Dr John Chipman, Director General and Chief Executive, IISS
It is my distinct honour privilege now to invite his Royal highness Prince Turki to address us.
HRH Prince Turki Al Faisal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Chairman, Board of Directors, King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies
Ladies and gentlemen, what a privilege it is for me to attend this conference here. Thanks to Sheikh Khalid and John Chipman for their invitation and wonderful hospitality. I do not think I have seen better hospitality anywhere. Wrapping up after such a conference is obviously a tasking and taxing event for anyone who attempts it. There have been so many discussions, exchanges and ideas put before you ladies and gentlemen, that to try and select hat is best or what is most valuable is a difficult task. I hope that my choices are suitable for you.
Of course, let me start with the highlights of the conference: the speeches of King Abdullah and Hillary Clinton.
Both of these showed, for me at least, two things.
First, King Abdullah had his usual eloquence, clarity of sight and directness in dealing with the issues and putting the essential question, when it comes to the problems in the Middle East, to the Israeli people; where do they want to go? Do they want to move towards a democratic Israel or to an apartheid Israel. This is a question that I think has to be answered by the Israeli people. Of course, the choice is theirs, but it affects all of us in the area. We should not, as a world community, simply stand by and not try to be helpful to the Israeli people in making that choice.
Hillary Clinton’s speech I found to be equally eloquent and forthright in deciding where America is going. She opted for the two state solution, as is American policy, and declared policy on the issue of enrichment of uranium in Iran. She repeated where her country stood and where the rest of the world stands. Also, on the issues of security and cooperation, she justifiably highlighted America’s role in the area and its cooperation with Arab and other countries here. I was struck by not only Mrs Clinton’s eloquence, but also her continued commitment to these principles. Being an Arab and from this part of the world, when she mentioned nuclear enrichment, I would like to have heard her refer to and pay attention to the zone free of weapons of mass destruction as a means of levelling the playing field for everybody in our part of the world. Once that field is level all of us can play on it.
Later on, I was of course struck by Sheikh Khalid’s proposal for an enriched uranium bank that will supply the rest of us with hat we need in terms of civilian uses of energy. Equally, the response from the Iranian Foreign minister, as they already have enrichment capabilities, to have a branch of that bank in Tehran. At lunch that day, I asked the Foreign Minister if having established that branch in Tehran, they would allow me to borrow some of that asset for my country. He replied that he would make me a shareholder. However, it is not a laughing matter. I must stress a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Already, His Excellency the Foreign Minister of Sweden has mentioned this. My belief is that this is the direction that we should move in. There is no other alternative.
Sanctions have been put on Iran by the whole world and Iran knows where the whole world stands; we know where Iran stands; the situation will continue that way. None of us want to engage in military conflict and I think that the Iranians themselves are wary of that proposition and fear that they will be the target of military strikes either by Israel or the United states or both. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on Iran as well as the message as the message that came from the Saudi Foreign Minister, to be cooperative with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in removing any doubts as to where Iran stands on that issue.
Regarding security matters, and the changing security situation is the title of this session, as my predecessor has also mentioned there is the importance of not just physical security of human beings, but also economic and industrial and so forth. However, I would also add to that electronic security. We have seen the effects of WikiLeaks and who could help but talk about that in this conference whether in session or outside; discussions on the danger that this poses not just to communication between governments but to other securities as well; if diplomats and leaders cannot exchange their views on matters that affect them freely then we are all in trouble. Therefore, I think it is incumbent not just on the world community but on the United States, where these leaks emerged, to be not just extra vigilant, but also to try to restore the credibility and legitimacy of their engagement with the rest of us and make sure that there are no more leaks in the future. Whoever has been responsible must be vigorously punished.
There were four sessions today, of which I attended one on Yemen. I cannot report on the others, but their titles were important. One was on maritime cooperation, one on Iraq and the other on military cooperation. I can tell you that if the discussion in the other ones were as vibrant and dynamic as those we had on Yemen, then everyone will have benefitted. Of course, regarding Yemen, Minister al Qirbi is not with us in this session, but his contribution to enlighten us on the current situation in Yemen was very valuable.
However, the importance of these discussions is what makes the Manama dialogue what it is; not just a collection of government and non-government individuals exchanging views, but having a reference point to go back to. It is very valuable for someone like me who takes an interest in international affairs, and sometimes pretends to give advice to others on important issues. Whether this is taken or not is another matter, but really as I said, the Manama Dialogue has become a reference point for people like me to go back to and see what was discussed and what was engaged in during the discussions.
I was also struck by points made by Sheikh Muhammad Al Sabah in his presentation, particularly on the issue of the shifting balance in finance and economics; shifting towards the east. This is obviously recognised by all of us, but I think it is important to mention that today China is the biggest consumer of all resources. Not just oil, coal, steel or whatever you might mention in terms of either minerals or other products of raw materials in the world, but also – and as a result of this - they are also the biggest collectors or money. It is in the trillions. They have the largest monetary reserves in the world which gives them that extra position that they enjoy in the world today as probably the largest debtor to the United States and perhaps other countries in the world. On those issues, being here and listening to the views of the speakers was important.
The message that came from the Saudi Foreign minister delivered by HRH Prince Naef bin Ahmed was also important for me because not only did it highlight here the Kingdom stands on these issues, but also puts into perspective where those issues are, whether it is Middle East peace, regional cooperation or the nuclear problem with Iran and the zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, all of these are issues that are very much alive and engaged in by you and the rest of the world.
If I can conclude on one point it is to say that the Manama Dialogue is not only a place of words but also hopefully a place where action can take place after those words are concluded. I see my long term friend, Khaled al Duwaisan, the ambassador of the Kuwait in the audience. The fact that something could get him out of London and bring him to Bahrain is a sign that the Manama Dialogue is important. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen.
Dr John Chipman
Well ladies and gentlemen we have had an excellent provocation and summing up and I think the responsibility that we now owe to ourselves is to add to this menu of thinking in our remaining time and do not hesitate to ask questions about particular conflicts or issues about which you would like the panellists to clarify.
