As translated into English:
Discussion
Mark Fitzpatrick, Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation, IISS
Minister Mottaki, thank you very much for your lucid presentation. As Sheikh Khalid referred to, there is a great deal of concern about the direction in which the crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme is moving, a crisis exacerbated by recent statements about an expansion of facilities and so forth. Two months ago, there was much more optimism when parties met in Geneva, including for the first time, a bilateral meeting between the United States and Iran. After that Geneva meeting, the IAEA put a proposal to the parties on a way to build confidence over the exchange of low enriched uranium for fuel for the Tehran research reactor. Russia, France, the United States all responded positively to the IAEA proposal, but the IAEA has not received an answer yet from Iran. My question is, why has Iran not responded to the IAEA and can the world take your own speech recently in Malaysia as a negative answer to the IAEA’s confidence building proposal, and if so, does Iran have a counter-proposal to make that would bring us away from this path of confrontation that the world seems to be on with Iran over its nuclear programme?
Dr Mansoor Al Arayedh, Chairman, Gulf Council for Foreign Relations
My question is also for Mr Mottaki. Given the importance of regional security in the Gulf, as both speakers have highlighted, how does His Excellency Mottaki see the concerns of the breakout clause within the Iranian nuclear programme unfold, because this seems to be the key of all security issues, with regards to nuclear proliferation within the area?
Professor François Heisbourg, Chairman, IISS
Thank you, my question is to Sheikh Khalid, who I wish to thank for an extremely thoughtful and comprehensive speech. The question is also about the Iranian nuclear problem. After the IAEA resolution a few days ago, and in the absence of any progress in the discussions with Iran by the end of December, the Security Council will most likely be considering new and severe sanctions vis à vis Iran. Sheikh Khalid, I would want to hear what your views on that prospect are, and what, in your view, and from the standpoint of the GCC countries, the Security Council should or should not be doing in respect of new sanctions.
Dr Dana Allin, Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Affairs; Editor, Survival
My question is also to Foreign Minister Mottaki. First, I want to thank you for coming to Manama to speak to us. In your speech, you devoted much of your address to the plight of the Palestinians and said that countries of the region need to be united to help them. I just would make a couple of observations about that. Firstly, opinion surveys have consistently shown that a majority of Palestinians favour a peace solution based on two states, with Palestine and Israel living side by side. Secondly, the member states of the Arab League have put forth a peace plan based on this concept of a two state solution. Thirdly, the international community including the United States, Russia, and other members of the Security Council are united in favour of this goal. There was a time in the not too distant past, when one could hear officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran saying that Iran cannot be more Palestinian than the Palestinians, and so my question to you is, since you speak of support for the Palestinians, if there could be a two-state solution, favoured by a majority of Palestinians, would Iran support them in this?
Professor Dr Volker Perthes, Director, German Institute for International and Security Affairs
Minister Mottaki, I was very impressed by your speech, but I have two questions where I would like to elaborate a little bit more. One is, realising that Iran is actually becoming, or has become, the leading power in the Persian Gulf region, there are also fears among regional countries that Iran could become a hegemon, but not a benign hegemon. Rather, a hegemon that uses its power and its influence to create trouble and not building trust. My first question is, would you agree that given the very much internationalised nature of this region, the main step to building trust would not be offering cultural cooperation to other countries here, but rather to make an acceptable agreement with the international community, the IAEA, the Security Council powers, of 5+1, about the nuclear programme. That would probably reflect on trust even between you and your neighbours.
My second question is, Sheikh Khalid very much said what his main national and regional concern is: namely, as he said, a confrontation between Israel and Iran. Would you share his concern that that is a main risk, the main danger for the region, and what do you think you, Iran, as a major power in the region, should do about that?
Manouchehr Mottaki
[Farsi: In the Name of God.
I would like to thank you for your attention to the issues pointed out by me and my brother Sheikh Khalid. I would also like to thank the Chairman of the meeting and the questions put forth. Mr Chipman divided the questions into three distinct categories. A portion of the questions were about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme and the latest developments in this field. The issue is completely clear. The first nuclear contract was signed between Iran and the United States in 1957. This led to the creation of the Tehran nuclear reactor. Consequently, in collaboration with France and Germany, the Bushehr nuclear power plant began its operation with the purpose of providing part of the country’s fuel through nuclear energy. This all points to the fact that the West, namely the United States, France, Germany and others supported Iran’s move towards producing nuclear energy. We continued this same path after the Revolution. The Germans abandoned Bushehr. We searched for someone who could finish Bushehr.
The Islamic Legislative Assembly ruled the government’s obligation towards producing 20,000 megawatts of the country’s power through nuclear power plants and the government began working on plans for installing these power plants. And now I announce to all the nations participating in this gathering: we need at least 10 to 15 power plants to generate electricity in our country. That which was mentioned was the method of providing the fuel for these power plants which comes with a heavy price tag. Allow me to plainly point out to my fellow participants in this gathering; we have signed many contracts with Western countries in various fields in the past two hundred years. We were faithful to our obligations, but unfortunately, the Western countries were not faithful to theirs.
The nation of Iran was put under pressure, solely for wanting to become self-sufficient in producing its own nuclear fuel. We have a saying in Arabic and Persian, that ‘the wise one does not get stung from the same spot twice’. We were stung many times. Unfortunately, the history of our exchange with some countries has been an unpleasant experience for our nation. Thus, we have decided to produce our own fuel. There are conditions which have led some to believe that only they have the right to access better technologies for themselves. Who has decreed that the production and storage of fuel for peaceful nuclear purposes must be monopolized by certain countries? All international regulations uphold the contrary. Therefore, just like any other member of the NPT and the Agency, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for its peaceful nuclear purposes and has duly done so. They thought we could not, but our nation proved that we can.
They mentioned that Iran is pursuing the production of nuclear weapons. Let us make this clear and simple, Iran does not believe in producing a nuclear weapon, nor does this issue exist in its doctrine. We strongly believe that the era of nuclear weapons is over. If nuclear weapons were capable of solving problems, they would have done so, especially within the past 10 to 15 years, in problematic regions where most of the time one of the parties involved was in possession a nuclear weapon. We believe that a nuclear weapon has no use other than destruction. They say that Russia is capable of annihilating the earth many times with its nuclear arsenal, and America can do so, several times more; this is not something to be proud of. Neither do we do believe in nuclear weapons, nor are they part of our programme.
Well, someone has to investigate and question if Iran’s path of nuclear activities is peaceful or not. We said, very well! Let them come. It is now for several years that we have done everything they asked for. They said activities must be suspended. We asked, how long? They said we will announce the time. Two months, six months, one year, two years, more than two years. They first did not tell us, we do not want you to perform enrichment. They said you want to produce weapons. We said, you can investigate. It was suspended for more than two years. After two years, in 2005, they came and said, we have a package for you. I suggest my friends to read this package again. It contained everything other than the nuclear issue and enrichment and energy production by Iran.
Enrichment is Iran’s right. No specific country owes us that. Recently the Americans themselves have announced that they accept Iran’s right. Well, if you all agree, then let us sit and talk about the realisation of this right. We opened the path for you. The Tehran reactor needed fuel. The Americans themselves provided the first fuels for this reactor. Was it not so?
We needed fuel again in 1994 so we bought some from Argentina. They came and said that for the new round of fuel provisions, low-enrichment fuel will be handed over and 20% enriched fuel will be provided. You and I know what is behind this suggestion. One of our friends presently asked about the issue of building confidence. Very well! But we regarded this as a means of delivery from the unfair conditions they had created for us. We thought accepting the fuel exchange would be a way out of this.
It has been some time that they say that Iran has not replied. Why has Iran not replied? In the beginning, we accepted the generality of this proposal. But what happened? Immediately, you said in your media that we will take 1,200 kilograms of 3.5% enriched fuel away from Iran so that Iran will fall short of making a bomb. Please pay attention to this language! Iran wanted to help you. When you created this atmosphere and spread this propaganda, this created the assumption in the Iranian public minds that the aim is not fuel exchange. The aim is not providing fuel for the Tehran reactor which is used for medicinal and humane purposes. The drugs that are made by this reactor in Iran are drugs that sometimes need to reach the patient in the hospital within one hour. This means it is impossible to expedite them by air from another country. They are a very special kind of medicine. And now you’ve mixed this issue into a political conflict.
When you spread propaganda about your intention of seizing 1,200 kilograms of fuel from the hands of Iran, what kind of reaction did you think you would receive? There are two ways: one way is to deny the whole matter, or propose the middle path. We proposed the middle path. Those who are present at the moment and have received our middle path are aware of it, but why do they refuse to announce it? Why do they announce that Iran has not replied? Very well! We announced that we would perform this exchange in several stages. We will transfer 400 kilograms of 3.5% enriched uranium to Kish Island. Import 20% of that, which is equal to 40 kilograms or whatever the experts consider it is, and exchange it in Kish. Is this not an answer? Why do pretend like you do not know what it happening? Why do you spread this propaganda in the public minds? The answer is very clear. You ask why we gave this proposal. Because we wanted to be sure you were not playing political games. Therefore, our clear reply is there. Announce that we will transfer 400 kilograms to Kish. You bring the 20% equivalent; an issue which was announced to the mass media by Mr Ahmadinejad in his recent trip to Brazil. Iran’s position is very transparent and clear.]
John Chipman
I am sure, especially given you have clarified your position, that there may be further questions on it, so if you could perhaps answer the question on your attitude to the Palestinian situation; if the majority of Palestinians were to agree to a two-state solution, would the Islamic Republic of Iran support the Palestinians in that decision?
Manouchehr Mottaki
[Farsi: Our stance on Palestine is principal and fundamental. But what happens in reality? In reality, you are dealing with a regime whose actions show that it is still following the politics of ‘from the Euphrates to the Nile’. For this reason it plays games. The Arab countries proposed the plan known as the Arab Initiative. The honourable King of Saudi Arabia and the heads of Arab countries, this plan and initiative has three main points. The return of the refugees, the borders of 1967, Bait al-Muqaddas (Jerusalem) as the capital.
The West Bank Barrier has completely violated the 1967 borders. The return of refugees to their motherland was not accepted. They announced that they do not agree with Bait al-Muqaddas either. Then on what issue do we want to talk about? What are we talking about? What are the realities of the situation? We infer that more than one hundred plans, resolutions and various paths and initiatives were mentioned regarding the issue of Palestine in the past that have not been executed. There are two reasons for this: they are incomprehensive and fail to include all of Palestinians’ rights from one aspect, the other aspect is the occupational and expansionist behaviour of Zionist Regime
Of course, there is a long way to reach the Islamic Republic’s stance, which is a fundamental path for the Middle East issue. But how much of the realities have been realised? What were you after in Annapolis? Is it not the fact that Annapolis had only one purpose which you were after, and that was proclaiming this regime as Jewish? Currently, all of the pressure on the new administration in the US is because of the previous policies in the Middle East. As a country in the Middle East, as people who know this region, we proclaim that this equation is not solved with the formulas proposed. You have constantly used these formulas. Well! Solve the equation. How can you solve it?]
Dr John Chipman
The question to Sheikh Khalid was: given that the march of diplomacy continues, what would be your reaction and that of the GCC to the prospect of sanctions against Iran issued by the UN Security Council? I am sure there are many people in the audience interested in this subject. As Minister Mottaki must be aware, prospective sanctions have also been tabled to the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States that would place sanctions against companies that sell refined product to the Islamic Republic of Iran. That would have a different sort of commercial impact, particularly to those companies that might be dissuaded from selling refined product to the Islamic Republic of Iran by the threat that they would be unable to operate commercially in the US. There is the UN set of sanctions, and also those being contemplated in the US. Sanctions might also issue from certain EU countries. Sheikh Khalid, what is your reply to that basket of diplomatic possibilities?
Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Bin Mohamed Al Khalifa
When we talk about sanctions, we talk in a very easy manner, but fail to realise who would suffer from those sanctions. The people of Iran have difficult enough lives. They should not have to endure more sanctions, which would cripple their economy and make their lives more difficult. If such a situation as sanctions against Iran were to occur, who would be to blame? Let me add to that question: why did talks between the P5 + 1 countries and Iran fail? I think one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, was that countries of the region were not involved in those talks. We have tried to be involved in those talks many times, so we can help and show our concerns. The talks were between the international community on one side, and the country they thought was a threat, in this case Iran, on the other. Other countries are fearful of whatever is happening, when they are not being consulted or involved.
We met with the P5 + 1 in New York. That was a very short discussion. We met in Sharm-el-Sheikh; we heard a two‑minute discourse from Mr Solana, but nothing else. If there is a talk to solve this issue, we would like to voice our concerns. If there is a talk about the region but the region is not present in that room, somebody is talking behind our backs. Somebody is trying to do business when we are not present in that room. This is wrong; this is a fundamental mistake to how these talks were conducted. That is the main reason why the talks failed. To move from a wrong system of talks to impose sanctions on the people of Iran is not fair. We should give this another chance and redo the talks with involvement from the region. If we do that, we will be on solider ground.
Mikhail Margelov, Chairman, Committee for Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation Council; Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation on Sudan
May I first of all thank both Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed and Minister Manouchehr Mottaki for comprehensive presentations on the issues they wanted to cover? There is one geographical problem, on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, which was mentioned by neither Minister Mottaki nor Sheikh Khalid. One of the most problematic and largest countries in Africa and the Arab world is called Sudan. It is rich in oil and water resources, and uranium is there. As we all know, late at night on 9 December, Minister Mottaki arrived in Khartoum, where he was met by Minister Deng Alor for a very intensive programme of negotiations in Sudan. May I address this question to both ministers? What is your attitude towards that problem? How do you foresee the solution of that problem?
Haroun Mir, Director, Centre for Research and Policy Studies, Afghanistan
My question is to your Excellency Sheikh Khalid. Your Excellency mentioned the threat to security from non‑state actors and extremist activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the probable emergence of al‑Qaeda in Yemen. It has also been mentioned in the media that many madrassas in Pakistan of Islamic groups enjoy financial support from charity networks in the GCC, which is fuelling terrorist insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I would like to know how the GCC is to address this issue, because we need this money to reach needy people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, rather than radical madrassas and extremist groups, which are in some ways directly linked to al-Qaeda.
Raghida Dergham, Senior Diplomatic Correspondent and Columnist, Al Hayat
This is for Mr Mottaki. The four places you mentioned as essential parts to your foreign policy – namely Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and Yemen – are believed by many Arabs to be places where Iran is playing a very active role. Can we address the issues of Yemen? Can you tell us, categorically, whether Iran has any role whatsoever in Yemen? When you say there is no military solution and you are calling for a dialogue, do you mean this to be an internal or regional dialogue? Does Iran want to be part of the dialogue over Yemen and the future of the al-Houthi movement?
Dr Amira El Shanawany, Political Advisor, Bureau of Speaker of Parliament; Member, Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs
Firstly, I would like to thank Mr Mottaki for his important presentation. You spoke, sir, about how Iran is concerned by the deterioration in the occupied Palestinian territories. I would like to know what Iran has done for the Palestinian case since the establishment of Israel in 1948 and now?
Major General (Retd) Mahmoud Irdaisat, Director, National Centre for Strategic Studies, King Abdullah Academy for Defence Studies,
Royal Jordanian National Defence College; IISS Member
My question is to both his Excellency Sheikh Khalid and his Excellency Manouchehr Mottaki. It has been illustrated by both that cooperation in this region, between Iran on one side, and the Arabic and Gulf states on the other, is the key to regional security and prosperity. In your opinion, what are the obstacles hindering or stopping such cooperation between the two sides, when we know that we in the region will pay the price for any confrontation between the West and Iran, more heavily than anybody else? Are the obstacles preventing Arab states from cooperating with Iran? Are they indigenous obstacles or are they also posed by outside powers?
Baria Alamuddin, Foreign Editor, Al Hayat
Mr Mottaki, you spoke like a dove about your role in the area. I wonder how you would answer the sceptics about your role in countries like Lebanon. While you give Hizbullah more than $1bn, you do not give anything to the others. That is seen as a rather divisive role. In Palestine, while you support Hamas, you do not support the Palestine state or authority. Other people also see your role as divisive with the [Ho See Een?]. How would you answer those sceptics?
William Cohen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Cohen Group; former Secretary of Defense; IISS Member
Mr Mottaki, you were asked a specific question as to whether you would support a solution that a majority of Palestinians would endorse. I believe the reason the question was asked was because President Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction, the wiping away, of the state of Israel. So, the question is more than simply a hypothetical one. The question is: If a two-state solution were able to be negotiated – and I understand all the difficulties that have prevented that in the past – between the Palestinians and the Israeli people, would Iran support that or would it continue to insist that Israel itself must be destroyed? I did not hear an answer to the previous question, but really a circumvention of it.
Professor Ebtisam Al Kitbi, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, UAE University
Thank you, Mr Chairman. My question is to His Excellency, Manouchehr Mottaki. In your speech, you said that Iran’s relations and policies towards the region were focused on cooperation. The last visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the UAE, Sheikh Abdullah, to Iran also shows that we are cooperating with Iran, but there is never a solution from your side regarding the three islands. We have done all our work but you always refuse to negotiate; you refuse all of the solutions. What will be the solution to this issue?
James Ruben, Former Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
Thank you. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran is reluctant to answer a specific question, perhaps he and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain could tell us why it is not possible to have a security system in this region using the model of this dialogue. Both of you have referred to each of the conflicts requiring cooperation between Arabs and the Islamic Republic. Looking long term, can you see the possibility of a security system with both of you included as well as outside powers?
Dr Ahmed Al Kibsi, Dean of School of Social Science, Sana'a University
Thank you. I would like to ask Mr Mottaki about the real position of Iran on what has gone on in Yemen, and are they fighting Saudi Arabia through Yemen? My second question to both Sheikh Shalid and Mr Mottaki is about the relationship between Iran and the GCC. Are we talking about the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf? Let us agree about the name first; let us call it the Islamic Gulf.
Dr John Chipman
Thank you very much. There is a great deal to debate there. Mr Mottaki, you were asked a number of questions. You were also asked to answer ‘etc, etc, etc.’ I will invite you not to bother with that one, but to particularly answer the questions on Yemen and on the Lesser and Greater Tunbs, and if you could refine your answer on the two-state solution, I know that would be appreciated. As well as answering those questions, I invite you to respond to whether you think that the informal framework of the Manama Dialogue could be a model replicated for a larger regional framework. Finally, Mr Mottaki, another question posed was on whether Iran would feel comfortable if a resumption of discussions on the nuclear issue were to take place with some countries of this region also at the table. Thank you.
Manouchehr Mottaki
[Farsi]
Dr John Chipman
Before I turn to Sheikh Khalid, I have one more point to clarify. You very eloquently called for regional solutions to regional problems and there has been this idea floating around in the last six or nine months that perhaps it would be more comfortable if one or two of the states in this region were part of the discussions with you on the nuclear issue. You commented on the P5+1 talks. If they become P5+1+2 and included Saudi Arabia or Turkey, would you reject that or do you consider it better to have regional countries because there would be more understanding of your point of view and a better chance of feeling comfortable with the outcome? Or would you be more comfortable continuing with P5+1?
Manouchehr Mottaki
[Farsi: The name of every place should be mentioned based on the historical name and the name registered in the UN. This would address the problem of that group of friends who had a question about the name of this region. Regarding the two states, about which Mr Cohen asked a question, if the two states are established here, we will definitely recognize the Palestinian state. This is Iran’s clear position in respect to this region. I think that my friends are well aware of our positions concerning the Middle East and the issues of the region. Certain questions have been put forth in various forms regarding our relations with the countries of the region.
Look! Iran is located in the centre of 15 neighbouring countries. Seven Arab countries and eight non-Arab ones. Please look at the several hundred years of the history of our relations with each other. They are full of friendship, mutual understanding, common perspective and common interests. We feel perfectly comfortable with each other’s language and culture. Iran has not initiated any conflict or war in the region. Strengthening relations with neighbours is a priority for the Iranian foreign policy. We once faced a problem in the region against the peoples of Iran, Iraq and Kuwait, which, by the grace of God, was eliminated and its mischief was brought to an end.
We think that the so-called ‘Iran-phobia’ approach, which has been experienced for 30 years, is something which has nothing to do with Iran. Many attempts were made in various forms and ways to fan this fire. We consider friendly relations among the states of the region as a guarantee for prosperity, progress, security, and convergence. We also know the methods. Iran, Iraq, the six member states of the Cooperation Council, and Yemen have the most natural potential for boosting convergence and cooperation in the region.
The issues which I pointed out in my statement are the practical approach of our foreign policy. We have discussed the regional security with all of the states of the region bilaterally. We have signed bilateral agreements, and are ready for collective work, in many of these areas. I suggest that it is better for those who seek to spoil the relations amongst the states of this region not to retry their already failed experiences. We think that the leaders of this region enjoy the necessary prudence, tactfulness, vigilance and intelligence needed for founding a collective cooperation. Wherever necessary, we will invite others from outside of the region.
Of course, in a meeting like this, which Mr Chipman and the respectable questioner talked about, the ideas can be processed and there is no problem in this regard. However, the priority of the region’s security is with the countries of the region. How come the European countries and NATO countries define their particular mechanisms within themselves but insist on intervening here. This is one point.
Therefore, our real role is that Iran has always been a part of the solution in the region. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, I was the foreign ministry’s deputy for international affairs. A certain fear prevailed in the region. Iran was the first country which, only 18 hours after the attack, promptly issued a lengthy and strong statement in condemnation of the aggression against and the occupation of Kuwait before all of the other countries in the region; while Saddam had already dispatched a high ranking delegation to Iran trying to secure Iran’s acquiescence through certain tactics. Iran declared its rightful position and thereafter, the other countries also joined in this position and we are glad that the occupation of Kuwait finally came to an end.
We are sincere in expressing our viewpoints. A message was sent to us asking, ‘Are you prepared to help us in Afghanistan?’ We said that helping Afghanistan is a part of our policy, however, if the approach of Mr. Bush during the past eight years is going to continue, this approach will not bear any result and you will not succeed.
If in the Middle East, the approach is going to be the one which has been put forth during the past dozens of years, it will not go anywhere. Your problem is that you express your own judgment, viewpoint and analysis. We think that the world is democratic and the members of this international community have a right to express their own viewpoints as well. This is the characteristic of the new circumstances which have emerged in the world. Look at the history of the past 20 years in the various regions of the world and our region. They dictated and pursued certain policies. Those policies have failed.
When a football team loses several times, it changes its coach. When a party loses twice in the elections in a country, the secretary-general or leader of that party is changed. For more than 60 years, a limited few, as the victors of the world war, have put themselves in control of the international community and run the world based on their whims and wishes. They have imposed themselves upon the world. Their cultural policies have failed. They have only contributed to divergence. Their economic policies have failed. This is the main reason behind the present crisis in the world. Their military policies have failed.
We announce very sincerely and in a constructive context that today the world’s challenge is not a military one. Today, the challenge facing the people of the world is not even an economic one. Today, the challenge is a challenge of logic. Whoever has a stronger logic, his speech will be accepted more in the international community and by the public opinion. Well, if your approaches are not accepted, when there is no resignation like that football team or political party, then at least change your approaches. We said that we would help in the issues if the approaches change.
Our negotiations with 5+1 are based on the proposed package which we presented to 5+1. Their first round was held with the participation of everybody including the delegate of the United States of America in Geneva. We are prepared for talks with such an approach. Let us not negotiate with anybody concerning our nation’s right. Different topics have been put forth in the package which we are ready to discuss. A dear friend with a question asked about Iran’s role in Palestine. There was a dictator Shah in Iran from 1948 to 1979 who had the most overt and covert relations in the region with the Zionist regime. The Iranian nation did not accept those policies, whether domestic or foreign. The first thing that the Islamic Republic of Iran did was to change the embassy of Israel to that of Palestine.]
Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Bin Mohamed Al Khalifa
Regarding the question of Mr Margelov on the situation in Sudan, Sudan is very close to the Gulf and the stability of Sudan also means the stability of Egypt, the stability of the Arabian Peninsula, and the stability of this whole region. There is a choice coming for the people of Sudan next year on whether the people in the South stay in the country or whether they leave. Being an Arab country and a member of the League of Arab States with Sudan, we would like to see Sudan remain together and intact. If it happens that they want to go on their own, I think countries should respect past agreements and past treaties, especially regarding the use of water. They should not cause any problems or try to change or alter the current situation regarding the distribution of water. That country should not be an country with an enemy relationship with the Sudan or with other neighbours. We would like to see the situation settled, and we are in contact – or we should be in contact with both parties: the government and the part of government that represents the south.
Regarding the question on the charity networks, yes, there is a serious problem about the charity networks. They do collect money from people, people who want to give them money for benevolent causes to help the poor Muslims all over the world. The vast majority of those charities are bona fide charities and they will want to do the good work. But the problem is, there is no covenant, there are no international standards that govern their work. So what we are trying to do here is, we are doing a good job in Bahrain, but on a regional level, we need to do some kind of an agreement that all those charities should subscribe to and adhere to, and then given a symbol that they can carry. Whoever has that can work and help in Darfur and in the Sudan and any catastrophe-stricken area. Whoever does not have that should not be able to operate even in the country where it collects the money.
My colleague from Jordan asked about the obstacles. I think that the obstacle is a continuous fear of this and that from both sides: everyone has fear from the other. We do not talk to each other; we just do not talk to each other. Eventually, the talks collapsed, regarding the P5+1 with Iran. Many things stopped because we do not work collectively. I think if we really want to move those obstacles, we should really move ahead in working collectively in the region.
My friend, Jamie Ruben asked about the security framework, whether it is possible now, as I said in my speech, now if we think it would happen now, that would be not possible or not practicable, because many steps have to be taken before that, between countries. The Manama Dialogue, I fully agree with you, can provide, year after year, a platform for all the parties in the region. I would encourage and I am seeing more participation from non-regional actors, than actors from the region itself. I think we should take it more seriously. That would create more of a modus vivendi, for the countries to prepare and work towards a regional security framework.
The last question is about the name of our Gulf. My brother, Minister Mottaki mentioned the UN documents and maps, here and there. To tell you the truth, the names are not only the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf. I have seen many names – the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Persia, the Arabian Gulf, the Gulf of Arabia and the Gulf of Araby. These are very old names, like [Arabic]. There are many names. This is just a body of water. We have many more important issues on which to work and concentrate. It maybe my friend would like to use the term ‘the Arabian Gulf’ for a period of time, and I will use ‘the Persian Gulf’.
Dr John Chipman
Sheikh Khalid, thank you for proposing a diplomatic solution, as always. Thank you both for two reasons. Firstly, one of the opportunities I hope the Manama Dialogue affords is for responsible political leaders to put forward specific proposals. If you read Sheikh Khalid’s speech, you will see it includes a number of very specific, constructive proposals about pragmatic collaboration with the countries of the region, specifically Iran. We were grateful for Minister Mottaki of Iran also endorsing the idea of stronger regional involvement in their own dialogue over issues of concern, including the nuclear file.
The IISS is very proud of its own publications, but I would invite you more specifically to pick up Vision 2030 of the Kingdom of Bahrain, as advertised by Sheikh Khalid. I would like to thank Minister Mottaki very warmly for his splendid remarks. He has one small point he wants to make in conclusion, which I invite him to make.
Manouchehr Mottaki
[Farsi: In 1995, while I was an ambassador in Japan, Mr Clinton extended the issue of application of national law to the other countries with respect to sanctions during his tenure as president. Incidentally, Japan and some other countries were opposed to this matter. 15 years have passed since then. I think that returning to the old approaches in the US Senate with respect to the sanctions, to the incitement of others or to the very base actions which are being done and I do not want to mention; these are considered as failed experiences. It is best we discuss the reality of the issues. Threatening with sanctions and the like does not help; the Iranian people have proven that they cannot give up their rights, particularly to the massive extent which they have recognised. Therefore, in our opinion, the sanctions-related actions, besides being illegal, are ineffective and they had better not retry the unsuccessful experiences of the past. Of course, it is their choice which decision to make in this regard.]
Dr John Chipman
Minister Mottaki and Sheikh Khalid, thank you very much.
