The Caspian Project .08

www.moderndiplomacy.eu

ENEMY OF MY ENEMYKEEPING IRAN CORNERED THROUGHSAUDI-ISRAELI STRATEGY

KHORASANWHERE DAESH, CASPIAN ENERGYAND GREAT POWER POLITICS MEET

FOOD POWERRUSSIA SANCTIONS ONE YEAR ON

BAKU 9TH ANNUAL SUMMERENERGY SCHOOL

IRAN DEALJUDGMENTS BASED ON THE LANGUAGEOF THE PUBLIC JCPOA

BRICSTHE STRATEGIC ROAD MAP

CO

NTE

NTS

08

[email protected]

PROJECT TEAM

DiMiTRis GiAnnAkOPOulOsDR. MATThEw CROssTOn

PETRA POsEGATEJA PAlkO

luisA MOnTEiROninA lAvREnTEvA

GAbRiElA PAsChOlATi DO AMARAlbRiAn huGhEsTAylOR MORsE

JEAnETTE JJ hARPERDiAnnE A. vAlDEzEvAn ThOMsEn

THE CASPIAN PROJECT

A WEEKLY EDITIONFROM THE MODERN DIPLOMACY

The debate between the initial liberal ex-citement of rapprochement with the long-time adversary that was always quicklycountered by the expected conservativeskepticism of a deal being nothing but Per-sian subterfuge to sneak nuclear weaponspast the nose of Western inspectors isgoing to continue. The subsequent broadsides taken by saidskeptics by a “counter counterpunch” willalso continue: failure to engage Iran willonly undermine any latent local democraticpassion in-country while strengthening thetrue adversary – the Guardian Council andits overarching theocratic irrationality. Ifthat has not spun your diplomatic headenough, given that we are all supposed tobe celebrating the newly concluded deal,consider these battling fear and fantasylogics about engagement with Iran (howcontinuing,or not continuing, sanctionsagainst Iran is either incitement to create animperial Persian tyrant or, conversely,

much ado about nothing) willultimately be insignificant com-pared to how both Israel andSaudi Arabia work strategicallyto keep Iran deep in its globalcommunity corner, deal or nodeal.The fear aspect comes fromworrying about ‘freeing’ Iranfrom crippling sanctions. Whilethose who view Iran from amore hawkish perspectivelament how much influence theShiite republic has managed toobtain across the Middle Eastwhile ‘weakened,’ they arenearly apoplectic with the pos-sibility of removing sanctionsand actually letting Iran enterthe world market and start todevelop global economic stabil-ity. The fear logic dictates that aprosperous Iran would not benewly responsible but onlymore bullish and disruptiveacross the region. The fantasyaspect, however, decries thatthe West is making too muchout of Iranian desires to be a re-gional military hegemon.

the enDlessly fiCkle osCillation of global affairs is beingwitnessed today by the waxing and waning of American enthusi-asm for an Iranian nuclear deal, now supposedly concluded witha brokered agreement on July 14. But that supposition is in error.

eneMy of My eneMy

Dr. MatthewCrosstonSenior Editor

Matthew Crosston isProfessor of PoliticalScience, Director of

the InternationalSecurity and Intelli-

gence StudiesProgram, and the

Miller Chair atBellevue University

WWW.ModerndiploMaCy.eu the CaSpian proJeCt

Keeping iran Cornered through Saudi-iSraeli Strategy

This dismissal relies on materiel statistics thatjudge Iranian war-making capability as notjust obsolete and behind most of the possi-ble regional rivals it might challenge, but aspossibly decrepit. Indeed, Saudi Arabia andIsrael both massively outspend and out-in-vest Iran in terms of defense and military ca-pacity and their current standing in terms ofdirect comparison is considered laughable:simply put, Saudi Arabia and Israel are mod-ern 21st century militaries while Iran is a mid-20th century military at best. All of thisback-and-forth, however, misses one verykey aspect: it plays exactly into the geopolit-ically manipulative interests of Saudi Arabiaand Israel as it concerns holding Iran down.

This is not necessarily a criticism of eitherSaudi Arabia or Israel aiming to accomplishthis goal. Geopolitical competition is alwaysabout advantage and disadvantage andmost view that game still as zero-sum. Thishas been especially so in the Middle East. Inthe world of Intelligence Studies, however,what matters most is gaining insight from in-formation. And while that is possible whenthe information is impartial, it becomesnearly impossible when the information isflawed or misleading.

This is what will happen in the aftermath ofthe nuclear deal with Iran, as anyone whoreads it will notice almost immediately thatit is much more a temporary postponementrather than a permanent solution. What I findso distasteful is not how the interested par-ties are all now trying to cater and ‘manage’the information to their own national agen-das. To me, that is a basic definition of foreignaffairs, albeit a somewhat callous and bluntone. No, what is distasteful is how the UnitedStates often fails to see itself being played by‘allies’ while being adamantly watchfulagainst such possibilities with ‘adversaries.’The problem, of course, is that whether youare played by friend or foe you are still, in theend, simply PLAYED. And being played does-n’t usually end up in your own favor.A recentpiece from Foreign Policy perfectly illustrateshow this can be both openly evident and in-explicably not noticed:

“The Russian and Iranian position is that theSecurity Council resolutions rested on theunderstanding that the arms embargowould be lifted once concerns regardingIran’s nuclear program were resolved. Pro-vided that a deal is reached on Iran’s nuclearprogram, Russia and Iran thus argue, thearms embargo loses its legal justification.The current U.S. position, however, may beless interested in maintaining coherencewith past policy than it is with ensuring thatit mitigates regional allies’ concern as muchas possible as part of a nuclear deal with Iran.Understandably, U.S. President BarackObama’s administration fears that undoingthe arms embargo on Iran would be a steptoo far for some of the United States’ key re-gional allies, all of which — but particularlySaudi Arabia — threaten to undermine theadministration’s case for a nuclear dealshould they perceive their interests to dictatein favor of doing so.” (The Myth of the IranianMilitary Giant, FP, July 10, 2015) [bold anditalics mine]

Saudi arabiaand iSrael

never Want to Seea Middle eaSt

that haS aglobally-eMbraCed

or even SloWly-integrating

iran

The line emphasized in bold and italics is anod to Israeli and Saudi concerns about Iranas a legitimate regional presence. It is not somuch about military conquest or even re-gional defense hegemony, which is what theoriginal Foreign Policy piece was trying todismiss from the discussion table. Rather, itis acknowledgement of a very serious butmore implicit reason: namely, Saudi Arabiaand Israel never want to see a Middle Eastthat has a globally-embraced or even slowly-integrating Iran. In Israel’s case, it is an obvi-ous reference to Iran’s so-called foreignpolicy goal to wipe the Jewish state off themap. No matter what changes happenwithin Iran, no matter what reforms or con-straints or inroads made against theGuardian Council, Israel will never see Iran

other than the Holocaust-denying, anti-Se-mitic, radical Shiite republic incapable of evertruly altering the political course set in 1979by the Ayatollah (Prime Minister Netanyahu’scomments today only bear witness to this).In Saudi Arabia’s case, it is the sometimesshrill Wahhabist concern over Shiite en-croachment in the Gulf and any perceivedchallenge, no matter how remote, that Iranmight make against the Ummah, thetransnational Muslim community writ large.It is easy to forget the radical cleric commu-nity within Wahhabism is not exactly tameand docile compared to the radical clericcommunity within Shia Islam. We are, inessence, witnessing the battle between Gulfradical Islam versus Persian radical Islam forthe ‘religious conscience’ of the region.

WWW.ModerndiploMaCy.eu the CaSpian proJeCt

This is not, of course, the official diplomaticline given from the Saudi royal family interms of its priorities or agendas. But it is,without question, a matter of ‘soul impor-tance’ to the religious community withinSaudi Arabia. And the fact of the matter isthat Saudi religious zealots do not take aback seat to Iranian religious zealots as itconcerns zealotry. America just chooses tonot draw its attention to that fact and the nu-clear deal is not going to lessen this intenserivalry in the least.

And thus, back to the original quote above.What that piece fails to observe or concludeis just how long-term damaging such a posi-tion is to the diplomatic and foreign policycredibility of the United States. Put another,more blunt, way: it is stating that Americahonors or betrays its own policies not be-cause of coherence or rationality or justice.But rather it arbitrarily alters course depend-ent upon present-day allegiances and theneeds of those duly initiated into the ‘innerAmerican circle.’ What mitigating allies’ con-cerns truly means in this case is America mayultimately betray its promises and principleson stage today for other promises made tofriends tomorrow.

It just depends on how important the friendsare. And Israel and Saudi Arabia are bankingon always being very good friends. This is thetrue Great Game of the Middle East that noone likes to talk about. It is a game of strate-gic doubletalk. What is potentially the mostfrustrating in this particular context is howthe Great Game might in the end actuallybackfire on the long-term security of not justthe Middle East region or the United Statesnational security agenda but of the actualnuclear deal concluded today.

Truly turning Iran, long-term, into a function-ing member of the global community, notjust with its benefits but with its responsibil-ities and obligations, might be the only realplan that allows the Iranian people, long-studied and long-documented as perhapsthe most democratically-knowledgeable anddemocratically-aspiring people within theMuslim world, to finally reconstruct its ownsociety in a manner that fundamentallychanges the nature and the dynamic of theregion. That possibility has only an inkling ofa chance if the present deal is not activelyundermined, if the powers on the stage thatcrafted it work in the coming years to turnwhat was initially a temporary band-aid intoa full-on permanent brace. And that, quitefrankly, won’t happen if the two most impor-tant countries that did not have their flags onthe dais today in front of the cameras workhard to ensure this temporary solution be-comes simply a confirmation of everyone’sworst assumptions about Iran. Perhaps, inthe end, that is exactly what Israel and SaudiArabia want the most. They don’t wantchange. They want affirmation. Sometimesstatus quo has its seduction.

The 10 mosT impoRTanT Things you need To know on Caspian sea Region

#CaspianDaily

Receive

your daily roundup

of Caspian Region

news and analysis

from sources

around the globe

the caspian daily

newsletter

What it suggests is that sometime prior tothe US invasion of Iraq a few individualsplanned a series of intricate political andgeostrategic moves that would create con-ditions hospitable for a group that was bru-tal and effective, whose geographicambitions were oriented toward challeng-ing America on the world stage. While I re-ject this narrative there is a small nugget oftruth in this conspiracy: DAESH is a biggerproblem for Russia, China, and Iran and theUS is strategically aware of it.First, take US political will in the fightagainst DAESH. The US is politically ex-hausted after more than a decade of war.Domestically, we have rising racial tension,an uneasy economic outlook, and the com-ing marathon of an 18-month electioncampaign. Internationally, we face an irri-tated Russia, an ascendant China, and theongoing drama of the Iranian nuclear deal.Without an attack on US soil, DAESH is quitefrankly off the local ballot and a footnote onthe US National Security Council’s agenda.

This perspective sheds light onmany apparent political fauxpas in recent months - namelythe no complete strategy andpublic bewilderment of US Gen-erals. In these moments wherethe veil seems to be pulled off,and a very human face is put onthe most powerful military andintelligence community in theworld, one is forced to surmisewhether this is not some part ofa deeper strategy within old-school great power politics. In-stead of getting lost in the noiseof poor US leadership, our at-tention should be focused onwhy the decisions are beingmade, because these decisionsform the front lines of a newgeopolitical battleground: Kho-rasan.

Khorasan is a region that en-compasses much ofAfghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbek-istan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,and Iran. To DAESH, Khorasanrepresents the first battle-ground of its end-of-days sce-nario. To regional powers,Khorasan represents the futureof energy.

ThE word on ThE sTrEET in afghanisTan is that theUnited States created DAESH to be a problem for Russia, China,and Iran. While it would not be the first time the US funded,trained, or invented militarized extremism in the name of greatpower politics, the whole truth of this statement is far-fetched.

KHORASANWHERE DAESH, CASPIAN ENERgYAND gREAT POWER POLITICS MEET

Evan ThomsEn

Evan Thomsenis a graduate of the

International Securityand Intelligence

Studies Program atBellevue University in

Omaha, NE and iscurrently a Master’s

student at the world-renown Elliott School

of InternationalAffairs at The George

WashingtonUniversity in

Washington, DC.

WWW.MODERNDIPLOMACY.EU THE CASPIAN PROJECT

The recent history of the region has seen anincrease in economic brinksmanship as en-ergy sources, namely oil and natural gas,have been uncovered. Russia and Iran, dueto their history of control and geographicproximity, have had relative carte blanche ac-cess, what with their largest competitorsbeing each other. The past decade has seenthis bipolarity shaken as Chinese, European,and American ambitions have sought to de-velop their own share of a quickly-increasingresource pie. While China has been able todevelop their own transnational energy in-frastructure with little regional backlash,Western development has come at bothhigh fiscal and political costs. The conditionsin recent months are a Europe that is still sig-nificantly dependent upon Russian energy,an Iranian economy that has basically with-stood US sanctions, and a China that is grow-ing more confident in its energy outlook.One way to counteract this reality is to floodthe market with new energy resources. An-other way is to destabilize the region.To turn again to US strategy, I offer threethought experiments. First, under the aus-pices of a Russia that has shown increasing

willingness to flex its military and subversivemight in pursuit of its economic interests, theUS faces two dialectical choices on the pos-ture or submit scale. Either the US can try to constrain NATO ex-pansion in order to give Russia space on itsperiphery and look to balance Europeantrade and energy dependence between thetwo nations or the US can try to increaseNATO presence through security commit-ments and public displays of force, seekingto undermine the Russian regional energyhegemony. We have already seen the publicmarch of NATO throughout Europe. We arein the midst of developing a simultaneouslyovert and covert strategy of economic andenergy subversion. It seems likely such astrategy would seek to align military andeconomic power rather than detach them.

Second, consider Iranian negotiations: Iranhas largely been in the driving seat, particu-larly as sanctions have fallen far short of crip-pling its economy. The scales seemed to haveshifted as the US has shown increasing will-ingness to walk away from negotiations inorder to secure a better deal. While the re-cent agreement is far from complete, I argueits timing is more a product of Iran’s desirefor expediency. Because as the threat ofDAESH grows in the region, Iranian eco-nomic stability and its own national securitywill at least be perceived at the local level todecrease. Therefore Iran has much more torisk in continued negotiations. This concernis also evident in Iran’s continued support forthe Assad regime. As DAESH celebrates itsone-year anniversary, Iranian support forAssad is less about power projection andmore about power protection.

TO DAESH,KHORASAN REPRESENTS

THE fIRST bATTLEgROUNDOf ITS END-Of-DAYS SCENARIO.

TO REgIONAL POWERS,KHORASAN REPRESENTS

THE fUTURE Of ENERgY

Third, as China expands its strategic reach, itbecomes increasingly aware of its future re-source needs. In an act of foresight, and ar-guably to some extent anticipatory fear,China is developing resources around theworld from food to metals to energy. A piecein their South-South development strategyis Caspian energy. In acts that can be de-scribed as a calculated risk, the Chinese havespent billions on developing energy infra-structure across what is increasingly becom-ing one of the most dangerous and unstableregions of the world. Whether this venture isdesigned to enhance China’s strategic depthor to be a bulwark against economic contrac-tion, the US has a geopolitical interest in act-ing as at least a partial impediment.

War is not just politics but economics by an-other means. The Caspian region, or Kho-rasan, is now playing host to a Gordian knotof great power politics and economics.DAESH is a dialectical challenge for theUnited States, existing both as a US foreignpolicy failure in the present and presentinga unique strategic opportunity in the near fu-ture. While drone strikes will undoubtedlycontinue, the current strategic landscape willhave to change for a serious Western-led in-tervention to occur. I expect that as DAESHlooks to Khorasan the US will look the otherway. Only time will tell whether this turn-the-other-geopolitical-cheek strategy ends upharmless or causing great harm.


Although the sanctions targeted the peo-ple from president Putin’s “inner circle”, hewas given the green light to further con-duct of the aggressive politics in Ukraine –the West condemned Russia but rather cau-tiously. The Russians sprang forward to pro-tect their embezzlers cursing Merkel andObama for Russophobia.

The tragedy of MH-17 became the nextturning point of the Russia’s relations withthe West. The Western powers introducednew sanctions – this time against more ofthe Russian politicians and businessmen, aswell as major banks and energy companies.Many countries cancelled official visits, cutthe ongoing and scheduled programs ofmilitary, economic and cultural coopera-tion, and stopped the supplies of arms anddual-use goods. Putin, in his style, reactedpromptly and without too much thinkingof the consequences – foodstuffs from theEU, Norway, the US, Canada and Australiawere banned.The food embargo was advertised so wellthat people actually believed that they cando well without products they used to havefor years just because Russia had to “an-swer” to the sanctions.

However, the joy of revenge didnot last long. The food embargobecame a problem not only forWestern producers but for Rus-sians as well. Putin used his“food power” – he hit the sectorwhere any changes are immedi-ately visible, especially if marketis not ready for an adequate re-sponse to the new challenges.Despite the severe economiccrisis and tense relations withthe West, the President's ratinghas strengthened. Does it meanthat Putin’s food policy is justi-fied?

in europe As the Russian governmentpanned, European manufactur-ers are suffering huge losses be-cause of the food embargo.Farmers from Germany, Poland,Lithuania, and the Netherlands– the Russia’s biggest food ex-porters - have lost hundreds ofmillions of euro in the last year.Many European producers hadto find new ways to attract theattention of local customers.Poland, for example, launched acampaign «An apple a daykeeps Putin away».

Last March, as Russia annexed Crimea, the European Union,Canada and the United States imposed sanctions – travel bans andasset freezes against some of the Russian and Ukrainian officials.

FOOD POWER

NiNa LavreNtevaRussia Editor

Nina Lavrentevais finishing her

Master studies in“History of interna-tional relations and

integration processes:cross-border coopera-

tion” at the Instituteof Political Studies,

the University ofStrasbourg.


Some of the farmers who used to exportlarge amounts of their products to Russia fo-cused on the new non-European markets.Also, the EU offered a partial compensationfrom the funds under the Common Agricul-tural Policy to those countries who have suf-fered the most due to the Russian embargo.Europe stays divided over the sanctions. TheRussian government undoubtedly knowshow to use the situation. Those who opposesanctions against Russia enjoy preferentialtreatment from the Kremlin. For example, ithas recently announced the possibility of re-vision of the embargo conditions for Hun-gary, Cyprus and Greece.For Greece Russia is the major agriculturalimporter– half of its stone fruit harvest wassold to Russians before the introduction ofthe food ban. Together with the pressures ofeconomic crisis Greece felt quite a strong ef-fect from the embargo. The ambitious GreekPrime Minister Alexis Tsipras has found a re-liable and powerful partner – during theirmeeting Putin expressed support for Greece,as “the countries have spiritual relationship”.The Russian government claims that it maylift the food embargo for the Greeks.

At the same time, the food power has be-come a part of the Russian “hybrid war”against Ukraine. Last year Russia banned theimports of Ukrainian meat, dairy products,fruits and vegetables. Over the first quarterof 2015 the Ukrainian export to Russia has re-duced by 60 percent. Russia used to be thelargest buyer for the Ukrainians. They nowhave to redirect their production to thehighly-competitive European markets.

in russiaRussian economy barely copes with the highinflation rates and capital outflows. Putin haschallenged it even more – neither Russianproducers nor customers were ready for thefood ban. Russia remains heavily dependenton foreign products – it is the world’s fifthlargest agricultural importer. In 2013, itbought foodstuffs worth 33 billion euro. Im-mediately after the western food was embar-goed, consumer prices considerablyincreased. This caused a big confusion on themarket – prices on both domestic and im-ported products were artificially raised.Stores have changed price tags every fewdays. But most of all the embargo affectsnorthern regions of Russia. They are completely dependent on the im-ports of essential products – severe climatemakes it impossible to grow crops and farm.Prices in these regions have jumped up to 60percent on some products.

In 2014, ruble has depreciated by 40 percent.The food embargo introduced as a responseto Western sanctions, has made a significantcontribution to increasing of inflation andworsening of the social situation in Russia.

THOSE WHO OPPOSESANCTIONS AgAINST RUSSIA

ENJOY PREFERENTIALTREATMENT FROM

THE KREMLIN

The inflation rate for last year came to 16 per-cent, food prices rose by an average of 30percent. Now, even if the most critical mo-ment has passed, both Western sanctionsand Russian counter-measures resulted inheavy economic losses and put pressure onsocial spending. The so-called "poverty level"increased - according to the latest officialdata, today about 23 million Russians fallbelow the poverty line. The purchasingpower of citizens in Russia has lowered aswell. According to the recent social surveys -two thirds of Russians consume fewer prod-ucts and food of a lower quality.Both federal and regional authorities havedecided to "save" their budgets reducing ex-penses on the important sectors of the econ-omy.

For example, the government carried out thescandalous health care reform, which re-sulted in thousands of medical personnel un-employed. Also, part of pensions funds wasspent on subsidies for Crimea, while militaryexpenditure increased.

Russian authorities claim that food embargofavors the country’s agriculture develop-ment. A number of projects for import sub-stitution have been announced. Indeed, intheory, it should stimulate the local produc-ers and lower the prices. However, todayRussian market does not have the necessarycapacity to fully replace imported products.Import substitution will take at least 3-4years, experts say.


It is often difficult even to start a production- Russia imports not only end products butalso technologies and means of production,such as seeds and fry.The lack of competitive environment is notthe only problem - the quality of the domes-tic products aimed to replace the westernfoodstuffs lags far behind European stan-dards. For instance, Russian "mozzarella" and"camembert" that appeared in stores leavesmuch to be desired. Plus, the mandatoryproduct certification was abolished in 2010,thus allowing low-quality products to freelyenter the market.For the majority of Russians it was quite hardto give up European and American food.After the introduction of the embargo mar-ket was flooded with contraband products.French cheeses from Kazakhstan and Norwe-gian salmon from Belarus are sold in storesand restaurants. As a result, those countries,enjoying the privilege of the free economiczone, made some money on supplying Rus-sians with European products. Residents ofthe western regions of Russia began to mas-sively buy European products in Finland andthe Baltic States.

the russian paradoxThree weeks ago, the EU foreign ministersdecided to extend economic sanctionsagainst Russia. The next day after the an-nouncement Putin signed a decree on the“full” food embargo for one more year. Thistime the wider range of products is banned,for example, lactose-free milk. The Russianauthorities also claim to consider the possi-bility to introduce other restrictions - such asban of transit flights of the European andAmerican airlines.

Kremlin is winning the information war – firstof all in the eyes of the Russians. The coun-try’s authorities were able not only to con-vince people to eat less but also to believethat it is the West to blame. According to therecent opinion polls, 87% of the populationsupport the extension of the western foodban. Another interesting fact – there aremore people believing that the embargo hassignificantly affected the economy of West-ern countries than those who think it con-tributes in development of the domesticagriculture. Here is the Russian paradox. Weare happy to create inconvenience to others,even if it causes us to suffer.

Speaking about the transport and en-ergy strategy of Azerbaijan, Elmar Mam-madyarov emphasized the importanceof Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway and TANAPand TAP gas pipeline projects. In themeantime, he pointed out Azerbaijan’scontribution to the global process of di-alogue of cultures and civilizationsbased on the rich national experience. At the lecture Minister Elmar Mammad-yarov responded to the multiple ques-tions of course participants.

Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov delivered a lecture atthe Baku 9th Annual Summer Energy School organized byADA University.

Elmar Mammadyarov briefed the participants about theachievements of Azerbaijan in political, economic, social andother spheres particularly gained within the last ten years, thepriorities of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, relations with the in-ternational community on bilateral and multilateral frame-works, the aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan and theoccupation of Azerbaijan’s 20 percent territories, the negotia-tion process mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs.

Elmar Mammadyarov stressed that the presence of Armenianarmed forces in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan remainsthe major obstacle in the settlement of the conflict. He saidthat for the resolution of the conflict, first and foremost, thearmed forces of Armenia has to be withdrawn from the all oc-cupied territories of Azerbaijan. Adding that the relevant res-olutions of the United Nations Security demand immediate,unconditional and full withdrawal of occupying forces from alloccupied territories of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov notedthat this position is also supported by the documents of otherinternational organizations, including OSCE, OIC, CoE, Non-Aligned Movement and others. Furthermore, he underlinedthat Armenia as an occupying power was also recognized bythe decision of the European Court of Human Rights on Chi-ragov and others versus Armenia case.

BAkU 9THANNUAL SUMMER ENERgY SCHOOL


First, the agreement is not a non-prolifera-tion agreement. It is an agreement that ap-proves limited proliferation of nucleartechnology. This characterization meansthat the US and others states surrenderedor abandoned their longstanding positionof banning any Iranian nuclear program,peaceful or not.It also is not a nuclear containment agree-ment. At most, it postpones some aspectsof Iranian nuclear infrastructure develop-ment. In other areas, Iran can continue todevelop and modernize to keep up withtechnology. At the end of 15 years at most,Iran has no more restrictions on its nuclearprogram, with the approval of the UN andthe other powers, by implication.This compromise of the longstanding pro-grammatic ban for Iran is curious becausethat remains the US objective for NorthKorea. The US insists that North Korea,which already has nuclear weapons, mustdismantle its nuclear program, not just itsweapons program. That is the premise ofthe Six Party Talks.

The difference in the negotiat-ing positions is even strangerbecause the Iranian and NorthKorean weapons programs ap-pear to be essentially variants ofthe same program. The NorthKorean variant is more ad-vanced. Nevertheless, NorthKorea has assisted Iran’s ballisticmissile programs since the Iraq-Iran War. Iranians have been re-ported as observers at NorthKorean missile and nucleartests. The cooperation contin-ues as does the North Koreanprogram.The second point is that it is avery one-sided deal. It lacks mu-tuality. By an overwhelmingmargin the burden of perform-ance is on the UN, the EuropeanUnion and the US. Its economicimplications far exceed its nu-clear restrictions. From the Iran-ian viewpoint, the JCPOA isprimarily an economic agree-ment.In return for some reduction inthe Iranian nuclear programs,the UN and the US will removethe entire architecture of sanc-tions imposed by any party onany Iranian party.

ThE JoinT CoMprEhEnsivE plan of aCTion (JCPOA) - thetitle of the nuclear agreement between Iran and six powers,among which the United States - presents a few obvious pointshave been missed in most news coverage of this plan of action.

iRan deal

ElEna M.

Intelligence Analyst

WWW.modeRndiplomacY.eu the caspian pRoject

judgments based on the language of the public jcpoa

In addition, they will allow Iran to buy andsell conventional weapons and they will helpIran get access to trade, technology, financeand energy. According to the text, this is oneparagraph in which Iran “agreed” to the ac-tions by the UN and the US.One of the implications of this is that Iranstands to emerge quickly as a regional eco-nomic power. Using Germany as a model,that condition is far more enduring and con-sequential than a delayed nuclear program.Once Iran’s economy starts to rebound, it willbe free from the threat of sanctions to ensurecompliance. There is no credible enforce-ment mechanism.A third point is that the text is a plan of ac-tion, as it is entitled. Significant by their ab-sence in the text are the words “promise” and“agree” which are the cornerstones of en-forceable agreements. The text uses the for-mulation that the parties “will” do things.Those could all be done independently ornot. There is no bargain evident.An enforceable agreement is an exchange ofpromises of performance. A plan of actionimplements those promises. The perform-ance of one party is conditioned on the per-formance by the other party, by thelanguage of the agreement. The terms of theJCPOA are independent.

This plan of action implements no agree-ment because no such document exists. Anagreement can be implied from the lan-guage of the plan, but the language must es-tablish a “meeting of the minds.”Fourth, a strong argument can be made thatthere is “no meeting of the minds,” a classicterm of contract law that is the basis forevery agreement. The awkwardness of thestructure makes clear that the intentions ofthe parties are not congruent and the goalsare even farther apart.Fifth, the JCPOA text contains no definitionof terms, such as explanations for the varioustime terms. A plan of action requires someagreed definitions of terms. One plausibletheory for a ten year time period, for exam-ple, is that Iranian strategists might have con-cluded that Iran faces no existential threat forat least a decade, as long as Iran did not pro-voke a regional nuclear arms race.They also might have judged that after tenyears Iran must be prepared for an evenmore uncertain strategic environment thanthe present. If this theory is accurate, Irangave up little in return for a chance to be theregional economic hegemon. The emer-gence of an economically powerful Iranwould alter strategic power relationships.Finally, the six powers did not include a termrequiring Iran to affirm or promise that it pos-sesses or has access to no nuclear weaponsnow, in Iran or elsewhere. That seems to be asignificant omission in crafting. If Iran alreadyhas nuclear weapons, the JCPOA would be astrategic victory for Iran.Assuming Iran abides by the JCPOA to theletter, the JCPOA will empower Iran econom-ically and that will shift the balance of powerin the region, regardless of the nuclear pro-gram. The Iranians do well to celebrate.

the jcpoaWill empoWeR iRaneconomicallY and

that Will shiftthe balance of poWeR

in the Region,RegaRdless of

the nucleaR pRogRam

The Strategy of Economic Partnership iden-tifies priority areas of BRICS cooperation - insuch sectors as power, manufacturing, min-ing, agribusiness, and innovative technolo-gies and many others, according thesummit documents. It is aimed at expand-ing multilateral business cooperation withthe goal of stepping up social and eco-nomic development and increasing thecompetitiveness of BRICS countries in theglobal economy.Besides, a range of other documents weresigned with the presence of the leaders, in-cluding the memorandum on mutual un-derstanding between foreign policyagencies of the BRICS countries on creatinga joint Internet website — a virtual secre-tariat of the group.Russian Deputy Foreign Minister SergeiRyabkov, who is Russia’s Sherpa at BRICS,told the summit that "BRICS is coming ofage, and this maturity process is gettingdeeper and more oriented at practical re-sults and, consequently, at coordination,"

and pointed out that the Strat-egy of Economic Partnershipwas one of the summit’s finestachievements in addition to thecreation of the BRICS New De-velopment Bank.President Vladimir Putin ex-pects that the New Develop-ment Bank, will implement itsfirst projects in 2016. "The newbank with a capital of $100 bil-lion will carry out large-scaledevelopment projects in thecountries of our association. Weexpect the first of them to belaunched already next year,"Putin said at an enlarged meet-ing of the BRICS leaders. Com-panies from BRICS memberstates "are ready to establishjoint ventures, build up mutualinvestment and commodityflows," the Russian presidentsaid.

after three days of high-level summitry deliberations, the BRICS group of countries(Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), created by the five world’s leading emerg-ing markets, have laid the strategic "road map" that will tackle challenging developmentand infrastructure projects, and will seek close economic cooperation under the plantermed "the Strategy of Economic Partnership" that will run till 2020.

BRICS THE STRATEgIC ROAD MAP

Kester KennKlomegah

Kester KennKlomegah

is an independentresearcher and writer

on African affairs inthe EurAsian region

and formerSoviet republics.


Industrial developmentThe Ufa Declaration points to the industrialdevelopment as the key source of growth forthe group: "We recognize that industrial de-velopment is a fundamental source ofgrowth for the BRICS countries, which pos-sess ample natural resources and significantlabor, intellectual and technical capacities.Increasing production and export of highvalue-added goods will help BRICS countriesenhance their national economies, con-tribute to their participation in global valuechains and improve their competitiveness,"the declaration said."In this connection, we reaffirm the uniquemandate of the United Nations Industrial De-velopment Organization (UNIDO) to pro-mote and accelerate inclusive andsustainable industrial development," the dec-laration said.

"We are convinced about the importance ofeconomic growth based on the balanced de-velopment of all economic sectors and onthe development and introduction of ad-vanced technologies and innovations, themobilization of resources from financial in-stitutions and the encouragement of privateinvestment," it said."In this context, we note the potential toboost collaboration in developing technol-ogy and innovation in the potential sectorsof BRICS economies, such as mining andmetal industry, pharmaceuticals, informationtechnology, chemicals and petrochemicals,both in the area of exploration and extrac-tion of natural resources and in their process-ing, transformation and use, includingthrough the promotion of a favourable in-vestment climate and the implementation ofmutually beneficial joint projects," the docu-ment said.

"We stress the importance of intensifying co-operation of industrial production capabili-ties, establishing industrial parks andclusters, technology parks and engineeringcenters with a view to developing and intro-ducing cutting-edge technologies, providingtraining for engineering and technical per-sonnel and managers," it said."We highlight that encouraging investmentin priority areas such as infrastructure, logis-tics and renewable sources of energy is astrategic goal for the sustainable growth ofour economies. We reiterate our interest injoining efforts in order to face the challengeof competitiveness," the declaration said."In this regard, the BRICS countries agree tocollaborate for the promotion of investmentopportunities in railways, roadways, seaportsand airports among our countries," it said.

national currencies"We acknowledge the potential for expand-ing the use of our national currencies intransactions between the BRICS countries,"the document reads. "We ask the relevant au-thorities of the BRICS countries to continuediscussion on the feasibility of a wider use ofnational currencies in mutual trade."BRICS countries have confirmed their adher-ence to developing international standardsin tax sphere.

"The BRICS countries reaffirm their commit-ment to participate in the development of in-ternational standards of internationaltaxation and cooperation for countering theerosion of tax base and profit shifting, as wellas to strengthen mechanisms for ensuringtax transparency and to exchange informa-tion for taxation purposes," the declarationsays.

"We remain deeply concerned about thenegative impact of tax evasion, harmful prac-tices, and aggressive tax planning whichcause erosion of tax base. Profits should betaxed where the economic activities drivingthe profits are performed and value is cre-ated."

multilateral policyThe final summit declaration seeks tostrengthen multilateral approaches to globalaffairs. "We affirmed the need for compre-hensive, transparent and efficient multilat-eral approaches to addressing globalchallenges, and in this regard underscoredthe central role of the United Nations in theongoing efforts to find common solutions tosuch challenges," the BRICS leaders said inthe declaration."We expressed our intention to contribute tosafeguarding a fair and equitable interna-tional order based on the purposes and prin-ciples of the UN Charter and to fully availourselves of the potential of the Organiza-tion as a forum for an open and honest de-bate as well as coordination of global politicsin order to prevent war and conflicts andpromote progress and development of hu-mankind.""We recall the 2005 World Summit OutcomeDocument and reaffirm the need for a com-prehensive reform of the United Nations, in-cluding its Security Council with a view tomaking it more representative and efficientso that it could better respond to global chal-lenges.

China and Russia reiterate the importancethey attach to the status and role of Brazil,India and South Africa in international affairsand support their aspiration to play a greaterrole in the UN," the declaration reads.

In April, Russia took over BRICS chairman-ship, the 7th BRICS summit held in July 2015.Leaders of Russia, Brazil, India, China andSouth Africa (BRICS countries collectivelyrepresent about 26% of the world’s geo-graphic area and are home to 42% of theworld’s population) made the summit’s keytopic "BRICS Partnership — a Powerful Factorin Global Development," the summit endedin Ufa, the capital of Russia's Volga republicof Bashkiria.


The 10 mosT impoRTanT Things you need To know on Caspian sea Region

#CaspianDaily

Receive

your daily roundup

of Caspian Region

news and analysis

from sources

around the globe

the caspian daily

newsletter

The Caspian Project .08

Documents

Transcript of The Caspian Project .08