(7)               Let’s turn now to the situation in Iraq and the role of the Islamic Republic of Iran and certain other countries in the immediate neighbourhood. Efforts are under way to consolidate Iraq’s transition to democracy. The elections this spring, the drafting of the constitution and the referendum on 15 October this year are effective starting points.

The deliberations in the Constitutional Commission highlighted the problems of finding a formula to “exclude the most controversial issues”, as the Sunnis’ chief negotiator Saleh al-Mutlaq said. This was the only way to ensure that the constitution could be presented to Parliament at the end of August 2005, albeit after the deadline set (15 August 2005). Federalism proved to be an especially contentious issue. The Sunnis were worried about the disintegration of Iraq and the prospect that they could continue to lose influence compared with the oil-rich north and south. A further difficult issue was what to do about the former ruling party, the Ba’ath Party. It is covered by the ban on racist and terrorist organizations and ideologies and should no longer be able to play any role in politics. Islam as a source of law and jurisdiction and women’s rights were other contentious issues.

The constitutional debates highlighted the difficulties facing the 25 million Iraqis – the three major groups, namely the Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds, the dozens of other ethnic or religious minorities, and numerous tribes – in their efforts to reach the compromise necessary for their country’s democratic development and unity.

A key element of this democratic development is the endorsement of Iraq’s new constitution in the referendum on 18 October. 78 percent of the Iraqi people voted in favour of the constitution. 21 percent rejected it. Iraq will thus acquire a constitutional system which is unique. There is no other model like it in the Arab world. This is a hopeful sign. It gives encouragement to everyone who is unwilling to view democracy in the Arab world as a lost cause.

The priority for a democratic Iraq – in which we are investing expectations, hopes and a commitment to reconstruction – is, in my view, internal and external security. Without security, reconstruction is impossible. The wave of terrorist attacks which has lasted for more than a year shows that Iraq is becoming more, not less, vulnerable. Terrorism is derailing the efforts to establish a democracy under the rule of law. The deaths of more than a thousand pilgrims on a bridge over the Tigris River in Baghdad on 31 August demonstrates the dramatic impact of terrorism. Almost every day, an increasingly brutal campaign of terror is overshadowing the process of democratic development. It does not only target those who bear political responsibility. Above all, it is Iraq’s exhausted population which is suffering. In June this year, the oldest Member of the Iraqi Parliament, Sheikh Dhari al-Fayadh, was killed, along with his son and three bodyguards, by a car bomb. The 87-year-old Shi’ite politician was on his way to a meeting of Parliament when the attack took place. In September, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described Iraq as “a centre for terrorist activities“ on a scale which poses an increasing threat to the Iraqi people.

On the first anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq to a transitional Iraqi government, President Bush reiterated his determination to continue the war on terrorism and build a lasting peace in Iraq. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice underlined that building stability and democracy in the Middle East is in the US’s national security interests. According to Rice, the terrorist threat is primarily the result of the “poisoned politics” in the region.

At the conference on Iraq in Brussels in June 2005, the international community agreed a programme of aid for the reconstruction of Iraq. Representatives of 85 countries and international organizations endorsed the demand for extra debt relief. They also announced that they would further expedite the disbursement of the pledges already made. The Iraqi Transitional Government was urged to continue and intensify efforts to engage all parties renouncing violence in the political process. UN Secretary-General Annan said that Iraqis must come together to draft a new constitution in an inclusive, participatory, transparent process that responds to the demands of all constituencies. The international community attaches particular importance to involving the Sunni minority, most of whom boycotted the January elections.

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Jaafari made it clear that Iraq is striving for political and economic independence but is heavily reliant on the international community’s assistance. He pointed out that the presence of the US-led troops in Iraq can only be temporary.

The Brussels conference laid the foundation for a new international partnership with a free and democratic Iraq. Maintaining this strong foundation will depend on whether efforts to shape the future on the basis of compromise and reconciliation are successful. Hatred and violence must end. Iraq’s neighbours are called upon, and have an obligation, to support this process. Iran in particular, as well as Saudi Arabia and Syria, have a key role to play here.

In Iran, the election of conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on 24 June 2005 has created a new situation in terms of the balance of power in the region. After his election he proclaimed, “Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world.” This position was dramatically accentuated on 27 October when the Iranian President, addressing students at the University of Tehran, called for the destruction of Israel, saying that the state of Israel should be "wiped off the map” and that “anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury”. This could create a new and unprecedented set of problems for policies that are geared towards peaceful and democratic development in the Middle East. Despite the assurances by clerics and Iran’s Foreign Minister that the Iranian Government respects the UN Charter and will not threaten or use force against other UN member states, these statements of hostility towards Israel must be taken seriously. This applies especially when we consider that Iran could very soon possess the know-how required to build a nuclear bomb. Furthermore, Tehran is developing missiles with a range of up to 3000 km. Ahmadinejad says that his government will be guided by the interests and progress of the Iranian nation, but it remains to be seen what kind of “interests and progress” this is. Further liberalization of the political system will not be a priority. Indeed, pressure to move in the other direction is more likely. But if Ahmadinejad wants to avoid risking the polarization of Iranian society that would jeopardize peaceful social relations, he will probably not be inclined to shift Iran’s cultural and domestic policy onto a radically anti-reformist course. Instead, he will have to follow Khatami’s lead and opt for a moderate approach.

In the nuclear dispute, the situation remains problematical. During the election campaign, Ahmadinejad criticized the Iranian negotiators’ willingness to compromise. He called for a position of strength. After the elections, he pledged to continue the talks with the EU troika on the nuclear issue. When Iran announced its decision to resume some of its nuclear work on 1 August, the EU troika threatened to break off talks. The “irreversible decision“ to restart production at Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility was initially postponed. On 8 August 2005, Iran rejected the EU’s proposals to address the outstanding issues in the negotiations and restarted reprocessing work at the controversial Isfahan site. The German Chancellor said that there were ways and means of showing “economic resistance” to any country that sought to develop nuclear weapons.

The nuclear dispute with Iran has various facets: it has security policy, technological and commercial implications. It concerns regional dominance, Europe’s profile, transatlantic mistrust and the economic interests of actors such as Russia and India. Above all, it concerns Israel’s security interests.

The implications of Iran’s policies for Iraq and the entire region are reflected in a pre-election speech by Ahmadinejad in the city of Mashhad in north-east Iran: “An Islamic state means a state in which every action and every aspiration must be guided by the word of Allah and the behest of the Prophet. Every government must be convinced that Islam has a solution to every human need.” This presumably includes the solution to the nuclear dispute. Policies that are geared towards the realization of these philosophical objectives pose new challenges to the Western community. We must accept that there is a need for a new, deeper and wider dialogue. The cooperation with Europe and also with the Alliance is extremely important for Tehran in this context, and trust-building is a key imperative. Above all, the position adopted by the United Nations Security Council will be crucial. If the Security Council moves in the direction of sanctions, we cannot rule out the prospect of Iran threatening to use its sabotage potential. In Iraq and in the Middle East – President Assad of Syria was the first foreign politician to be received by Ahmadinejad – the conflict over Iran’s nuclear programme could worsen instability and crisis.

The EU’s demands also raise issues in international law. The key document is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in 1970. Article IV (1) states: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination … ”. This passage highlights a fundamental problem with current international law: it provides unrestricted scope to operate nuclear power plants, which gives any country with an interest in doing so the opportunity to develop its nuclear capabilities for military purposes. In early September, EU diplomats were saying that the EU’s efforts to reach a long-term agreement with Iran on the nuclear programme, with “objective guarantees” that it would only ever be used for peaceful purposes, “were at an end”.

At the end of September 2004, the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted the resolution tabled by the EU-3 (Germany, the United Kingdom and France). It recalls Iran’s failures in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement and that it has to date failed to heed repeated calls by the Board. The resolution urges Iran to implement transparency measures and to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and associated activity. An international coalition formed by the EU-3 in response to the nuclear dispute is intended to encourage Tehran to abandon its nuclear programme. It is to include countries such as Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa which have spoken out against any condemnation of Iran by the Security Council. Tehran has now signalled some willingness to compromise. The Iranian Government has said that it will grant IAEA inspectors access to Iranian nuclear facilities and has indicated that in order to prevent the nuclear dispute from being referred to the Security Council, Iran is prepared to make further concessions.

Iran is seeking India’s backing for its nuclear programme in the dispute with the West. Iran’s nuclear programme featured prominently in the talks in Delhi on 5 September between Ali Ardashir Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator with the EU, and Indian External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh. According to government representatives, other topics of discussion were the possible threat of UN sanctions against Iran and the question of how to avert them. Other strategic issues relating to cooperation were also discussed.

It is essential to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. All appropriate forms of political and economic pressure should be brought to bear to this end. Political and economic benefits could be offered to Iran in exchange for verifiable renunciation of the nuclear option.

Let me now turn briefly to those countries in the region which I have classified in Group I.

In Saudi Arabia, oil prices rose by 50 cents to above 61 US dollars a barrel on the day of King Fahd’s death. The country produces 9.5 million barrels of oil a day. The new King Abdullah now faces two hostile factions and opponents. Firstly, the Islamic opposition in exile in London rejects the monopoly rule of the Al Saud dynasty, Saudi Arabia’s royal family. Secondly, Saudi Arabia must defend itself from the Islamist terrorists of Al-Qaeda, which accuses the house of Saud of “betraying Islam” through its close alliance with the USA. This alliance has become complicated in the wake of 11 September 2001. There is also criticism of the lavish lifestyle of many of Saudi Arabia’s thousands of princes, which allegedly violates the puritanical doctrine which should guide a good Muslim’s life and actions.

These are difficult starting conditions for democracy-building. In a country in which more than half the population is under 25 years of age, with an unemployment rate of 25%, the challenges facing the leadership are considerable.

Both in Iran and in Saudi Arabia, the contradictions between religious utopia and the difficult realities of life cannot be overlooked. The Saudi royal family bases its model of government on a radical Sunni interpretation of Islam. Politically, it depends on a fragile alliance of tribal leaders and clerics. Iran’s theocratic model is based on Shia beliefs.

A peaceful solution to the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian conflict offers prospects for positive development in the Middle Eastern region. A lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is a fundamental and indispensable prerequisite for democratic development. President Bush, speaking in Texas in July, said that he could imagine a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, side by side in their own states, by 2009. This statement sounds encouraging. As a parliamentary democracy under the rule of law, Israel has a special capacity to radiate beneficial influences in the region. However, there must be a greater willingness to compromise and keep the door to the “roadmap” open. The courageous step of withdrawal from Gaza is a good starting point. This is the only way to develop enhanced strategies which encompass territorial issues, refugee return, security for Israel and reconstruction assistance for the Palestinian state, with a just peace between Israel and Palestine as the possible outcome.

Developments in Lebanon can be viewed with cautious optimism. The Syrian troops have withdrawn. However, there is still a concern that there could be renewed violent clashes between the various religious communities. When Lebanon’s leader of the opposition says that there is no prospect of Hizbollah disarming, this is certainly a cause for concern. The findings of the independent inquiry into the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, will have major political significance for the future of the country. The consolidation of democracy in Lebanon will also depend on Syria’s democratic development.

After the forced withdrawal of troops from its neighbour country, Syria has forfeited some of its influence. Within Syria itself, this does not appear to have undermined Bashar al-Assad’s regime to any great extent. It is still destabilizing Iraq. It is still providing safe havens in Syria for terrorist groups. The opposition is still being subjected to systematic repression. Emergency laws remain in force. Several thousand of the regime’s opponents are in prison. At the Iraq conference in Brussels, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zibari accused Syria of continuing to allow terrorists to cross its borders into Iraq. The suicide of Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan can be taken as a confession that he was involved in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on 14 February this year. Syria – a secular republic – is closely allied with Iran. Together, the two countries are pursuing interests in Iraq, in Palestine and in the conflict with the USA and Israel. This is most apparent in the two countries’ interest in the Hizbollah (“Party of God”) organization in Lebanon. Hizbollah is funded by the Islamic Republic of Iran and is frequently used by Syria as a proxy against Israel.

Egypt occupies an important position. The terrorist attack on Sharm El Sheikh in July highlighted the country’s vulnerability. Suppression of the opposition in Egypt is continuing. The right to demonstrate, which is enshrined in the Egyptian constitution, is denied. Through a constitutional amendment, Egypt finally allowed multiparty elections, with alternative presidential candidates, to take place on 7 September for the first time in 24 years; it also allowed election monitoring by non-government organizations for the first time. On 3 September, an administrative court in Cairo ruled that local civil-society activists had to be allowed to monitor the elections from inside polling stations. Candidates were fielded by the political parties. However, the National Democratic Party headed by 77-year-old President Mubarak still dominates the Egyptian Parliament. Since the murder of President Anwar al-Sadat in October 1981, a state of emergency has been in force. However, the first steps in the transition towards parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, with opportunities to exert influence in the region, are apparent. Together with the stabilization of Iraq, this development can only continue to be successful if the opposition is granted genuine opportunities for participation.

The political reform process being promoted by the Government and Parliament of the Kingdom of Jordan deserves our respect. The Jordanian people’s willingness to reform and move towards democracy is being driven forward. The royal house, Government and Parliament are urging the people to participate in politics, engage in dialogue and support the democratic process. As in countries across the entire region, the very low average age of the Jordanian population means that special measures are required in relation to economic development and the labour market. This is the only way to create prospects for the future and ensure that there is no latitude for anti-democratic forces and terrorism.

Successful democracy and the rule of law in Iraq, the continued cautious opening in Saudi Arabia, and the impacts of the presidential elections in Egypt on domestic policy reform will have implications for the wider region. The liberal Gulf states such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain or, indeed, our host country Qatar must also feature in the deliberations. Here, the key objective is to prevent them from being caught up in the wave of terrorism.

Previous          Next