 Mind your own business
EU interference in the issue of Persian Gulf islands
By Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh
June 10, 2004
iranian.com
Open letter by Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, Professor
of Geopolitics at the Tarbiat Modarres University in Tehran and
Chairman of the Urosevic Research Foundation in London, regarding
the recent support of the European Union for the United Arab
Emirat's claim of the three Persian Gulf islands of Greater and
Lesser Tunbs and Abu Mousa.
H. E. Javier Solana
10 June 2004
High Representative of the European Union For Common Foreign and Security
Policies
Brussels
Dear Sir,
Clearly the EU-GCC resolution of 19 May 2004 was
the main source of encouragement for Abu Dhabi to commit the armed
assault on the Iranian boat in the territorial
waters of Abu Musa on Thursday June 3rd 2004, in spite of the fact that Abu
Musa's territorial waters are under joint Iranian-Sharjah Sovereignty.
The UAE assault
was an aggressive act designed to trigger a chain reaction that would overthrow
regional peace and stability that was achieved through years of Arab-Iranian
hard work and cooperation. Hence, the European Union can be held responsible
for encouraging this naked act of aggression by the UAE.
Reports on Wednesday 19th May 2004 had it that in
a statement issued at the end of a joint meeting of Gulf Cooperation
Council and EU ministers, the two
sides
called for an urgent resolution, through direct negotiations or international
arbitration, of the UAE dispute with Iran over the three Persian Gulf islands
of Tunbs and Abu Musa. The statement told the two sides to negotiate, and
if they could not find a way, refer their dispute to an international
judicial
institution.
Having described this statement as interfering in
internal affairs of Iran and
giving recognition to the UAE view that it has territorial 'disputes' with
Iran, I heard your spokesman Christina Gallach stating to the international
media that:
the (EU-GCC) resolution does not take sides, and does not mean EU's interference
in national affairs of either country. This of course is not true, and
as will be explained in details, the resolution in question both
interferes
in Iran's
internal affairs and sides with the United Arab Emirates, recognizing the
claim that it has 'territorial disputes' with Iran. Otherwise,
the Director General
of the Gulf Cooperation Council, who is known for his radical Arab nationalist
tendencies, would not bother to use its influence through the EU and GCC
Common Commission and arrange for such a high-powered meeting
to come up with such
a resolution.
Abdul Rahman Al-Atiyah, the current Secretary General
of the Gulf Cooperation Council once before publicly demonstrated
his radical nationalistic tendencies.
In May 2003 meeting of the Islamic Conference Foreign Ministers in Tehran
he broke the order of the meeting and intrusively propagated Abu Dhabi's
illegal
claims on Iranian territories without prior warning and without any respect
for the agenda of the meeting. In that intrusion he ignored the common
practice of
the Arab world in refraining from the use of the fabricated name for the
Persian Gulf in international relations as the term "Gulf Cooperation Council" is
the best example in this context, and referred to the Persian Gulf in Tehran
with the name that has been fabricated by ultra-Arab nationalists like
Saddam Hussein to demonstrate their anti-Persian sentiments.
Your Excellency, before endorsing the issue of any
resolution on the subject of the three islands of Tunbs and Abu
Musa you were expected to know all
about what the GCC director general and the chiefs of Abu Dhabi consider
as UAE "territorial
disputes" with Iran. It is for such background information that
I present to Your Excellency the attached text which is a brief account
of the geographical,
historical and legal aspects of the issue of these three islands in the
Persian Gulf.
Similarly, before endorsing any resolution interfering
with Iran's territorial rights over these islands, you were expected
to ask for the relevant
files in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of Great Britain, a member-state
of the European
Union, and to see for yourself that the three islands in question were
returned to Iran in November 1997 through legal process. Having done
so
you would
see at least my letters of July 10, and August 12, 1997 in which I
convinced British
Minister of State for Foreign (Middle Eastern) Affairs that his interference
with the subject of these islands in conjunction with Abu Dhabi's endeavour
in politicizing and internationalizing the case of its claims would
jeopardize his
country's impartiality in the matter of Abu Dhabi's territorial agitations
against Iran.
However, your spokesman's assertion that the EU-GCC
resolution of 19 May 2004 does not take sides, and does not mean
EU's interference in
national
affairs
of either country is not true because:
1- Considering that all countries of the world (except
for the former Baath regime of Iraq) have declared impartiality
in the United Arab
Emirate's territorial agitation against Iran, to speak of the necessity
of solving
the "disputes" between
the two sides, is to officially recognize existence of territorial disputes between
Iran and the UAE. Although Abu Dhabi by resorting to such description of its
claims against Iran is trying to give the impression of legitimacy to its illegal
claims, the fact from the Iranian point of view is that there is no "dispute" between
the two countries and all that is there, is a one sided claim to the Iranian
territories by Abu Dhabi. The issue of a communiqué by the European Union
in association with the Gulf Cooperation Council that would refer to the existence
of such a "dispute" between the two countries, which
is exactly the impression that Abu Dhabi wants to create, will
mean that the European Union
has last its impartiality and has sided with Abu Dhabi's position.
2- The advice on urgent resolution of the UAE dispute
with Iran can only be addressed to the United Arab Emirates by
urging it
to bring
to an
urgent end
the "dispute" it
has manufactured against Iran.
Alternatively, if the assertion is meant to attribute
the notion of dispute to both Iran and the UAE, considering that
there is
no such
dispute from
the Iranian
point of view, the European Union has lost its claim of impartiality
by recognizing Abu Dhabi's incorrect view that Iran has such disputes
with
it.
3- Considering that in its endeavour to politicize
and internationalize its claims on the Iranian territories Abu
Dhabi unilaterally demands
for the
case of these
so-called "disputes" to be referred to international
judicial arbitration, any reference to such a demand by the European
Union can only mean an official
endorsement of Abu Dhabi's one-sided demand. Such a reference will
take the European Union out of its declared impartiality and will
automatically mean an official
EU recognition of Abu Dhabi's illogical position.
4- As for direct negotiation the European Union
should have been informed that in the past 12 years at least on
five occasions Iranian
officials
initiated direct talks with the officials of the United Arab Emirates
and in all five
times the
UAE officials declined to talk with the Iranians. Yet, in order
to politicize and internationalize its claims Abu Dhabi constantly
complains
about
Iran's lack of interest in direct talks. In such a situation any
European Union
endorsement
of the need for "direct negotiations" yet again will
only support the deceptive façade that Abu Dhabi is creating
and that will do away with EU's impartiality in that issue.
5- Within
the same context, it might interest the European Union
to note that once before, in December 1971 Abu Dhabi joined four
radical
Arab
states (including
the former Baath regime of Iraq), who launched a formal complaint
against Iran at UN Security Council on the issue of the return
of the islands
of Tunbs and
Abu Musa to her. The Council met on December 9, 1971 and after
some deliberations closed the issue and filed the complaint away
without
any objection from
those present. It is obvious that no country in the world would
be prepared to go
to international arbitration more than once or each time that another
country might
fancy to claim its territory. Hence, endorsing Abu Dhabi's illogical
demand for referring the case of its claims on Iranian territories
to international
arbitration
after it was done so once before, will amount to no less than loss
of impartiality on the part of the European Union.
6- It is also noteworthy for the European Union
that a case of territorial dispute might be referred to an international
tribunal
only when
all other means of resolving
it has been exhausted. Direct negotiations is the first and the
easiest means of settling such disputes and in this case it is
the United
Arab Emirates
that has refused at least on five occasions to discuss the issue
of its claims on
Iranian territories with the Iranian officials. Faced with these
facts, any European Union reference to the "need for direct negotiations" can
only endorse Abu Dhabi's show of innocence and that will do away
with European Union's impartiality
in the subject of these islands.
Your Excellency, many times in this letter I referred
to the United Arab Emirates' claims on the Iranian islands of Tunbs
and Abu Musa
as Abu-
Dhabi's "illegal
claims". I assure you that I have not used the term lightly
and that there are good arguments that will demonstrate the illegal
and or illegitimate nature
of the claims fanatically pursued by the Aal Nahyan leaders of
the Emirate of Abu Dhabi who happens to have kept the leadership
of the federation of the United
Arab Emirates to themselves for over 33 years now against the text
of the Constitution of the Union that prescribes for the leadership
of the union and the key posts
to rotate among the leaders of the seven member emirates.
Abu Dhabi's claims on Iranian territories are illegal
because:
1- The islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and
Abu Musa were returned to Iran on November 30th 1971 through legal
process,
including
the signing of
a Memorandum
of Understanding, before the state of the United Arab Emirates
was created and the Aal Nahyan took its leadership. According
to international
regulations
no
state can defy the agreements that had come into being before
its creation unless such agreements had been officially declared
as
null and void
by the newly created
state.
Not only did not the United Arab Emirates declare
the arrangements arrived at by Iran and Great Britain (acting as
the government
of emirates of Sharjah
and Ras al- Kheimah at the time) on the return of the three
islands, but also the Supreme Council of the Union decided in
its
meeting
of 12 May
1992 that
foreign obligations of the emirates prior to the formation
of the United Arab Emirates
will be the obligations of the Union itself.
Moreover, in
its circular of 27 October 1992, distributed among the representatives
of member
states of
the
United Nations, Abu Dhabi asked Iran to observe the terms
of
its November 1971 MoU with
Sharjah. Hence, laying claims on islands returned to Iran
before the formation of the United Arab Emirates through legal
process
is an illegal
act by
Abu Dhabi.
2- The MoU of November 1971, signed between Iran
and Sharjah, is a legal instrument which gives no right of interference
to any
third party. Also
the return of
the two Tunb islands to Iran by Great Britain took place
on
the basis of unwritten understanding between the two as Iran
deemed
that any
written agreement would
put her absolute sovereignty over these islands in doubt.
Nonetheless, the permanent
representative of the United Kingdom at the United Nations
declared in the Security Council meeting of December 9,
1971 that the
arrangement arrived
at between his
country and Iran on these islands constituted a model arrangement
for
the settlement of similar territorial issues elsewhere
in the world. Hence,
Abu
Dhabi's lack
of respect for these arrangements renders its claims on
these islands illegal.
3- In the meeting of 12 may 1992 of the Supreme
Council of the United Arab Emirates the Emir of Sharjah who is
Iran's
original
partner
in the 1971
MoU, refused to
pass his Emirate's authority over the issue of Abu Musa
island to the UAE leadership and left the meeting. Hence,
Abu Dhabi's
action
in assuming
authority for the
case of Abu Musa Island in the absence of the ruler of
Sharjah and without his consent renders any claim by
Abu Dhabi on
that island
illegal.
4- In an insincere manner Abu Dhabi is trying to
present the practice of the return of Abu Musa and Tunb islands
to Iran
on November
30th 1971 as
a military
occupation. In its scenario the visit to Abu Musa island
of an Iranian naval vessel that went there to hoist
the
Iranian flag
on the island
was enough
a reason to manufacture the accusation of an Iranian
military occupation of the
island,
disregarding the fact that in the island the Iranian
naval representatives were welcomed officially by the
brother
of the Emir of Sharjah.
Hoisting the flag
of the recipient state on the territory changed hand
between two states is a legal practice as US navy hoisted
that
country's flag
at Alaska
when that
territory
was transferred to US sovereignty from Russia.
At Greater Tunb a misunderstanding between the English
commander of the police station and some Iraqi elements
there resulted
in shooting between
them.
In a swift response, the Iranian naval vessel that
had just arrived to hoist Iranian
flag there arrested those involved and sent them
back to Ras al-Kheimah. Clearly the attempt by Abu Dhabi
in portraying
this local incident
at Greater Tunb
and
the official welcome extended to the Iranian representatives
at Abu Musa as Iran's military occupation of the
three islands will
demonstrate
the
falsehood nature
of its claims on these islands.
5- Finally, the European Union aught to know that
no country is under obligation to refer to international
judicial
arbitration a territorial
claim by another
country which is based on lack of awareness of
and respect for international laws and regulations.
Your Excellency, considering all the above and those
in the attached text I see no alternative but to declare that any
recognition of these falsehood by the
European Union as "territorial disputes" between Iran and the UAE will
render the EU interference in the issue of Abu Dhabi's territorial agitation
against Iran illegal and out of order. By launching an armed assault on an Iranian
boat in the territorial waters of Abu Musa Island under joint Iranian-Sharjah
sovereignty and by detaining its crew on Saturday 6 June 2004, Abu Dhabi has
brought into open its old hidden agenda of military adventurism against Iran's
territorial rights, ultimately aimed at overthrowing the vital Arab-Iranian cooperation
for peace and security of the Persian Gulf.
To be able to arrive at this contemptible
juncture the Al Nahyan leaders of Abu Dhabi have managed to secure the indirect
endorsement of the EU and GCC leaders with the help of Mr. al-Atiyah for its
territorial agitations from the European Union in the form of the EU-GCC
resolution of 19 May 2004. For too long the Al Nahyan regime in Abu Dhabi,
formerly supported by the Baath regime of Iraq, had been contemplating
to prevent expansion
of Arab-Iranian cooperation for the safeguarding of peace and security in the
Persian Gulf which has come about as a result of joint efforts by Tehran and
Riyadh with active participation of Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.
 Now, it
seems that by skillfully drawing the politicians in both European Union and
GCC into providing Abu Dhabi with the desired endorsement of intended
political adventurism,
the Al-Nahyan launched their first armed adventure on 3rd June 2004 and/thus
brought into open their true intentions.
Sincerely yours,
Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh
Cc.
H. E. Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, Brussels
H. H. Amir Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia
H. H. Sheikh Jaber As-Sabah, Emir of Kuwait, Kuwait
H. M. Sheikh Hamad bin Issa, King of Bahrain, Manama
H. M. Sultan Qabus bin Saeed, Sultan of Oman, Muscat
H. H. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifah Al-Thani, Emir of Qatar .................... Say
goodbye to spam!
*
*
|
Mind your own business
