Iran deal highlights the advantages of consensus diplomacy by global leaders
Issue:
May 2015, Vol. 3, No. 5
Tags:
The landmark preliminary agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached at the recent Lausanne talks is an evident demonstration of what major global powers can jointly achieve when working in consensus instead of in confrontation with one another.
The preliminary agreement is scheduled to be finalized via a UN Security Council resolution at the end of June that will give the historic accord an international legal obligation status.
The global community, as represented by the six superpowers, namely, Russia, China, the US, the Great Britain, Germany, France, set their irreconcilable geopolitical agendas and economic differences aside to hammer out the landmark deal with Iran.
This is the type of global leadership needed by superpowers – the ability to set out and work towards achieving common good for the whole world, rather than seeking to achieve selfish national interest gains at the expense of the others.
Global leadership is also the capability of seeing where there is a consensus and work towards achieving it, instead of highlighting the differences between countries and/or trying to force one’s own will over the others. It also means the ability to compromise and/or sacrifice some personal ambitions and national interests – within a reasonable range – for the sake of achieving a greater mission or objective.
The US even had to turn a blind eye to the inflexible position of its core strategic Middle East partner, Tel Aviv, on the Iranian nuclear program issue, viewing it as a “selfish national interest agenda” that cannot be used to blackmail the overall security interest of the rest members of the much larger global community.
The raucous rumblings among the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other anti-Iran hawks in Tel-Aviv and among US Republicans only serve to portray them as myopic thinking nationalist leaders fully incapable of strategic reasoning. The shortcoming of their line of thinking is better demonstrated by their proposed reckless alternatives to a negotiated deal. One of these proposals envisages bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities, a policy that could carry unpredictable consequences that could spread far beyond the Middle East.
This is why Israel is not a superpower yet and why the US Republicans are currently in the opposition. Both lack the qualities required for global leadership as they are mainly concerned with securing their narrow national interests at the expense of the others.
On the contrary, all the six superpowers, along with the EU, on one side, and Tehran on the other, demonstrated these rare leadership traits at the Lausanne talks and this was what finally broke the diplomatic impasse that had existed for the past decade.
The West’s previously adopted policy of arm-twisting diplomacy via sanctions, both individual, such as the US, and regional alliances of countries, such as the EU, could not force Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Instead, they hardened Iranians' resolve as the country developed new internal economic competencies and secured regional allies, such as China and Russia, to circumvent the limitations brought by the western sanctions.
It is, however, equally true to argue that these sanctions were partly instrumental to bringing Iran eventually to the negotiations table. Here, the emphasis is on the term, “instrumental” in the sense that the sanctions were not decisive in terms of the recent positive developments. This is because they could not bring Tehran to the negotiations table over almost a decade, nor would they alone could have led to a negotiated deal.
A deal was struck this time mainly because the West, which has been the most vocal opponent of the Iranian nuclear agenda, changed tactics or tempered its negotiations parameters. Specifically, the West finally agreed to compromise on some of its previously non-negotiable principles, such as recognizing Teheran’s legitimate right to so-called “peaceful atomic energy generation.”
The western powers' blunt refusal to recognize this right had been the key stumbling block all along to a negotiated deal, though Russia, China and other members of the larger global community, have always argued that Iran, as a sovereign state, is fully entitled to “peaceful atomic energy generation,” like any other nations.
The key role played by Moscow in bringing Tehran not only to the negotiations table, but also to productive and constructive talks was specially highlighted in a special statement released by the US State Department, which specifically noted that “without Russia a negotiated deal with Tehran would have been impossible.” By the same token, Russia’s efforts alone would not have led to the positive negotiations outcome.
This was a product of collective efforts. Each country, such as the US or Russia, or alliance of countries, such as the EU, could act alone, but, most often, such “solo or unilateral efforts” are unproductive, because they are not based on global consensus or on so-called “consensus diplomacy.”
Unlike the unilateral approach, consensus diplomacy requires key international players to seek agreements on all strategic issues that satisfy every one and hence binding on all, as well as complement one another’s efforts when enforcing unanimously adopted policies.
This is why the negotiated deal with Tehran has a very high chance of success because the adopted resolution will not be seen in Iran as a policy of certain unfriendly countries, notably, the US and EU, against it. Rather, it is being seen as an agreement between Iran and the rest of the global community, as represented by the Group of Six at the Lausanne Talks. These superpowers will be resolute and unanimous in their intent to ensure that Tehran fulfills all its undertaken obligations to the international community.
However, as it takes “two to dance tango,” these superpowers will also have to fully honor their obligations to Teheran so that they will have both the moral and legal right to stringently demand, and if necessary, harshly penalize Iran if it fails to fully honor its part of this historic deal.
Web design,