NO TWO STAGED DEAL, A GOOD AGREEMENT A MUST

By: Abdolreza Ghofrani

Nuclear talks have now reached a sensitive and critical stage and certainly in the course of remaining time till 31 March 2015, colossal efforts on the part of two sides are unavoidable to achieve a well balanced and fair deal. Absolutely, being rational, plausible and flexible are significant factors at this point. Albeit it should be bilateral.

So far Iranians have shown outstanding flexibilities. But this can no longer be unilateral. It is quite imperative that the other side not expect Iran to do much more and go beyond further because the other side should know that the very national interests are at stake. The other side will definitely appreciate that a country and its people never ever compromise her best national interests as well as dignity.

President Obama and his administration have so far might have shown some apparent flexibility, though not enough and being much more in words than deeds. So it is now for him and his administration to decide and take steps if they really have the political will to iron out a well balanced, fair and sustained deal with Iran once and for all. No doubt, the whole world is looking at US because the ball is now in Washington court .Though the remarks Mr. Obama made just a few days ago saying that it is Iran to make decision on this matter ,it sounds , was  a little odd and unrealistic. Certainly, the time has come that US take the important steps and prove her will to make it.

Moreover, it is to the best interest of advancing these talks, if Washington seriously avoids overloading the agenda of the negotiations by making comments that is meaningless and hazardous; and  putting forth proposals that definitely neither help the whole process nor is pertinent to the talks.

US President, reportedly, has made points, through the past few days, that are antagonistic and to some degree interfering in Iran domestic affairs. These remarks made by Mr.Obama will not but deepen no confidence now have existed for decades. The high edifice of no confidence between Iran and US need to be mitigated now that these sensitive talks are going on. For sure these kinds of remarks will adversely affect Iranian public opinion and certainly evoke the distasteful memories of the past. US governments have not lived up to their promises and the commitments they have made time and again. As a matter of fact United Sates has relentlessly ignored the principle “Pacta sunt servanda” (Latin for “agreements must be kept), which is a basic principle of civil and of international law.Mr. Obama as a law educated person knows well that a leader of a country cannot and should not speak for the people of other countries. So it sounds pretty plausible that these comments be avoided.

On the other hand US proposal that any agreement signed with Iran should be two staged is not well known and having its ambiguity. The integrity is the inherent of any agreement signed between the two parties. Being straightforward and transparent are inseparable characteristics of any deal if irrelevant disputes on the interpretation and execution of the terms of that agreement are to be avoided in the future. The two sides have spent a lot of time and have lengthy painstaking negotiations on their differences and disputes just to come to terms with a situation that resolve the problems. I am afraid to say that US proposal will not help serving that goal. In better words, this proposal will keep the ways open for unnecessary interpretation of the terms of reference of the agreement and eventually disputes. When the two sides come to terms with a holistic occurrence to solve their problems, and then elaborating details of execution the agreement must be taken for granted and should not be regard another stage. In fact it must be considered an in-built part of the deal.

It is for a while that the “good agreement” and “bad agreement” terms have been motto of the officials’ rhetoric. As time and again Iranians have bluntly said they are seeking for a “good agreement”. It goes without saying that everybody and naturally every country longs for good agreement. There should not be personal or favorite interpretation for this term. Undoubtedly, any country takes a deal with others as a good agreement provided that it serves the best interests of its people and preserve and respect its dignity, independence and sovereignty of course in the context of internationals norms and laws.

In any negotiations, including the ongoing nuclear talks and as Iran frequently has declared, “Zero Game” is an obsolete and outdated paradigm in existing international relations. To achieve, therefore, Win-Win Game, flexibility is far too significant. Iran has so far been so much flexible and it is unavoidable to expect the other side the same if there is a really political will to get things done.

fair to share...