is nothing to necessarily stop the North from doing so again.

How far is this all likely to go? Clearly the argument has been presented that there is sufficient to be concerned about, but there is faith also that this will be resolved. Whilst it is always possible, I have an inability to see a world where North Korea succeeds in its plans to reunite with the South under its mindset, and where the USA has been beaten into its submission. When another short-term solution to the current struggle will happen is clearly unknown, but once found we must work towards another solution, a long-term one, if only for the safety of its people; the reoccurring famines of a nation desiring to be self-sufficient are insupportable, and the indoctrination needs to end.

That is where more problems are to be found, of course, for North Korea is, if nothing else, stubborn.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor