www.moderndiplomacy.eu
CONTENTS
08
ENEMY OF MY ENEMY KEEPING IRAN CORNERED THROUGH SAUDI-ISRAELI STRATEGY KHORASAN WHERE DAESH, CASPIAN ENERGY AND GREAT POWER POLITICS MEET FOOD POWER RUSSIA SANCTIONS ONE YEAR ON BAKU 9TH ANNUAL SUMMER ENERGY SCHOOL IRAN DEAL JUDGMENTS BASED ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE PUBLIC JCPOA BRICS THE STRATEGIC ROAD MAP
THE CASPIAN PROJECT A WEEKLY EDITION FROM THE MODERN DIPLOMACY
www.moderndiplomacy.eu Caspian@moderndiplomacy.eu
PROJECT TEAM DiMiTRis GiAnnAkOPOulOs DR. MATThEw CROssTOn PETRA POsEGA TEJA PAlkO luisA MOnTEiRO ninA lAvREnTEvA GAbRiElA PAsChOlATi DO AMARAl bRiAn huGhEs TAylOR MORsE JEAnETTE JJ hARPER DiAnnE A. vAlDEz EvAn ThOMsEn
eneMy of My eneMy Keeping iran Cornered through Saudi-iSraeli Strategy
the enDlessly fiCkle osCillation of global affairs is being witnessed today by the waxing and waning of American enthusiasm for an Iranian nuclear deal, now supposedly concluded with a brokered agreement on July 14. But that supposition is in error.
Dr. Matthew Crosston Senior Editor Matthew Crosston is Professor of Political Science, Director of the International Security and Intelligence Studies Program, and the Miller Chair at Bellevue University
The debate between the initial liberal excitement of rapprochement with the longtime adversary that was always quickly countered by the expected conservative skepticism of a deal being nothing but Persian subterfuge to sneak nuclear weapons past the nose of Western inspectors is going to continue. The subsequent broadsides taken by said skeptics by a “counter counterpunch” will also continue: failure to engage Iran will only undermine any latent local democratic passion in-country while strengthening the true adversary – the Guardian Council and its overarching theocratic irrationality. If that has not spun your diplomatic head enough, given that we are all supposed to be celebrating the newly concluded deal, consider these battling fear and fantasy logics about engagement with Iran (how continuing,or not continuing, sanctions against Iran is either incitement to create an imperial Persian tyrant or, conversely,
much ado about nothing) will ultimately be insignificant compared to how both Israel and Saudi Arabia work strategically to keep Iran deep in its global community corner, deal or no deal. The fear aspect comes from worrying about ‘freeing’ Iran from crippling sanctions. While those who view Iran from a more hawkish perspective lament how much influence the Shiite republic has managed to obtain across the Middle East while ‘weakened,’ they are nearly apoplectic with the possibility of removing sanctions and actually letting Iran enter the world market and start to develop global economic stability. The fear logic dictates that a prosperous Iran would not be newly responsible but only more bullish and disruptive across the region. The fantasy aspect, however, decries that the West is making too much out of Iranian desires to be a regional military hegemon.
WWW.ModerndiploMaCy.eu the CaSpian proJeCt
Saudi arabia and iSrael never Want to See a Middle eaSt that haS a globally-eMbraCed or even SloWly-integrating iran This dismissal relies on materiel statistics that judge Iranian war-making capability as not just obsolete and behind most of the possible regional rivals it might challenge, but as possibly decrepit. Indeed, Saudi Arabia and Israel both massively outspend and out-invest Iran in terms of defense and military capacity and their current standing in terms of direct comparison is considered laughable: simply put, Saudi Arabia and Israel are modern 21st century militaries while Iran is a mid20th century military at best. All of this back-and-forth, however, misses one very key aspect: it plays exactly into the geopolitically manipulative interests of Saudi Arabia and Israel as it concerns holding Iran down. This is not necessarily a criticism of either Saudi Arabia or Israel aiming to accomplish this goal. Geopolitical competition is always about advantage and disadvantage and most view that game still as zero-sum. This has been especially so in the Middle East. In the world of Intelligence Studies, however, what matters most is gaining insight from information. And while that is possible when the information is impartial, it becomes nearly impossible when the information is flawed or misleading.
This is what will happen in the aftermath of the nuclear deal with Iran, as anyone who reads it will notice almost immediately that it is much more a temporary postponement rather than a permanent solution. What I find so distasteful is not how the interested parties are all now trying to cater and ‘manage’ the information to their own national agendas. To me, that is a basic definition of foreign affairs, albeit a somewhat callous and blunt one. No, what is distasteful is how the United States often fails to see itself being played by ‘allies’ while being adamantly watchful against such possibilities with ‘adversaries.’ The problem, of course, is that whether you are played by friend or foe you are still, in the end, simply PLAYED. And being played doesn’t usually end up in your own favor.A recent piece from Foreign Policy perfectly illustrates how this can be both openly evident and inexplicably not noticed: “The Russian and Iranian position is that the Security Council resolutions rested on the understanding that the arms embargo would be lifted once concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program were resolved. Provided that a deal is reached on Iran’s nuclear program, Russia and Iran thus argue, the arms embargo loses its legal justification. The current U.S. position, however, may be less interested in maintaining coherence with past policy than it is with ensuring that it mitigates regional allies’ concern as much as possible as part of a nuclear deal with Iran. Understandably, U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration fears that undoing the arms embargo on Iran would be a step too far for some of the United States’ key regional allies, all of which — but particularly Saudi Arabia — threaten to undermine the administration’s case for a nuclear deal should they perceive their interests to dictate in favor of doing so.” (The Myth of the Iranian Military Giant, FP, July 10, 2015) [bold and italics mine]
The line emphasized in bold and italics is a nod to Israeli and Saudi concerns about Iran as a legitimate regional presence. It is not so much about military conquest or even regional defense hegemony, which is what the original Foreign Policy piece was trying to dismiss from the discussion table. Rather, it is acknowledgement of a very serious but more implicit reason: namely, Saudi Arabia and Israel never want to see a Middle East that has a globally-embraced or even slowlyintegrating Iran. In Israel’s case, it is an obvious reference to Iran’s so-called foreign policy goal to wipe the Jewish state off the map. No matter what changes happen within Iran, no matter what reforms or constraints or inroads made against the Guardian Council, Israel will never see Iran
other than the Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic, radical Shiite republic incapable of ever truly altering the political course set in 1979 by the Ayatollah (Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments today only bear witness to this). In Saudi Arabia’s case, it is the sometimes shrill Wahhabist concern over Shiite encroachment in the Gulf and any perceived challenge, no matter how remote, that Iran might make against the Ummah, the transnational Muslim community writ large. It is easy to forget the radical cleric community within Wahhabism is not exactly tame and docile compared to the radical cleric community within Shia Islam. We are, in essence, witnessing the battle between Gulf radical Islam versus Persian radical Islam for the ‘religious conscience’ of the region.
WWW.ModerndiploMaCy.eu the CaSpian proJeCt
It just depends on how important the friends are. And Israel and Saudi Arabia are banking on always being very good friends. This is the true Great Game of the Middle East that no one likes to talk about. It is a game of strategic doubletalk. What is potentially the most frustrating in this particular context is how the Great Game might in the end actually backfire on the long-term security of not just the Middle East region or the United States national security agenda but of the actual This is not, of course, the official diplomatic nuclear deal concluded today. line given from the Saudi royal family in terms of its priorities or agendas. But it is, Truly turning Iran, long-term, into a functionwithout question, a matter of ‘soul impor- ing member of the global community, not tance’ to the religious community within just with its benefits but with its responsibilSaudi Arabia. And the fact of the matter is ities and obligations, might be the only real that Saudi religious zealots do not take a plan that allows the Iranian people, longback seat to Iranian religious zealots as it studied and long-documented as perhaps concerns zealotry. America just chooses to the most democratically-knowledgeable and not draw its attention to that fact and the nu- democratically-aspiring people within the clear deal is not going to lessen this intense Muslim world, to finally reconstruct its own society in a manner that fundamentally rivalry in the least. changes the nature and the dynamic of the And thus, back to the original quote above. region. That possibility has only an inkling of What that piece fails to observe or conclude a chance if the present deal is not actively is just how long-term damaging such a posi- undermined, if the powers on the stage that tion is to the diplomatic and foreign policy crafted it work in the coming years to turn credibility of the United States. Put another, what was initially a temporary band-aid into more blunt, way: it is stating that America a full-on permanent brace. And that, quite honors or betrays its own policies not be- frankly, won’t happen if the two most imporcause of coherence or rationality or justice. tant countries that did not have their flags on But rather it arbitrarily alters course depend- the dais today in front of the cameras work ent upon present-day allegiances and the hard to ensure this temporary solution beneeds of those duly initiated into the ‘inner comes simply a confirmation of everyone’s American circle.’ What mitigating allies’ con- worst assumptions about Iran. Perhaps, in cerns truly means in this case is America may the end, that is exactly what Israel and Saudi ultimately betray its promises and principles Arabia want the most. They don’t want on stage today for other promises made to change. They want affirmation. Sometimes status quo has its seduction. friends tomorrow.
The 10 mosT impoRTanT Things you need To know on Caspian sea Region
the caspian daily newsletter Receive your daily roundup of Caspian Region news and analysis from sources around the globe
#CaspianDaily
KHORASAN WHERE DAESH, CASPIAN ENERgY AND gREAT POWER POLITICS MEET
ThE word on ThE sTrEET in afghanisTan is that the United States created DAESH to be a problem for Russia, China, and Iran. While it would not be the first time the US funded, trained, or invented militarized extremism in the name of great power politics, the whole truth of this statement is far-fetched.
Evan ThomsEn Evan Thomsen is a graduate of the International Security and Intelligence Studies Program at Bellevue University in Omaha, NE and is currently a Master’s student at the worldrenown Elliott School of International Affairs at The George Washington University in Washington, DC.
What it suggests is that sometime prior to the US invasion of Iraq a few individuals planned a series of intricate political and geostrategic moves that would create conditions hospitable for a group that was brutal and effective, whose geographic ambitions were oriented toward challenging America on the world stage. While I reject this narrative there is a small nugget of truth in this conspiracy: DAESH is a bigger problem for Russia, China, and Iran and the US is strategically aware of it. First, take US political will in the fight against DAESH. The US is politically exhausted after more than a decade of war. Domestically, we have rising racial tension, an uneasy economic outlook, and the coming marathon of an 18-month election campaign. Internationally, we face an irritated Russia, an ascendant China, and the ongoing drama of the Iranian nuclear deal. Without an attack on US soil, DAESH is quite frankly off the local ballot and a footnote on the US National Security Council’s agenda.
This perspective sheds light on many apparent political faux pas in recent months - namely the no complete strategy and public bewilderment of US Generals. In these moments where the veil seems to be pulled off, and a very human face is put on the most powerful military and intelligence community in the world, one is forced to surmise whether this is not some part of a deeper strategy within oldschool great power politics. Instead of getting lost in the noise of poor US leadership, our attention should be focused on why the decisions are being made, because these decisions form the front lines of a new geopolitical battleground: Khorasan. Khorasan is a region that encompasses much of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Iran. To DAESH, Khorasan represents the first battleground of its end-of-days scenario. To regional powers, Khorasan represents the future of energy.
WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT
TO DAESH, KHORASAN REPRESENTS THE fIRST bATTLEgROUND Of ITS END-Of-DAYS SCENARIO. TO REgIONAL POWERS, KHORASAN REPRESENTS THE fUTURE Of ENERgY The recent history of the region has seen an increase in economic brinksmanship as energy sources, namely oil and natural gas, have been uncovered. Russia and Iran, due to their history of control and geographic proximity, have had relative carte blanche access, what with their largest competitors being each other. The past decade has seen this bipolarity shaken as Chinese, European, and American ambitions have sought to develop their own share of a quickly-increasing resource pie. While China has been able to develop their own transnational energy infrastructure with little regional backlash, Western development has come at both high fiscal and political costs. The conditions in recent months are a Europe that is still significantly dependent upon Russian energy, an Iranian economy that has basically withstood US sanctions, and a China that is growing more confident in its energy outlook. One way to counteract this reality is to flood the market with new energy resources. Another way is to destabilize the region. To turn again to US strategy, I offer three thought experiments. First, under the auspices of a Russia that has shown increasing
willingness to flex its military and subversive might in pursuit of its economic interests, the US faces two dialectical choices on the posture or submit scale. Either the US can try to constrain NATO expansion in order to give Russia space on its periphery and look to balance European trade and energy dependence between the two nations or the US can try to increase NATO presence through security commitments and public displays of force, seeking to undermine the Russian regional energy hegemony. We have already seen the public march of NATO throughout Europe. We are in the midst of developing a simultaneously overt and covert strategy of economic and energy subversion. It seems likely such a strategy would seek to align military and economic power rather than detach them. Second, consider Iranian negotiations: Iran has largely been in the driving seat, particularly as sanctions have fallen far short of crippling its economy. The scales seemed to have shifted as the US has shown increasing willingness to walk away from negotiations in order to secure a better deal. While the recent agreement is far from complete, I argue its timing is more a product of Iran’s desire for expediency. Because as the threat of DAESH grows in the region, Iranian economic stability and its own national security will at least be perceived at the local level to decrease. Therefore Iran has much more to risk in continued negotiations. This concern is also evident in Iran’s continued support for the Assad regime. As DAESH celebrates its one-year anniversary, Iranian support for Assad is less about power projection and more about power protection.
Third, as China expands its strategic reach, it becomes increasingly aware of its future resource needs. In an act of foresight, and arguably to some extent anticipatory fear, China is developing resources around the world from food to metals to energy. A piece in their South-South development strategy is Caspian energy. In acts that can be described as a calculated risk, the Chinese have spent billions on developing energy infrastructure across what is increasingly becoming one of the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world. Whether this venture is designed to enhance China’s strategic depth or to be a bulwark against economic contraction, the US has a geopolitical interest in acting as at least a partial impediment.
War is not just politics but economics by another means. The Caspian region, or Khorasan, is now playing host to a Gordian knot of great power politics and economics. DAESH is a dialectical challenge for the United States, existing both as a US foreign policy failure in the present and presenting a unique strategic opportunity in the near future. While drone strikes will undoubtedly continue, the current strategic landscape will have to change for a serious Western-led intervention to occur. I expect that as DAESH looks to Khorasan the US will look the other way. Only time will tell whether this turn-theother-geopolitical-cheek strategy ends up harmless or causing great harm.
WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT
FOOD POWER
Last March, as Russia annexed Crimea, the European Union, Canada and the United States imposed sanctions – travel bans and asset freezes against some of the Russian and Ukrainian officials.
Although the sanctions targeted the people from president Putin’s “inner circle”, he was given the green light to further conduct of the aggressive politics in Ukraine – the West condemned Russia but rather cautiously. The Russians sprang forward to protect their embezzlers cursing Merkel and Obama for Russophobia.
NiNa LavreNteva Russia Editor
Nina Lavrenteva is finishing her Master studies in “History of international relations and integration processes: cross-border cooperation” at the Institute of Political Studies, the University of Strasbourg.
The tragedy of MH-17 became the next turning point of the Russia’s relations with the West. The Western powers introduced new sanctions – this time against more of the Russian politicians and businessmen, as well as major banks and energy companies. Many countries cancelled official visits, cut the ongoing and scheduled programs of military, economic and cultural cooperation, and stopped the supplies of arms and dual-use goods. Putin, in his style, reacted promptly and without too much thinking of the consequences – foodstuffs from the EU, Norway, the US, Canada and Australia were banned. The food embargo was advertised so well that people actually believed that they can do well without products they used to have for years just because Russia had to “answer” to the sanctions.
However, the joy of revenge did not last long. The food embargo became a problem not only for Western producers but for Russians as well. Putin used his “food power” – he hit the sector where any changes are immediately visible, especially if market is not ready for an adequate response to the new challenges. Despite the severe economic crisis and tense relations with the West, the President's rating has strengthened. Does it mean that Putin’s food policy is justified? in europe As the Russian government panned, European manufacturers are suffering huge losses because of the food embargo. Farmers from Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and the Netherlands – the Russia’s biggest food exporters - have lost hundreds of millions of euro in the last year. Many European producers had to find new ways to attract the attention of local customers. Poland, for example, launched a campaign «An apple a day keeps Putin away».
WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT
THOSE WHO OPPOSE SANCTIONS AgAINST RUSSIA ENJOY PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FROM THE KREMLIN
Some of the farmers who used to export large amounts of their products to Russia focused on the new non-European markets. Also, the EU offered a partial compensation from the funds under the Common Agricultural Policy to those countries who have suffered the most due to the Russian embargo. Europe stays divided over the sanctions. The Russian government undoubtedly knows how to use the situation. Those who oppose sanctions against Russia enjoy preferential treatment from the Kremlin. For example, it has recently announced the possibility of revision of the embargo conditions for Hungary, Cyprus and Greece. For Greece Russia is the major agricultural importer– half of its stone fruit harvest was sold to Russians before the introduction of the food ban. Together with the pressures of economic crisis Greece felt quite a strong effect from the embargo. The ambitious Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has found a reliable and powerful partner – during their meeting Putin expressed support for Greece, as “the countries have spiritual relationship”. The Russian government claims that it may lift the food embargo for the Greeks.
At the same time, the food power has become a part of the Russian “hybrid war” against Ukraine. Last year Russia banned the imports of Ukrainian meat, dairy products, fruits and vegetables. Over the first quarter of 2015 the Ukrainian export to Russia has reduced by 60 percent. Russia used to be the largest buyer for the Ukrainians. They now have to redirect their production to the highly-competitive European markets. in russia Russian economy barely copes with the high inflation rates and capital outflows. Putin has challenged it even more – neither Russian producers nor customers were ready for the food ban. Russia remains heavily dependent on foreign products – it is the world’s fifth largest agricultural importer. In 2013, it bought foodstuffs worth 33 billion euro. Immediately after the western food was embargoed, consumer prices considerably increased. This caused a big confusion on the market – prices on both domestic and imported products were artificially raised. Stores have changed price tags every few days. But most of all the embargo affects northern regions of Russia. They are completely dependent on the imports of essential products – severe climate makes it impossible to grow crops and farm. Prices in these regions have jumped up to 60 percent on some products. In 2014, ruble has depreciated by 40 percent. The food embargo introduced as a response to Western sanctions, has made a significant contribution to increasing of inflation and worsening of the social situation in Russia.
The inflation rate for last year came to 16 percent, food prices rose by an average of 30 percent. Now, even if the most critical moment has passed, both Western sanctions and Russian counter-measures resulted in heavy economic losses and put pressure on social spending. The so-called "poverty level" increased - according to the latest oďŹƒcial data, today about 23 million Russians fall below the poverty line. The purchasing power of citizens in Russia has lowered as well. According to the recent social surveys two thirds of Russians consume fewer products and food of a lower quality. Both federal and regional authorities have decided to "save" their budgets reducing expenses on the important sectors of the economy.
For example, the government carried out the scandalous health care reform, which resulted in thousands of medical personnel unemployed. Also, part of pensions funds was spent on subsidies for Crimea, while military expenditure increased. Russian authorities claim that food embargo favors the country’s agriculture development. A number of projects for import substitution have been announced. Indeed, in theory, it should stimulate the local producers and lower the prices. However, today Russian market does not have the necessary capacity to fully replace imported products. Import substitution will take at least 3-4 years, experts say.
WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT
It is often difficult even to start a production - Russia imports not only end products but also technologies and means of production, such as seeds and fry. The lack of competitive environment is not the only problem - the quality of the domestic products aimed to replace the western foodstuffs lags far behind European standards. For instance, Russian "mozzarella" and "camembert" that appeared in stores leaves much to be desired. Plus, the mandatory product certification was abolished in 2010, thus allowing low-quality products to freely enter the market. For the majority of Russians it was quite hard to give up European and American food. After the introduction of the embargo market was flooded with contraband products. French cheeses from Kazakhstan and Norwegian salmon from Belarus are sold in stores and restaurants. As a result, those countries, enjoying the privilege of the free economic zone, made some money on supplying Russians with European products. Residents of the western regions of Russia began to massively buy European products in Finland and the Baltic States.
the russian paradox Three weeks ago, the EU foreign ministers decided to extend economic sanctions against Russia. The next day after the announcement Putin signed a decree on the “full” food embargo for one more year. This time the wider range of products is banned, for example, lactose-free milk. The Russian authorities also claim to consider the possibility to introduce other restrictions - such as ban of transit flights of the European and American airlines. Kremlin is winning the information war – first of all in the eyes of the Russians. The country’s authorities were able not only to convince people to eat less but also to believe that it is the West to blame. According to the recent opinion polls, 87% of the population support the extension of the western food ban. Another interesting fact – there are more people believing that the embargo has significantly affected the economy of Western countries than those who think it contributes in development of the domestic agriculture. Here is the Russian paradox. We are happy to create inconvenience to others, even if it causes us to suffer.
BAkU 9TH ANNUAL SUMMER ENERgY SCHOOL Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov delivered a lecture at the Baku 9th Annual Summer Energy School organized by ADA University. Elmar Mammadyarov briefed the participants about the achievements of Azerbaijan in political, economic, social and other spheres particularly gained within the last ten years, the priorities of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, relations with the international community on bilateral and multilateral frameworks, the aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan and the occupation of Azerbaijan’s 20 percent territories, the negotiation process mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs. Elmar Mammadyarov stressed that the presence of Armenian armed forces in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan remains the major obstacle in the settlement of the conflict. He said that for the resolution of the conflict, first and foremost, the armed forces of Armenia has to be withdrawn from the all occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Adding that the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security demand immediate, unconditional and full withdrawal of occupying forces from all occupied territories of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov noted that this position is also supported by the documents of other international organizations, including OSCE, OIC, CoE, NonAligned Movement and others. Furthermore, he underlined that Armenia as an occupying power was also recognized by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on Chiragov and others versus Armenia case.
Speaking about the transport and energy strategy of Azerbaijan, Elmar Mammadyarov emphasized the importance of Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway and TANAP and TAP gas pipeline projects. In the meantime, he pointed out Azerbaijan’s contribution to the global process of dialogue of cultures and civilizations based on the rich national experience. At the lecture Minister Elmar Mammadyarov responded to the multiple questions of course participants.
WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT
iRan deal
judgments based on the language of the public jcpoa
ThE JoinT CoMprEhEnsivE plan of aCTion (JCPOA) - the title of the nuclear agreement between Iran and six powers, among which the United States - presents a few obvious points have been missed in most news coverage of this plan of action.
ElEna M. Intelligence Analyst
First, the agreement is not a non-proliferation agreement. It is an agreement that approves limited proliferation of nuclear technology. This characterization means that the US and others states surrendered or abandoned their longstanding position of banning any Iranian nuclear program, peaceful or not. It also is not a nuclear containment agreement. At most, it postpones some aspects of Iranian nuclear infrastructure development. In other areas, Iran can continue to develop and modernize to keep up with technology. At the end of 15 years at most, Iran has no more restrictions on its nuclear program, with the approval of the UN and the other powers, by implication. This compromise of the longstanding programmatic ban for Iran is curious because that remains the US objective for North Korea. The US insists that North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, must dismantle its nuclear program, not just its weapons program. That is the premise of the Six Party Talks.
The dierence in the negotiating positions is even stranger because the Iranian and North Korean weapons programs appear to be essentially variants of the same program. The North Korean variant is more advanced. Nevertheless, North Korea has assisted Iran’s ballistic missile programs since the IraqIran War. Iranians have been reported as observers at North Korean missile and nuclear tests. The cooperation continues as does the North Korean program. The second point is that it is a very one-sided deal. It lacks mutuality. By an overwhelming margin the burden of performance is on the UN, the European Union and the US. Its economic implications far exceed its nuclear restrictions. From the Iranian viewpoint, the JCPOA is primarily an economic agreement. In return for some reduction in the Iranian nuclear programs, the UN and the US will remove the entire architecture of sanctions imposed by any party on any Iranian party.
WWW.modeRndiplomacY.eu the caspian pRoject
the jcpoa Will empoWeR iRan economicallY and that Will shift the balance of poWeR in the Region, RegaRdless of the nucleaR pRogRam In addition, they will allow Iran to buy and sell conventional weapons and they will help Iran get access to trade, technology, finance and energy. According to the text, this is one paragraph in which Iran “agreed” to the actions by the UN and the US. One of the implications of this is that Iran stands to emerge quickly as a regional economic power. Using Germany as a model, that condition is far more enduring and consequential than a delayed nuclear program. Once Iran’s economy starts to rebound, it will be free from the threat of sanctions to ensure compliance. There is no credible enforcement mechanism. A third point is that the text is a plan of action, as it is entitled. Significant by their absence in the text are the words “promise” and “agree” which are the cornerstones of enforceable agreements. The text uses the formulation that the parties “will” do things. Those could all be done independently or not. There is no bargain evident. An enforceable agreement is an exchange of promises of performance. A plan of action implements those promises. The performance of one party is conditioned on the performance by the other party, by the language of the agreement. The terms of the JCPOA are independent.
This plan of action implements no agreement because no such document exists. An agreement can be implied from the language of the plan, but the language must establish a “meeting of the minds.” Fourth, a strong argument can be made that there is “no meeting of the minds,” a classic term of contract law that is the basis for every agreement. The awkwardness of the structure makes clear that the intentions of the parties are not congruent and the goals are even farther apart. Fifth, the JCPOA text contains no definition of terms, such as explanations for the various time terms. A plan of action requires some agreed definitions of terms. One plausible theory for a ten year time period, for example, is that Iranian strategists might have concluded that Iran faces no existential threat for at least a decade, as long as Iran did not provoke a regional nuclear arms race. They also might have judged that after ten years Iran must be prepared for an even more uncertain strategic environment than the present. If this theory is accurate, Iran gave up little in return for a chance to be the regional economic hegemon. The emergence of an economically powerful Iran would alter strategic power relationships. Finally, the six powers did not include a term requiring Iran to affirm or promise that it possesses or has access to no nuclear weapons now, in Iran or elsewhere. That seems to be a significant omission in crafting. If Iran already has nuclear weapons, the JCPOA would be a strategic victory for Iran. Assuming Iran abides by the JCPOA to the letter, the JCPOA will empower Iran economically and that will shift the balance of power in the region, regardless of the nuclear program. The Iranians do well to celebrate.
BRICS THE STRATEgIC ROAD MAP after three days of high-level summitry deliberations, the BRICS group of countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), created by the five world’s leading emerging markets, have laid the strategic "road map" that will tackle challenging development and infrastructure projects, and will seek close economic cooperation under the plan termed "the Strategy of Economic Partnership" that will run till 2020.
Kester Kenn Klomegah Kester Kenn Klomegah is an independent researcher and writer on African affairs in the EurAsian region and former Soviet republics.
The Strategy of Economic Partnership identifies priority areas of BRICS cooperation - in such sectors as power, manufacturing, mining, agribusiness, and innovative technologies and many others, according the summit documents. It is aimed at expanding multilateral business cooperation with the goal of stepping up social and economic development and increasing the competitiveness of BRICS countries in the global economy. Besides, a range of other documents were signed with the presence of the leaders, including the memorandum on mutual understanding between foreign policy agencies of the BRICS countries on creating a joint Internet website — a virtual secretariat of the group. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who is Russia’s Sherpa at BRICS, told the summit that "BRICS is coming of age, and this maturity process is getting deeper and more oriented at practical results and, consequently, at coordination,"
and pointed out that the Strategy of Economic Partnership was one of the summit’s finest achievements in addition to the creation of the BRICS New Development Bank. President Vladimir Putin expects that the New Development Bank, will implement its first projects in 2016. "The new bank with a capital of $100 billion will carry out large-scale development projects in the countries of our association. We expect the first of them to be launched already next year," Putin said at an enlarged meeting of the BRICS leaders. Companies from BRICS member states "are ready to establish joint ventures, build up mutual investment and commodity flows," the Russian president said.
WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT
Industrial development The Ufa Declaration points to the industrial development as the key source of growth for the group: "We recognize that industrial development is a fundamental source of growth for the BRICS countries, which possess ample natural resources and significant labor, intellectual and technical capacities. Increasing production and export of high value-added goods will help BRICS countries enhance their national economies, contribute to their participation in global value chains and improve their competitiveness," the declaration said. "In this connection, we reaďŹƒrm the unique mandate of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) to promote and accelerate inclusive and sustainable industrial development," the declaration said. "We are convinced about the importance of economic growth based on the balanced development of all economic sectors and on the development and introduction of advanced technologies and innovations, the mobilization of resources from financial institutions and the encouragement of private investment," it said. "In this context, we note the potential to boost collaboration in developing technology and innovation in the potential sectors of BRICS economies, such as mining and metal industry, pharmaceuticals, information technology, chemicals and petrochemicals, both in the area of exploration and extraction of natural resources and in their processing, transformation and use, including through the promotion of a favourable investment climate and the implementation of mutually beneficial joint projects," the document said.
"We stress the importance of intensifying cooperation of industrial production capabilities, establishing industrial parks and clusters, technology parks and engineering centers with a view to developing and introducing cutting-edge technologies, providing training for engineering and technical personnel and managers," it said. "We highlight that encouraging investment in priority areas such as infrastructure, logistics and renewable sources of energy is a strategic goal for the sustainable growth of our economies. We reiterate our interest in joining eorts in order to face the challenge of competitiveness," the declaration said. "In this regard, the BRICS countries agree to collaborate for the promotion of investment opportunities in railways, roadways, seaports and airports among our countries," it said. national currencies "We acknowledge the potential for expanding the use of our national currencies in transactions between the BRICS countries," the document reads. "We ask the relevant authorities of the BRICS countries to continue discussion on the feasibility of a wider use of national currencies in mutual trade." BRICS countries have confirmed their adherence to developing international standards in tax sphere. "The BRICS countries reaďŹƒrm their commitment to participate in the development of international standards of international taxation and cooperation for countering the erosion of tax base and profit shifting, as well as to strengthen mechanisms for ensuring tax transparency and to exchange information for taxation purposes," the declaration says.
"We remain deeply concerned about the negative impact of tax evasion, harmful practices, and aggressive tax planning which cause erosion of tax base. Profits should be taxed where the economic activities driving the profits are performed and value is created." multilateral policy The final summit declaration seeks to strengthen multilateral approaches to global affairs. "We affirmed the need for comprehensive, transparent and efficient multilateral approaches to addressing global challenges, and in this regard underscored the central role of the United Nations in the ongoing efforts to find common solutions to such challenges," the BRICS leaders said in the declaration. "We expressed our intention to contribute to safeguarding a fair and equitable international order based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and to fully avail ourselves of the potential of the Organization as a forum for an open and honest debate as well as coordination of global politics in order to prevent war and conflicts and promote progress and development of humankind." "We recall the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document and reaffirm the need for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council with a view to making it more representative and efficient so that it could better respond to global challenges.
China and Russia reiterate the importance they attach to the status and role of Brazil, India and South Africa in international affairs and support their aspiration to play a greater role in the UN," the declaration reads. In April, Russia took over BRICS chairmanship, the 7th BRICS summit held in July 2015. Leaders of Russia, Brazil, India, China and South Africa (BRICS countries collectively represent about 26% of the world’s geographic area and are home to 42% of the world’s population) made the summit’s key topic "BRICS Partnership — a Powerful Factor in Global Development," the summit ended in Ufa, the capital of Russia's Volga republic of Bashkiria. WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT
The 10 mosT impoRTanT Things you need To know on Caspian sea Region
the caspian daily newsletter Receive your daily roundup of Caspian Region news and analysis from sources around the globe
#CaspianDaily