Tuesday, July 29, 2008
China, Russia Cooperation on Iran (and Turkey)?
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar's latest column over at the Asia Times suggests that Beijing and Moscow have handed a diplomatic setback to Iran by refusing to consider Tehran's wish for closer links to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, including the possibility of actual membership.
So, instead of being brought within the embrace of the emerging Eurasian security organization, Iran still remains isolated. As the ambassador notes, "Since such issues are invariably decided within the SCO on the basis of a consensus between Russia and China, it stands to reason that either Russia didn't press Iran's membership case or China disfavored the idea. On balance, it seems to be a combination of both. Conceivably, Moscow didn't press after informally ascertaining Beijing's lukewarm attitude. Tajikistan, which hosts the SCO summit in August, has openly favored Iran's membership. If the two Big Brothers had given the green signal, Tajikistan would have asked Iran to come in from the cold. No doubt, Tehran, which openly canvassed for SCO membership, has suffered a diplomatic setback."
For many Americans--including presidential hopeful Senator John McCain--this might not seem like much at all--but it is significant, in that it shows the limits to which states like China and Russia are prepared to shield Iran from Western pressure--and I see this as a positive.
Also of interest in this column--the assertion that Turkey may be serving as Iran's new interlocutor with the West--and that this is alongside Ankara's efforts to broker talks between Israel and Syria. The ambassador notes that, despite harsh U.S. rhetoric about Iran's role in southern and central Iraq, "the US has largely looked away from Turkey-Iran cooperation in stabilizing northern Iraq." He also suggests that a Turkish opening to Iran might also serve the purpose of revitalizing the stalled Nabucco project. In turn, Iran might assist Turkey in its contentious relations with Armenia.
Bhadrakamur concludes:
"Washington will not throw a spanner into the Iranian attempt to mediate the easing of tensions in Turkey-Armenia relations or in bringing Armenia and Azerbaijan to a path of dialogue and negotiations. Such Iranian efforts would even serve the interests of US regional policies in the Caucasus. Most important, Iran can be the key to the realization of the Nabucco gas pipeline project, which would go a long way in reducing Europe's energy dependence on Russia. Turkey, in turn, would be the transportation corridor for any Iranian gas to be pumped to Europe.
"All in all, therefore, a fascinating pattern of interlocking diplomatic moves is forming on the regional chessboard in which Turkey, Syria and Israel are already openly engaged as protagonists with Iran now appearing on the scene."
An interesting column, to say the least.
So, instead of being brought within the embrace of the emerging Eurasian security organization, Iran still remains isolated. As the ambassador notes, "Since such issues are invariably decided within the SCO on the basis of a consensus between Russia and China, it stands to reason that either Russia didn't press Iran's membership case or China disfavored the idea. On balance, it seems to be a combination of both. Conceivably, Moscow didn't press after informally ascertaining Beijing's lukewarm attitude. Tajikistan, which hosts the SCO summit in August, has openly favored Iran's membership. If the two Big Brothers had given the green signal, Tajikistan would have asked Iran to come in from the cold. No doubt, Tehran, which openly canvassed for SCO membership, has suffered a diplomatic setback."
For many Americans--including presidential hopeful Senator John McCain--this might not seem like much at all--but it is significant, in that it shows the limits to which states like China and Russia are prepared to shield Iran from Western pressure--and I see this as a positive.
Also of interest in this column--the assertion that Turkey may be serving as Iran's new interlocutor with the West--and that this is alongside Ankara's efforts to broker talks between Israel and Syria. The ambassador notes that, despite harsh U.S. rhetoric about Iran's role in southern and central Iraq, "the US has largely looked away from Turkey-Iran cooperation in stabilizing northern Iraq." He also suggests that a Turkish opening to Iran might also serve the purpose of revitalizing the stalled Nabucco project. In turn, Iran might assist Turkey in its contentious relations with Armenia.
Bhadrakamur concludes:
"Washington will not throw a spanner into the Iranian attempt to mediate the easing of tensions in Turkey-Armenia relations or in bringing Armenia and Azerbaijan to a path of dialogue and negotiations. Such Iranian efforts would even serve the interests of US regional policies in the Caucasus. Most important, Iran can be the key to the realization of the Nabucco gas pipeline project, which would go a long way in reducing Europe's energy dependence on Russia. Turkey, in turn, would be the transportation corridor for any Iranian gas to be pumped to Europe.
"All in all, therefore, a fascinating pattern of interlocking diplomatic moves is forming on the regional chessboard in which Turkey, Syria and Israel are already openly engaged as protagonists with Iran now appearing on the scene."
An interesting column, to say the least.
