Problems in the Middle East are intensifying, with the escalating Iran nuclear issue and violence in Iraq in addition to continuing conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The world is wondering, how can stability be brought to the region? Ma Zhengang, President of the China Institute of International Studies and former Chinese Ambassador to Britain, shares his opinions with Beijing Review reporter Ding Ying.
Beijing Review: Why does Iran insist on developing nuclear might? Will the country develop nuclear weapons?
Ma Zhengang: Iran always stresses that its nuclear research is focused on peaceful usage, denying the development of nuclear weapons. According to the country’s agreement with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], it had stopped nuclear research during previous years. Recently, Iran resumed its frozen nuclear program. Currently, the country’s research is still focused on low-enriched uranium. Iran’s wisest point is that it insists on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and cooperation with the IAEA. And it never stops contact with the European Union troika [Britain, France and Germany].
The reason for Iran’s persistence in nuclear development is related to the country’s historic and current positions in the region. In the past, Iran was a strong country in the Middle East; nowadays, it still thinks it should be a leading regional power. Iran believes that as the whole Middle East is unstable, the Iranian theocratic mode, instead of U.S. democratic mode, should be adopted to rebuild the region.
In Iran, religion is very strong and Iranians are closely united. Iran’s reform party lost its ruling position during last year’s election, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, representing the country’s extreme conservative party, came into power. The result reflected the country’s religious influence and public opinion. Moreover, while the reformist government brought some foreign culture into Iran but not much practical benefit, some Iranians, especially those in religious circles, felt that Iran’s traditions were destroyed.
About Ahmadinejad himself, he is widely supported by Iranians for his simple but industrious individuality and his sticking to the traditional culture and religious belief. Meanwhile, the development of nuclear strength can be regarded as a request of the whole country as Iran considers nuclear strength to be a sign of a power. In addition, the United States afforded strong support to the country’s nuclear research in the 1970s. But after the Islamic Revolution of Iran in the late 1970s, Washington changed its policy toward Tehran.
However, nuclear research is not equal to the development of nuclear weapons, at least, not now. Some scholars believe that Iran is taking reference from the Japan mode--equipped with nuclear technology but without nuclear weapons. If needed, it can make nuclear weapons within a short time. Based on these reasons, I don’t think any power or any organization can easily convince Iran to abandon its nuclear plan.
What do you think is the best way to solve the Iranian nuclear issue?
China always opposes nuclear proliferation, but doesn’t agree to take military ways or sanctions to resolve the problem. History proves that it is seldom efficient to force a country to give in through high-pressure methods. On the contrary, the effect usually goes in the opposite direction. Military force is not helpful in settling problems. Personally, I believe there is still a possibility of reaching an agreement through diplomatic channels and negotiation. In other words, there is space for peaceful discussion.
On one side, Iran should stop its research into uranium enrichment because nuclear proliferation is one of the major problems concerning the world. On the other side, the United States should not issue a military threat at every turn, as most countries on the globe will not agree to such moves. Besides, Iran has held several rounds of negotiations with the EU on this project, and this channel is still useable. China’s stance is encouraging and is trying to help the parties concerned hold peaceful talks to settle the issue. I notice that even U.S. President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed that Washington still hopes to solve the problem through negotiation, although it does not exclude the possibility of other measures. Perhaps the United States was trying to prompt the Iranians to accept peace talks by way of increasing the pressure. It is best for both sides to yield a little to each other so as to solve the current problem.
The United States has two other options. The first involves launching sanctions on Iran, which will affect Iran but not as much as the United States predicts. The reasons are as follows: First of all, Iran has abundant oil and natural gas reserves, as its oil reserve is 10 percent of the world total, and natural gas, 15 percent. It is the fourth largest oil producer, and the second biggest oil exporter in the OPEC, which means Iran occupies an important position in the world energy market. Japan and many Western European countries have to import oil from Iran. Besides, some countries have a cooperative program with Iran on oil exploration. Russia and Iran have had tight ties for a long time, especially in nuclear research--for example, the construction of a nuclear power station. Although China imports oil from Iran, the amount is not big. The thing most worth considering is that China has contracts with Iran, thus China doesn’t want to see an unstable Iran. Once the UN passes the decision of placing sanctions on Iran, many countries’ interests in Iran will be hurt, which leads to the question: Will these countries willingly support sanctions at the cost of their interests?
Second, if Iran uses its oil reserves as a weapon, this will bring big turbulence to the energy market. Energy experts predict that the world oil price could increase to $100 per barrel if such a situation happened, which is a possibility that the world must thoroughly consider.
Third, Iran is a country with ample agricultural products and traditional Islamic creed. Therefore, it relies much less on the outside world and modern lifestyle, which means that to some extent it can buffer itself against sanctions. However, Iran doesn’t hope for sanctions, either, as oil exports form its main foreign currency income, and sanctions could cause a great loss to the country.
The second option for the United States is a military attack. My opinion is that Washington’s will is one thing, but the operation of a military measure is another. Just as Rice said, “Iran is different from Iraq.” Iran has a bigger territory, more people and a stronger military force. Moreover, former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein was widely opposed by Iraqis, and was isolated by many countries in the world. But Iran is an influential country in the Islamic world, and maintains good relations with many Arab countries. The Iranian Government is warmly supported by its people, which is also a key point.
On the American side, President Bush is facing increasing criticism due to the wars he launched in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially the latter. As anti-war sentiment increases at home, the approval rate for Bush has fallen to 36 percent. As well, Bush now faces the pressure of a mid-term election. It is questionable whether Americans would support the government if Bush starts a third war. Another concern is that, even if the United States destroys Iran’s nuclear devices through military means, Iran will quite probably take revenge through different measures. The United States must seriously consider whether a military attack is rational while it is still embroiled in the Iraq issue. But it is also possible for America to be driven by the fever to start another war. Even there is a war to come, it will not happen until the mid-term elections finish.
We can say that the United States doesn’t have many choices on the Iranian nuclear issue, as the problem is much more complicated than the one on the Korean Peninsula, while the stances of big countries are different as well. Negotiation is the only way to solve the problem, on such issues as setting Iran’s nuclear devices under the supervision of an international organization to ensure no nuclear weapons are produced.
What are your thoughts on the current Israeli-Palestinian situation?
The conflict between the two was left by history. Palestinians have tried to establish their country through military moves then negotiation with Israel, but all their tries went to ruin. They also try to get help from the Arab countries, but those countries have different ideas on the subject. Therefore, some Palestinian youths in despair think that they have no choice but to take the extremist way. Israel reacts with violence, which deepens the conflict between them.
During Fatah’s time in power, they also had differences with the Israeli side, so they did not get very far on the road to peace. As well, there are different ideas on how to establish the state inside the Palestinian territories. Because of corruption related to Fatah, Palestinians turned to Hamas, which did some good deeds for people in areas under its influence. However, the Western world will never accept Hamas’ stance of building a Palestinian state through extremist or military means. Hamas’ coming into power caused panic in the United States and Israel, and they cut financial aid to the Palestinians. As the Palestinians live mainly on the international aid, Hamas faces a hard time.
Hamas itself has plants in neighboring Arab countries. And because Hamas keeps close contacts with organizations in the Arab countries, it can get aid from them. For example, Iran has offered $50 million to Hamas. Also, if the Fatah-wasted money can be saved, Hamas will be able to make it through the current financial difficulties. How to unite opposition to form a consensus on establishing their state is an important task for the government. Interior disagreements wasted much of the Palestinian’s collective strength.
I believe there is still the possibility of Israelis and Palestinians peacefully living together, although it will take a difficult period of time to get there.
Do you think Iraq is now embroiled in a civil war? When do you think the United States will withdraw from the country?
Although the situation in Iraq is complicated, I don’t think it is a civil war. Iraqi people are divided into Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Formerly, there were conflicts and fights among them, but now they have reached an agreement on power sharing in the new government. Because the country is still under the U.S. occupation, some Iraqis have launched militant strikes on U.S. troops, which increases the complexity but also helps the country out of a civil war.
Iraq’s situation is so complicated that it is beyond U.S. prior expectations, which has caused the U.S. army to be stuck in the country. Nowadays, even if the United States wanted to withdraw right now, it could not do it. Without the U.S. army, the country will immediately fall into turbulence. Only when the new Iraqi Government has the ability to handle all the problems in the country can the United States think of pulling out. But at present, we cannot get a clear hint of when that might be.