Antinuclear

Australia must adopt an independent policy on Iran

Will Australia erode or build trust with Iran? Guardian UK, NAJ Taylor, 15 July 13  The way forward is clear: Australia must adopt an independent foreign policy towards Iran on the nuclear question, as well as commit to dialogue Iranians now comprise the largest cohort of those seeking asylum in Australia each year. The tendency to dehumanise and securitise them is not only deeply disturbing, it is also beset, in part, by a paradox of our parliament’s own making: Australia has imposed sanctions on Iran since 2008.

These are autonomous measures, implemented at the total discretion of the Australian government, in addition to the raft of sanctions that have been set by the UN Security Council since July 2006 over Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programme – penalties that successive Liberal and Labor governments have wholeheartedly supported and implemented.

Indeed on 10 January 2013, Australia’s minister for foreign affairs announced a further round of autonomous sanctions. In part, he said:

These sanctions further increase pressure on Iran to comply with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations and with UN Security Council resolutions and to engage in serious negotiations on its nuclear program.

Notably, this policy pronouncement came a mere three days after Australia had assumed the chair of the Iran Committee on the UN Security Council, which the minister saw as recognition that, “we’re seen as having the commitment and resources to deliver effective oversight of international sanctions regimes which are critical to Middle East and global security”.

The signal Canberra is sending Tehran is loud and clear: despite the rhetoric of being a “creative middle power” – in this instance, followingthe lead of the US – sanctions are the only game in town.

Why is Iran being sanctioned?

The reasons behind both types of sanctions are complex. They stem from contending views of the nature of Iran’s nuclear-related activities – is it for strictly peaceful purposes, or not? In many ways, however, the origins of the Iran nuclear dispute are less strategic than they are historical, political and cultural……..

To be sure, criticisms of Iran’s nuclear activities and cooperation aredifficult to be dismissed out of hand; but at the same time, nor can assurances from Iranian political and religious leaders. Before the explosive missives characteristic of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president Mohammad Khatami sought a “dialogue among civilisations” with George W Bush. Around the same time, the Bush administration characterised Iran as part of an “axis of evil”………

Whilst Khamenei’s response to the dual-track of talks and sanctions has been mixed, he’s remained resolute in Iran’s inalienable right to nuclear power, and in 2005 issued a fatwa on the development, use or possession of nuclear weapons in an effort to reinvigorate earlier statements by his predecessor Imam Khomeini at the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979.

Yet it remains unclear what (if any) significance has been attached to such religious condemnations of nuclear weapons – particularly by the secular states of the west, and the Vienna-based international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA. To what extent can Tehran be trusted?………

Unquestionably, all forms of sanctions have the capacity to cause widespread harm and suffering to the peoples of Iran, as well as to the 35,000-strong diaspora community already resident in Australia. Whilst likely unintended, the imposition of such harm is less than satisfactory – both morally and operationally.

Australian sanctions against Iran must therefore be considered as an extreme measure to be taken only if efforts in support of regional as well as Iranian denuclearisation come to fail, or if the imminence of Iranian nuclear weapons acquisition demands an immediate response by the Australian government over and above those taken by the nuclear watchdog and the UN Security Council.

Australia’s recent statements respond to neither of these circumstances. Australia’s autonomous sanctions against Iran are in fact a swift “alignment” of Australian policy with that of the US, Britain and EU, as reasoned by senator Carr on 10 January.

What would an independent Australian policy look like?

The more appropriate way forward for any incoming Australian prime minister is clear: Australia must adopt an independent foreign policy towards Iran on the nuclear issue. Australia could certainly more “creatively” use its position on the UN Security Council, particularly as chair of the Iran Committee, to facilitate and foster a broader commitment to dialogical exchange with Iran than has otherwise been the case.

Simultaneously, as I have proposed elsewhere with Joseph Camilleri, Australia should do more to promote regional efforts at biological, nuclear and chemical weapons disarmament, which are at their most critical and advanced stage after more than 40 years of pre-negotiations…..

Whatever Australia’s leaders decide, both political parties must stop privileging sanctions at the same time as actively politicising Iranian asylum seekers. It beggars belief who they think that’s helping.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/15/iran-australia-nuclear-weapons-sanctions

July 16, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics international