Raghida Dergham, Senior Diplomatic Correspondent and Columnist, Al Hayat
My question is actually to both Minister Mottaki and Minster Davutoğlu. What do you think of the proposal by Sheikh Khalid in terms of the civilian nuclear fuel bank as a window of opportunity in the talks in Geneva next week? The second point is on sovereignty, also raised by Hillary Clinton yesterday and by you, Mr Davutoğlu, today. Are you and Iran interested or willing to somehow find a way for that regional dialogue about guaranteeing respect for territorial sovereignty and the sovereignty of the state of Lebanon? This issue came up last night. I am also addressing you, Mr Mottaki, so I would like both of you to address this question. Thank you.
Roula Khalaf, Middle East Editor, Financial Times; IISS Member
My question is for Minister Mottaki. You suggested in your remarks that outside powers were sowing divisions in the region and that everyone in this region is friendly and appreciates everybody else’s rising power. But the recent WikiLeaks cables show very clearly that a lot of countries in this region have been calling for military action against Iran and that in fact the US has resisted. Could you comment on what you think of the suspicion that your neighbours have? Thank you.
Joshua Rogin, Staff Writer, Foreign Policy
My question is also for Foreign Minister Mottaki. We understand that your uranium enrichment programme is for peaceful nuclear purposes, but could you please tell us exactly how long it will take for that programme to have the capability to produce nuclear weapons-quality material, just in case you should ever decide to change your mind at some point in the future? Thank you.
Dr Majeed Al Alawi, Minister of Labour, Bahrain
I want to thank the panel of guests on their enlightening speeches. We heard last night Her Excellency Secretary of State Clinton speaking about security in the region. We also heard His Majesty King Abdullah this morning talking about the possibility of peace in the region. My question maybe can go to our Foreign Minister, Sheikh Khalid. Are there still hopes for the peace processes in the Middle East in the light of the Knesset – the Israeli parliament – voting for legislation that it is mandatory for the Israeli government to run a referendum of the Israeli public before giving back East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in any peace process if the government cannot get a two-thirds majority? Is there still hope for the Arab peace initiative and the negotiation which has stopped now because of Israeli insistence on building settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank? Thank you.
Lord Williams of Baglan, Under Secretary-General and Special Coordinator for Lebanon, United Nations; IISS Member
I was pleased by Minister Davutoğlu’s reference to Lebanon and also by the active engagement of Turkey with Lebanon. Prime Minister Erdoğan visited the country ten days ago. Also of course President Ahmadinejad visited Lebanon last month and more recently Prime Minister Hariri has been to Tehran. I wonder if both Minister Mottaki and Minister Davutoğlu could say something more about their contributions to stability in Lebanon, and perhaps specifically could they clarify their views about the Special Tribunal on Lebanon? Finally, if I could ask Sheikh Khalid whether he thinks there is more that Arab countries can do to help sustain Lebanon’s stability and security? Thank you.
Manish Tewari, National Spokesperson, Indian National Congress
Thank you very much. I have a very short question for Minister Mottaki and, by extension, to the panel. The Foreign Minister talked about the security around energy resources and you heard different variations of the same theme in the other two interventions also. I was just wondering, given the fact that in the past one decade, energy flows have increased in the intra‑Asian context, does Minister Mottaki and, by extension, the rest of the panel see a greater role for a producer‑consumer dialogue, a more sustained, a more vigorous and a more continuing engagement than what is happening at the moment? Thank you.
Dr Dana Allin, Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Affairs; Editor, Survival, IISS
Thank you. My question is also to Foreign Minister Mottaki, and it follows up on Roula Khalaf’s question regarding Iran’s policies and relations with its Arab neighbours. Roula has already mentioned Arab states’ concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme, but I just would also want to ask you about your remarks regarding Israel as an illegitimate imposition in the region, because before you spoke, King Abdullah emphasized in the strongest possible terms the readiness of Arab states to make a permanent peace with Israel, and I just wonder if you have any comments on this contradiction?
Baria Alamuddin, Foreign Editor, Al Hayat
I would like to share with the audience two dreams, and parts of questions for the Foreign Minister of Iran, and Bahrain, and by extension to the Foreign Minister of Turkey. I dream of one day when Iran would be truly and sincerely playing a positive role with its neighbours. I wonder if you can help make this dream come true in practical terms, Sir.
For the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, you alluded yesterday in the Arabia debate about the cooperation between the Arab countries. I wonder, Sir, if you can also make my dream come true by having these countries work together sincerely and in cooperation. Foreign Minister of Turkey, can you make my dreams come true? Thank you.
Dr Su Hao, Director, Center for Strategic and Conflict Management, China Foreign Affairs University
My question is going to Your Excellency, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister. In your wonderful speech, you tried to build a linkage between East Asia and the Middle East. You put much importance on ASEAN’s role in regional integration in East Asia, and also the GCC will follow some kind of model of this. That is true: the North Asia countries like China, Japan, South Korea respect ASEAN as the primary source for regional integration in East Asia. My question is to how are the countries that run GCC in the Middle East, like Turkey, Iran: will they respect and promote the GCC as a primary force for regional cooperation in the Middle East?
Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, Canada
Thank you. My question is to Minister Mottaki. Given the, what I would describe as conciliatory remarks of Secretary Clinton last evening, I am wondering if you can perhaps preview Iran’s attitude going into Geneva on these talks, and referencing King Abdullah’s remarks this morning as well, whether you would accept the offer to exchange low-enriched uranium for fuel, to produce medical isotopes. This seems, as well, to be a positive step forward, something that would be seen as a step forward in an important dialogue. Thank you.
Dr John Chipman
Thank you. There are a lot of issues on the menu: Lebanon, nuclear fuel cycle, the Geneva talks, regional security architecture. So what I would like to do is invite first Minister Mottaki to grapple with those issues and perhaps take four or five minutes to answer the specific questions that were given to him. Then I will move to Minister Davutoğlu, who was also asked about Lebanon and energy, regional security architecture; and conclude with Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed. [If] after that, there’s a chance for one or two additional questions, I will do so. But let us begin with Minister Mottaki, who had a number of very specific questions.
Manouchehr Mottaki
[As translated from Farsi: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you for your questions. We agree with the idea of establishing a fuel bank and support it. And since we are one of fuel producers and we have this technology, therefore, one of the units of the bank should be based in Iran.
Regarding the presence of foreign forces in the region I should say that we are in the region and we witness their presence. Unfortunately, this presence is one of the reasons of insinuation of worry in the region. We had to deal with the 9/11 incident which should be really investigated. The initial result following this incident was vast military expeditions with hundreds of thousands of foreign forces in our region. It started from Afghanistan and then the foreign forces became so arrogant that they thought they didn't need the Security Council's approval to be in Iraq. Their presence in Iraq was without approval. While the 9/11 incident took place in the first decade of the third millennium, we should ask whether security has improved in Afghanistan. How many terrorists were there in Afghanistan? How many terrorists were there in Iraq? More than one million people have been killed and injured. In my opinion this requires a revision. If they really claim to be in our region for security reasons, they'd better consult with the countries in the region so that they would be provided with better solutions. We have expressed our solutions with regards to Afghanistan.
Regarding Lebanon's issue as asked by someone: Some countries issued an order each day. They used to issue instructions, saying Lebanon has to do this and it has to do that! We hold talks with the regional states. The negotiations led to talks in Doha with the participation of various Lebanese leaders and conclusions were reached on three political issues, election of a president, conducting parliamentary elections and establishing a government.
We think our regional issues should not be made complicated. In line with simplifying matters, we have better formulas for solving issues. In our country's long history, we have never recommended bullying. We have never been after mass destruction weapons. When more than 200 European and American companies supported Saddam Hussein's chemical war, we were not in favour of using chemical weapons. Recently, Halabcheh and Sardasht in Iraq and Iran were confirmed as victims of chemical weapons by The Hague.
Do we have any history of using nuclear and mass destruction weapons throughout the Iranian's nations seven thousand years of culture and civilization? And you ask us when we want to produce bombs? In our opinion the era of atomic bombs is over. What results have atomic bombs had except destruction? Why have those, who talk about other nations' possible intentions of producing atomic bombs, closed their eyes on nuclear weapons existing in our region at the moment? There are hundreds of nuclear warheads in the occupied Palestine. Why are they indifferent? We believe that global nuclear disarmament, with the cooperation of those possessing them, will help establishing security in various regions at an international level. We urge those who have nuclear weapons to adopt this slogan: Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none! They should join the process of preparing nuclear weapons disarmament convention. Throughout the world!
How could the five permanent members of the Security Council regard such a right for themselves? Two decades ago, in 1990, the Chemical Weapons Convention was formed based on a global will. Chemical weapons have to be entirely destroyed by 2012. Can't we make this process practical with regards to chemical weapons around the world?
Mr Hariri's visit to Tehran took place as per his announcement during Mr Ahmadinejad's visit to Beirut, which was a complementary cycle in the process of bilateral cooperation between Iran and Lebanon and our regional cooperation. It was a constructive visit, which included serious talks. He will visit Tehran again in the coming months to put into practice parts of the previous talks. The collective will of Lebanese leaders could have always led to establishing a government in the country. Today, this is a serious necessity. Rafik Hariri played a major role in development, progress and solidarity in Lebanon. We are of the opinion that a judiciary-legal investigation is required to clarify this issue in Lebanon, which has been there for the past few years, while avoiding political ill-intentions.
In response to our dear friend who asked about the Islamic Republic of Iran's view on the necessity of negotiations among energy producers and consumers: as I pointed out in my remarks, I considered both the producers and consumers in one category. India, China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and major Asian economies have made a fast progress in the last two decades and in the same manner their energy requirement have escalated. Such talks can help energy security – that is security in all the related processes of energy production and transfer.]
Dr John Chipman
But I made a good deal, because I ended up giving you ten minutes, so can I just move to Mr Davutoğlu for a moment and then if time, we will come back.
Manouchehr Mottaki
Sure, with pleasure.
Dr John Chipman
You had unfair pressure placed on you but I think it is good to have those answers to the questions. Now, I thought your very first answer was very precise, and I think a number of people want to debate it. You acknowledge the importance of an international fuel bank, so long as there was a branch in Iran. I think what people will want to perhaps raise with you later, during the course of the day, is there are two different ways in which banks transfer funds: one is a standing order, where a very specific amount which is agreed in advance is transferred to the other branch, and that amount is unchanging. The other system that sometimes people engage in is what is called a direct debit, where the amount that the person needs or wants is unilaterally transferred back without separate negotiation. So I think that as we begin to talk about this interesting proposal and your agreement, there will be quite a distinction between a standing order system and a direct debit system between the centre of the international bank and any branch that might be agreed to be established in Iran. But let me move to Mr Davutoğlu who also had a lot of questions to him. But if you can take three minutes, and then I can give Sheikh Khalid the last word. We will come back to you all, I am sure, during the course of the day. So do not feel that this is your last chance, Minister Mottaki or Minister Davutoğlu, but there are bilaterals that I know are scheduled for five or six minutes from now, so I want to conclude reasonably on time. Minister?
Ahmet Davutoğlu
Thank you. In three minutes, I do not know how to respond, but let me try to be precise. About nuclear fuel bank: this is a good idea but there are two aspects of this issue: one is to avoid any tension regarding … a nuclear weaponry system or some suspicions about this. It is a good idea to solve this issue. The second aspect is that nuclear energy is a cheap source of energy – is an alternative source of energy for the growing economies. For this, this idea should be elaborated in depth; it should not create a monopolisation of this alternative, but if it is inclusive process, and which will help to decrease the cost of energy, that is a good idea. But if it creates another monopoly on alternative energy resources, it will create other problems for the economies. Therefore, it is a very good idea, but it should be elaborated in a participatory manner.
About the dream of regional order mentioned, security architecture. I can say what we need in our region is a restoration, a real, comprehensive restoration: what I call is the normalisation of the flow of history. We had a good example in Europe beginning in the 1970s, the system EEC - later it became EEC. That process helped European nations to restore their relations and Turkey was part of that system as well. Such a comprehensive restoration is needed in our region to overcome these psychological barriers, to establish appropriate institutional mechanisms for conflict resolution and to create new means of interdependency in [the] economic and cultural sense. That is what is needed in our region, and EEC helped Europe to have a much more secure Europe in the last decade, that is the best way for our region as well. But for that, there should be more regional fora; there should be more regional contact; there should be more regional commitment, respecting territorial sovereignty and other international law standards.
For this dream to be achieved, I think there are two areas of test: one is Iraq, the other one is Lebanon. Why? Because Iraq is like a mini-Middle East, in the sense of the composition of the demography of Iraq: Shi’ite, Sunni, Christians, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen and other ethnicities are living there. The second test in this area is Lebanon: Lebanon is a much smaller microcosm of the Middle East. Therefore, we need to care for the Lebanese stability and peace. If there is no stability and peace in Lebanon or Iraq, there cannot be peace or stability in our region, because these are representative countries. Based on this, Turkey has a consistent policy to both of these neighbouring countries and therefore, Prime Minister Erdoğan and myself, we visited Lebanon two weeks ago, and we had the chance to meet all the leaders of the Lebanese groups. Even before that, during the presidential crisis, during the formation of the government, we worked with all the Lebanese groups in order to secure an efficient, functioning government and to support the existing government of Prime Minister Hariri, and in good coordination with all the groups of Lebanon. We know the challenges Lebanon is facing; what they need from us is more solidarity, and in this sense the recent Syrian-Saudi proposal … creates a good alternative and initiative. That initiative should be supported.
For international tribunals, of course, justice is important. Political stability is important. The challenge is how can we achieve these two together. That can be solved only by Lebanese groups and we need to work with them all closely, respecting them, their concerns, but at the same time providing them with a clear vision for Lebanon in the future - without ethnic, religious or sectarian disputes in Lebanon. Regional commitment will help them. They know their problems, they know their challenges. What they need is more and more regional support rather than just taking sides with one group against the other one, or vice versa. Now, this regional commitment will help Lebanon I am sure. Thank you.
Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Bin Mohamed Al Khalifa, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bahrain
Thank you very much. I have two or three questions. One of them came from a Bahraini cabinet minister who always surprises us. We have not set this up, but thank you for the question. Regarding the Arab peace initiative, yes, the Arab peace initiative will always be alive and will always stay, because it is the only path we have and the only path we should stick to: the path of peace. But His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan today, this morning, mentioned something very important: the problem of this fortress mentality we are facing in Israel.
There is not much interest of peace with a large segment of the people there because – and I am not saying that they are not interested in it, they are not interested in peace – but they are not seeing the clear picture, if it is from the Arab world or from the international scene. They need to be convinced more that peace is viable with their Arab neighbours. Whether it is to convince them that we are serious about the initiative, whether to convince them that we are serious about communicating with them in order to normalise, ‘This is what we should do’. We are not seeing much of that. So, I think we should really try to normalise, as my brother, Davutoğlu, says.
Arabs and Jews have had a history together here in the region and it has never stopped. So, normalising the trend of history is important. But how? The question is we have to talk to each other in order to reach peace, and that is a problem still with a large part of the Arab countries and Israel.
The other point is regarding what the Arabs can do for Lebanon. I can go to many examples of what the Arab world has done for Lebanon. Our Deputy Prime Minister who was here this morning, Sheikh Mohamed Bin Mubarak, [who] just left the room, was head of an Arab League mission back in 1975 when the first war broke out, the Lebanese Civil War. That was an Arab mission; that was a genuine mission from the Arab world to try to help Lebanon. The work continued into the 1980s and then came the Taif Agreement. The Taif Agreement was a real agreement and it was a helped by a serious, important Arab country in the region, Saudi Arabia, to bring the Lebanese to agreement. That is another Arab help.
Then came the efforts with the Doha Agreement, and I was part of that, and Minister [Al Qaradawi?], you are here with us in the room, you were with us in that same group who went to Lebanon with Sheikh Hammad bin Jasam, the Prime Minister of Qatar and many other colleagues. We have done our part to bring the Lebanese to the table. Now we have mentioned the Saudi-Syrian approach to help Lebanon. The question is for how long we are going to do that? For how long will the Arab world have to continue to provide this kind of support? For how long will the Lebanese rely and continue to rely and continue to bank on the Arab world to help them with their problems? I think this is an important matter that the Lebanese people have to look at seriously now. We are reaching another break point now in Lebanon. Will they leave it to the Arab world and the Arab countries to solve it or to other regional neighbours? I think this is not necessarily the right trend, since it has been going on since 1975, and even before, until today, without really reaching a lasting agreement for the Lebanese people.
The question from Baria about the cooperation in the Arab countries: I think we here - the last summit in Surt in Libya and the summit, again in Surt, after the special one, was talking about how to look into revamping or overhauling – let us choose any word we can – the way the Arab countries work. I think we do need fresh ideas, we do need to look seriously into how Arab cohesion, Arab way of working together [can] take shape. But we do have a way to go in that, because we have many problems; still we have many points that we disagree on; still we have a lot of border disputes. We have many ways but there is no doubt that this important part of the world, the Arab world, we need to safeguard it as a large, important cultural zone, not only for Arabs. The Arab world is not only consisting of Arabs: there are people living with Arabs, intertwining them in one piece of cloth, whether they are the Kurds, Jews, Berbers, in every part of the world. We need to really reshape our mind to include them all in a fresh way. Thank you very much.
One more question, the point raised by my friend from Singapore. How will the region react to the GCC: yes, we have achieved a lot in the GCC and to tie that point of the GCC. The people of the GCC always ask for more.
What is more – every time before a summit, … and we have a summit coming after tomorrow in Abu Dhabi – the question is, what is more to be done? Rather than when we talk about Arab cooperation, is how to overhaul the whole thing. This is a stark difference in how we are moving. But we are forging a lot of good relationships with our neighbours. There is a partnership with Yemen in many fields. There is a lot of work being done with Jordan. Turkey, if you remember brother Ahmed, that we have started a strategic dialogue between Turkey and the GCC. So it is going in that same direction and we are happy to take a lot of lessons and a lot of ways of working from our friends in ASEAN. Thank you very much.
Dr John Chipman
Thank you very much indeed. What a wonderful start to our deliberations this morning. Minister Mottaki, thank you so much for your remarks and for your consistent participation and endorsement of this Manama Dialogue. We all hugely appreciate your presence here and your participation. Minister Davutoğlu, thank you very much for your first appearance of what I hope will be many at this Manama Dialogue. The Turkish role in this region is so very important. Sheikh Khalid, please allow me now to thank you for the phenomenal support that you personally have given, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to this joint effort of ours here in Bahrain. Thank you very much indeed.
