Tehran Expects United Voice from P5+1
November 11th, 2013 - by Sara Massoumi
The Iranian negotiating team passed three difficult days in Geneva. The second round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 in Geneva came to an end while many news agencies had spoken of the possibility of a big agreement on the second day of the three-day meeting. Despite all of this, Catherine Ashton and Mohammad Javad Zarif did not give news of an agreement when they held a joint press conference in the presence of Iranian and foreign journalists in the final hours of the third day of the meeting, but rather spoke of progress. The word ‘progress’ is the minimum result journalists needed for their coverage of these three days of talks. However, following this nuclear marathon, it was not Iran’s name, but that of France and its foreign minister, that was mentioned as the player that disrupted the game. Iranian Diplomacy spoke with Majid Takht Ravanchi, the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Europe and the Americas, about the latest nuclear developments in Geneva.
We passed three different days in Geneva. On the first day, the atmosphere was neutral and normal negotiations were expected. From the last hours of the first day and with the coming of John Kerry, everybody was waiting for a big nuclear deal and on the third day, there were predictions of not reaching a big agreement. What elements led to this result on the last day of negotiations?
The negotiations which were held in Geneva were the second round of talks, the first of which was held three weeks ago in the same city. Naturally, we discussed the details in this round. The fact is that this dossier has different dimensions. When you discuss the details of such an important issue, which have both technical dimensions and financial dimensions due to sanctions, the issues become more detailed and discussions become difficult. In the first round of negotiations in Geneva three weeks ago, we presented a proposal of which the details were studied during this time. The expert meeting held in Vienna was along the same line, until we reached Geneva in the past three days to further discuss the details. The result of these studies was a single text from all sides and then negotiations regarding this text began. In studying the context, you will automatically get down to the details. During these three days, the parties made good progress but there are also some facts which should logically be dealt with. One of them is that we are negotiating with 6 countries at the same time and it became obvious during this round of negotiations that these 6 countries have differences with each other. This is while prior to these negotiations, it was said that Iran has problems with the P5+1 but this time the Iranian team stated that it has taken honest steps and presented a logical proposal. In this proposal, Iran had considered logical elements which seemed necessary to achieve the objective. The fact is that there are differences among the P5+1 and you are correct in saying that optimism gradually lost its momentum because it was on the second or third day that it became totally clear that there are differences between the P5+1 members which ultimately impacted the general outcome of the negotiations.
After the presence of John Kerry and the other foreign ministers in Geneva, what caused these differences to be so highlighted that it made reaching an agreement impossible? Wasn’t the Iranian team aware of these big differences during the first day of negotiations with the P5+1? And if the differences did not cause so much trouble on the first day, what happened which changed the trend of negotiations?
Negotiation is a process which starts from one point and might be faced with different ups and downs during its course. Sometimes progress is made fast and sometimes differences appear and reduce the speed of progress. It is my general assessment that we made significant progress in this round of negotiations. We must not forget where the Iranian team started this task from. We presented a plan three weeks ago wherein general frameworks were proposed and then between the first Geneva meeting and the second we had expert meetings which helped the progress of the task at hand enormously and it cannot be expected that all of the issues will be resolved in the first round of negotiations when dealing with such an important and complicated dossier. On this basis, we must set our expectations based on the realities. I believe that negotiations have had progress but the fact is that during the course of negotiations one might be faced with a situation where the expert of one country gives an opinion on an issue and then a higher-ranking official from the same country expresses a different view regarding the same subject.
So, you don’t believe that these negotiations have failed or are faced with a deadlock?
No. I don’t see a deadlock. In these complicated and difficult negotiations which address different matters, one cannot expect the issues to be resolved in two rounds. The issue is that we are moving in the right direction and will be confronted with ups and downs along the way. We have certainly made progress but it is too early to predict whether this path will lead to the signing of an agreement in the next round or not.
After negotiations ended, John Kerry stated that today, as we are leaving Geneva, we have become closer to each other than the first day when we arrived here. The issue of progress was mentioned by Ashton and now it has been mentioned by you. Does this progress mean the closeness of the political viewpoints of the parties or is it about technical issues and removing the existing ambiguities in the nuclear issue?
This dossier has different layers; political, financial and technical. In Iran’s plan, there is a common objective which can perhaps be considered theoretical and the term political might apply to this goal. In the first step, technical and financial issues, including the sanctions, are discussed. On this basis, the closeness of viewpoints would include all three. From the beginning, we reiterated that, during the course of negotiations, we will not advance one issue by itself and we will pursue all three subjects simultaneously. We cannot just talk about the first step and sideline other issues. We made good progress in all three subjects but more time is needed in such complicated negotiations.
Why did France suddenly become the one who disrupted this game? One could perhaps justify a US action of this kind, but why was there so much opposition expressed by this country?
The fact is that we had predicted that the P5+1 countries do not have one single opinion and that each one of them has its own different sensitivities with regard to Iran’s nuclear issue. We cannot compare China and Russia, which have better and closer political and economic relations with us, with the European countries and the US. From the beginning, we did not consider the P5+1 as a united entity but this time the scope of their internal differences became more obvious to us. The long meetings that were held between the P5+1 countries indicated huge differences among them and that they need more time to reach a common understanding with regard to Iran. Our meetings with the P5+1 were postponed for several hours. The reason was that the P5+1 countries were discussing their differences in their internal meetings. This is while, prior to this round, their differences of opinion were not as visible as this time and the member countries attempted to prevent their differences from becoming public. Therefore, this level of differences was an unpredictable phenomenon which we not only did not expect to be confronted with, but it was also new and unexpected inside the P5+1 as well.
Now the ball is in the P5+1’s court. What measures will the US and other members take, in your opinion, in order to reduce these differences from today until the next round of negotiations?
The US, as a member of this group, has had his own viewpoints and takes steps based on its own national interests. We expect the P5+1 to resolve their differences. As one party to these negotiations, we cannot deal with different voices coming from the other side because otherwise the negotiations would be faced with difficulties. It was very clear that the problem of two different voices existed within the P5+1 member countries, and we hope that this will be resolved by the next round of negotiations.
What practical steps will Tehran take during this time to remove the obstacles? Will Tehran lower its demands or will the other party do so? Or will other options be proposed to reduce these differences?
It is natural that any country which is faced with differences will begin talks to remove the obstacles and we are not an exception to this rule. We will continue our consultations. Of course, reviewing the context of negotiations is also very natural. We will study the different points to see which one could be proposed with more strength and whether new points need to be proposed.
Today, Amano is visiting Tehran. It had been stated earlier that negotiations with the P5+1 and the IAEA are done in parallel with each other. Could this visit help reduce the differences between Tehran and the P5+1?
These two paths help each other but the path of the P5+1 simultaneously includes technical, political and financial issues. But the current issue in the IAEA is just a technical one and we do not see any special relation between these two paths. Of course, these two paths complement each other but the meetings that take place within the framework of the IAEA and Amano’s visit are the continuation of the Vienna talks and they move along their own path. On this basis, we can reiterate, in a general framework, that these two processes will help each other.
Would you consider the differences between the P5+1 members to be political? Can it be said that what happened in Geneva was a lack of political determination on the other side?
It is difficult to express an opinion in this regard for we only see the surface of the movement of one specific country within the P5+1 and it is not easy to explain the real reason behind such a stance. There are numerous speculations; some consider technical reasons and others political reasons for this matter.
Will there be bilateral contacts with France within the next few days before the next round of negotiations?
We will continue our discussions with the other party in order to bring our positions closer together but its nature and its form would depend on a review of what happened in Geneva.