Newsletter No. 186
February 7, 2006

 

The following report comes from J. Sean Curtin (Shingetsu Member No. 30). Curtin is a London-based journalist and scholar.

---

TEHRAN’S DIPLOMATIC PURGE HITS EUROPE AND JAPAN
By J. Sean Curtin

Last week, London was the focal point for global diplomacy on the Middle East with high-profile conferences and top-level meetings on Iran, Iraq, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan. One of the most noticeable aspects about the various gatherings was how negative European diplomats have become towards Iran in comparison to just three months ago. With Europe no longer acting as an effective counterbalance to Washington, Tokyo has also been forced to take a tougher line towards Tehran.

While increased American pressure is obviously the primary factor behind the European shift, I also believe another important element driving opinion is Tehran's current inability to coherently explain its position or even adequately defend itself in Europe. This situation has arisen basically because Tehran no longer has any effective representatives in key European capitals, a situation that has created a void which Washington's harsher rhetoric has filled.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disastrous decision last November to suddenly dismiss a string of Iran's most senior and experienced European ambassadors (UK, France, Germany, etc.) has virtually crippled its diplomatic efforts on the continent. Until the diplomatic shake-up the UK, France and Germany were in the forefront of international efforts to reach an understanding with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions. The purge has not only greatly hindered Tehran's ability to effectively present its case in Europe, but also appears to have produced a knock-on effect in Tokyo.

The loss of its London representative, Dr. Mohammed Hossein Adeli, has been especially felt as he was Tehran's most effective European diplomat and closely involved in the negotiations process over its nuclear programme. He was also an advocate for greater Japanese participation in Middle Eastern diplomacy. In diplomatic circles Dr Adeli was considered a leading member of Tehran's pragmatic foreign-policy wing which actively supported contacts with Europe and the wider world.

Dr Adeli was a former ambassador to Japan from 1988-94, and also a Japan expert, having studied the country's post-war reconstruction, which he proudly claimed gave him great inspiration. He also published academic research on the topic (Japan Postwar Reconstruction and Growth [1989]). He was fluent in English, being US-educated (PhD in Economics and PhD in Business Administration, California University) and was a brilliant media performer, capable of explaining Tehran's perspective to a western audience.

This link gives a glimpse of his style as well as a response to a question on Iran-Japan relations:

http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/eu_report/20050207_eureport_s120/index.html

Finally, below are some extracts from my notes on his exchange with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in October 2005, which was his last public appearance in London.

Dr. Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli: The Iraqi and the Iranian nations are the two nations that suffered the most from the brutalities and atrocities of Saddam Hussein. So, it is only natural that they would both benefit and be happy by the removal of Saddam and support the process of stabilization. It is on this basis that Iran has done whatever it can to assist the Iraqi stabilization process and do whatever it can in its capacity to support and help this process and the democratization in Iraq.

The democracy in Iran is not the same as that in Iraq, but in relative terms we welcome a democratic Iraq, and we are certainly not afraid of it.

I would like to ask you, there are lots of rumours and comments circulating aiming to erode the friendship between our two nations, both of which suffered terribly at the hands of Saddam. Who do you think these elements are that are against the warming of relations between Iran and Iraq? These elements would like to see the two nations driven apart, at odds with each other and estranged.

Secondly, I would like to ask you about the forthcoming referendum on the constitution. There have been calls from some neighbouring countries in the region that the Iraqi government and the terrorist insurgent people should try to bridge their differences. How do you view these kinds of calls or interventions? Are you positive and warm towards them? What are the connections here?

Jalal Talabani: Today Iran-Iraq relations are good. We were partners in fighting against Saddam's aggression. We suffered so much together, until God sent people to liberate Iraq for the ordinary people. One of our Imam's has said that God ordered Bush to liberate Iraq from the evil of Saddam. Both peoples cried so much because of the Saddam oppression.

When Iraq was liberated from the hands of the brutal dictator it was a great moment for both the Iraqi and Iranian people. The friendship of these two peoples is continuing. At the United Nations President Khatami and other Iranian leaders have welcomed us.

Of course, there are some people who are opposed to the improving relations between the two nations, they don't want to see ties deepening or a strong bilateral relationship, but their numbers are few.

There are some in the Arab world who say, "Any kind of strong relationship between Iran and Iraq will turn Iraq from an Arab nation into another Iran." That is simply not true. Iraq is an Arab state and a democracy and will remain so.

Good relations with Iran will not in anyway inhibit us from having good relations with other Arab countries…There are some Iraqi opposition leaders who say that we cannot have good relations with Iran and a special relationship with the United States. I believe we can have both and I also think we can have good relations with Arab states and Iran. You will not find any wise man who disagrees with this position.

Historically, geographically, Iran-Iraq relations are just not something we can neglect and we must cooperate.

As to your second question, terrorists like [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi and his followers have declared a war of annihilation on Shias and Kurds. They threaten and try to kill our people and officials and destroy our property and possessions. These people are very bad and are mostly made up of criminals who come from outside Iraq. They are the enemy of the Iraqi people. They want to continue with their war of annihilation and we will do our very best to eliminate them.

There are some Iraqis who are angered by mistakes that have been made, but these people we can talk to and bring them back into the democratic process in Iraq.

As for the Saddamists, there is another group it is impossible to have any kind of talks with, unless they lay down their arms and come back peacefully to the democratic process and accept the new situation. You know, the liberation of Iraq was a great shock for many of these people. For decades, the rulers did not represent the majority, suddenly the democratic elections ushered in a new group of people to run Iraq, mainly from the Shia and Kurdish peoples. This transition has not been accepted by everyone in the country or all people in the region. But they and everyone else must accept the new reality. It is not against any group and in the interests of everyone.

I think that those people who call for reconciliation with all the terrorist groups are not the friends of the Iraqi people. By the way, I haven't heard any country say we should do that, even those countries that are now in Iraq helping the Iraqi people like the British and the Americans, neither of these nations has said we should have any form of reconciliation with the Zarqawi terrorists or the Saddamists, or any terror group. They want to isolate these people and bring the overwhelming majority of Sunni Arabs into the democratic process, so they can share in power. This is something the vast majority are accepting.

The above comments were made at Chatham House (Royal Institute for International Affairs) in London on 6 October 2005.