•Iran nuclear deal could spell new trend in international relations
Last week’s successful conclusion to long-running negotiations between Iran and the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, the so-called P5+1, should be cautiously celebrated as heralding a possible movement away from quick resort to force in resolving international disputes.
Like all truly important agreements, it was a long and tortuous journey, taking the better part of 12 years. What was in contention was the question of whether Iran’s nuclear development programme was peaceful, as Iran insisted it was, or geared towards the creation of nuclear weapons, as many of Iran’s adversaries contended. The issue was further complicated by Shi’ite Iran’s historical rivalry with Sunni Saudi Arabia, its active intervention in the Middle East, its status as the most uncompromising opponent of Israel, and its human rights record.
The agreement involves the recognition of Iran’s right to engage in the peaceful development of nuclear energy, the institution of wide-ranging safeguards restricting its capacity to make nuclear weapons, a comprehensive regimen of inspections, and the re-imposition of sanctions if the country reneges on the treaty. In return, the crippling economic sanctions imposed on it by the US and the EU will be lifted, thereby enabling it to access the technology and services that would enhance its economic growth.
The positive implications of this agreement cannot be over-emphasised. It demonstrates the capacity for bitter adversaries to overcome decades of hostility and suspicion, ignore temptations to abandon negotiations, and hammer out an agreement which substantially addresses the major issues. Given the volatility of the region, which has been made even worse by the Syrian conflict and the rise of Islamic State, the reduction of simmering tensions is only too welcome.
If all the terms of the agreement are kept, it could head off the terrifying prospect of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. By curbing Iranian capacity to enrich uranium, reducing its stockpile of the material, and suspending the construction of heavy-water reactors for the next 15 years, all parties hope to reassure other nations, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia, that their fears of a nuclear-capable Iran are less justifiable.
Iran’s resilience in the face of wide-ranging economic sanctions is commendable. By demonstrating that it cannot be cowed into submission, it has made a case for the superiority of negotiation over confrontation. However, it must now move away from the pattern of lying, deception and subterfuge which alarmed the world and entrenched the distrust of its enemies. As it enters into a post-sanctions era, it must seek to engage with the rest of the world on terms that do not include the sponsorship of militant and terrorist groups.
For their part, the P5+1 must work to convince countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia to give the agreement time to work, regardless of their suspicions of Iranian intentions. The inclusion of so-called “snap back” provisions, which provide for the immediate restoration of sanctions in case of default, should be sufficiently reassuring.
Even though it is not directly affected by the outcome, Nigeria should be alert to the wider implications of the nuclear deal. Iran is a major oil exporter; the removal of sanctions is very likely to enable it to increase its oil-production and export capacity. At the very least, the prospect of a sanctions-free Iran could further weaken already-low oil prices, thereby compounding the woes of a nation already struggling with sharply reduced revenues.
Given the likelihood of this scenario, the Federal Government would do well to establish measures that would reduce any adverse effects to the barest minimum. It is essential that the current steps being taken to enhance local refining capacity are redoubled, as well as policies aimed at diversifying the economy and making it less dependent on oil.
