Nato’s expansion is both a threat and an opportunity for Iran

Interview by Hossein Sarrafi

The NATO Summit in Bucharest ended 2 weeks ago. Due to its importance, Iranian Diplomacy had an interview with Ali Akbar Farazi, Iran’s former ambassador to Romania on NATO. Mr. Farazi has also been Iran’s ambassador to Hungary and Cyprus.

 

 

Nothing is absolute in diplomacy and no event is threat or opportunity per se. Everything depends on the actors, whether they grasp the opportunities, they turn threats into opportunities or on the contrary, they turn opportunities into threats because of their incapability.

 

To elaborate on your question, first let me give an introduction.

 

NATO’s formation had clear historical reasons. After the Second World War, NATO was formed to confront communism in Western Europe. In fact, with United States’ leadership, NATO increasingly cemented its position in Western Europe.

 

After Soviet Union’s dissolution, the existential philosophy of NATO was questioned. Some European countries thought that there may be no need for the existence of NATO in its current form. So they were after a new definition for the activities of this organization.

 

The fortunate event for U.S. was that the young Europe, that NATO was formed to stand against them, had become friends with this country and NATO. This was a golden opportunity for United States to justify its presence in Europe. It wanted to support the young Europe, former satellite states of Soviet Union.

 

But this was not enough. After 11^th of September 2001 United States seeks for other existential reasons for NATO and wants to convince others that the organization’s activities must not decrease, otherwise they must expand.

 

The current focal point for United States is geographical and political expansion of NATO. This has caused reactions from Russia and even some U.S. allies.

 

But what relates to Iran is that is this expansion for or against the country? I think it’s both. It can be a threat if we still ignore what’s happening around us, and if we analyze the reality from our current viewpoint.

 

It can be a golden opportunity if we look move beyond our current viewpoint. If we manage to convince NATO members that Iran is not a hostile country or a possible threat, as America believes, then we can act positively. We must convince NATO that Iran has a constructive role in developments of the region, as obvious in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The United States and NATO must come to this understanding that they can’t solve regional crises without Iran’s cooperation, and Iran’s constructive presence can help to establishment of security and stability in the region. In areas such as control of drug trafficking, training forces to fight against drug trafficking and establishment of security in Afghanistan, with its facilities Iran can convince NATO members to cooperate within this framework.

 

It was a pity that NATO secretary general didn’t name Iran in Bucharest Summit Declaration. The declaration pointed to the new comprehensive approach in Afghanistan and security affairs which will be gradually conferred to Afghan forces. The declaration supported constructive talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan but it intentionally ignored Iran. Whether during Soviet era or the present, Iran has always had a constructive role and its presence in Afghanistan affairs has been always beneficial for this country and also the region. What has prevented NATO secretary general from referring to Iran? We must follow an active diplomacy and make NATO aware of our potentials. This is not possible unless we follow a realistic approach. Being inept and awaiting for better days to come will bring us no good.

 

In the global stage of diplomacy we must be more active that before, show our positive side, and remind others of our cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Most of the predictions by political analysts became true in Bucharest Summit. Russians will persistently stand against deployment of United States’ missile defense shield in Europe, but their persistence will vanish if they receive grants.

 

The Bucharest Summit showed that Russians are ready to put aside their sensitivities if they receive what they demand. That’s because they act within the framework of their national interests. We should not expect other countries to prioritize our national interests over theirs. We are the ones who must reflect more on our own interests.

 

In my idea, what happened in Bucharest was ironic. Russians allowed NATO to use their territory and send it logistic commodities to Afghanistan. The commodities are passing a country that occupied Afghanistan due to its confrontation with NATO.

 

We see that the membership of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO has been postponed and at the same time Bush has stated that Iran is NATO’s target. But Putin has answered that Iran can not be a target and it is not a threat to United States. If we put all these together we find out that U.S. has taken the first step towards deployment of the missile defense shield. What I want to say is that we must know what’s happening around. We must think of our own interests. This will not happen unless we enter the regional frameworks.

 

The existential philosophy of NATO is questioned by its founders and new members. According to various articles in NATO’s charter if a member is attacked by another country, the organization is obliged to support its member. Such a threat doesn’t currently exist for NATO members, but they are following another aim by expansion of the organization. Cooperation within the framework of economic pacts like ECO and security-regional pacts like Shanghai is beneficial for Iran, but definitely it doesn’t mean that multilateral economic organizations can be a rival for NATO.

 

Don’t forget that NATO’s agenda is totally different from that of economic-regional cooperation organizations. The post-Cold War atmosphere tends towards regional cooperation. Naturally interests of every region, every group are different from others.

 

Iran’s membership in Shanghai organization, ECO or D8 (Developing 8) is advantageous per se. But does sole membership in Shanghai Cooperation Organization stop NATO’s progress eastwards? I don’t think so.

 

I believe that new blocs are getting shaped. As I said, after Soviet Union’s dissolution, new states were born out and former members of East Bloc entered the international stage with new policies. These countries bluntly state that their security depends on their relations with the United States. The day NATO’s flag was raised in Sofia, international media released photos of the Bulgarian Prime Minister’s tears. It was like tears of joy the lovers shed when they see each other after years.

 

These states seek their welfare through membership in EU and their security through membership in NATO. Germany’s opposition to membership of Ukraine and Georgia shows that long-time members of NATO need to redefine their objectives.

 

On the other hand, it seems that differences are rising among NATO members in fulfilling their missions.

 

By all this I want to tell you new developments are on the way. Will they lead to a new cold war? There isn’t a definite yes or no answer. I think Russia can’t further extend its cooperation with U.S. So formation of new blocs and emergence of another Cold War is possible.

 

Iran must participate in every multilateral regional pact even as an observer state. Avoiding multilateral and regional pacts is against the interests of Iran.