Ray of Hope in Geneva Talks

13 December 2010 | 01:54 Code : 9624 Middle East.

By Rahman Qahremanpour.

The Geneva talks were neither a success nor a failure. Plus, expectations for these negotiations were actually not high. Three basic issues influenced the climate surrounding the talks: UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposed further sanctions on Iran and affected its decision on serious engagement with West, the assassination of two Iranian nuclear scientists, and the pre-negotiations atmosphere, in which both sides appeared to have no clear plans. In fact, both sides had stated that they were going to discuss the agenda of the talks.

However, I believe that agreement on the next venue of negotiations -Turkey, Istanbul- was positive, per se. At least both sides found an issue to agree on, and that signals progress. The location of the next round of talks, Istanbul, is important in and of itself as Turkey played an active role in the agreement which led to the Tehran Declaration, and enjoys a level of sympathy with Iran.

The composition of Iran’s negotiating team was also significant. The Iranian delegation has gained experience from its previous round of talks in Geneva, and acted more prudently this time. It refrained from promising the West something that may fail to achieve consensus inside the country. The weak point was, nonetheless, a lack of coordination in interviews. While one Iranian negotiator stated that negotiations are planned to determine an agenda, another member of the Iranian delegation claimed that negotiations aimed to answer questions posed by Iran. Meanwhile, yet another Iranian negotiator asserted that a discussion over global issues is the core target of the talks.

Catherine Ashton’s remarks to the press at the conclusion of the talks—which raised the protest of chief Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili—cannot be a threat to the continuation of talks, in my opinion. Prolonged negotiations are a signal that both sides are eager to resolve overt and subtle differences, while the EU and the United States have acknowledged Iran’s right to enrich uranium. Moreover, there was no considerable difference between what Ms. Ashton released as a statement at the end of the talks and what Mr. Jalili reported. The difference between what was said behind closed doors and what was publicized was perhaps the reason Mr. Jalili protested to the Western parties. At any rate, it is best to wait and see what the P5+1 will offer Iran in Istanbul, and how Tehran responds, before jumping to premature conclusions.

* Rahman Qahremanpour is a foreign affairs analyst