Tweet
_Persian Journal_ (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/)
Who were the Winners and Losers of the Caspian Summit in Tehran?
By Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD International Law of the Sea - Persian Journal
Nov 2, 2007, 19:08
The Summit of Caspian littoral states (Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan,
Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan) was convened in Tehran on 16th of October
2007. The Islamic Republic of Iran has claimed that the summit was
great success. (1) However, it seems that from different points of
view, the summit had different winners and losers.
The summit in Tehran was originally arranged to find a formula for the
new legal regime of the Caspian Sea which has remained unsolved since
the collapse of the USSR. The old regime which is still valid and it
will be so until the concerned states find a new one to replace it was
based on the 1921 and 1940 treaties of Iran and the USSR. Those
documents refer to the Caspian as the common property of Iran and the
USSR without going into exact legal meaning of this concept. (2)
At the same time, the newly independent states bordering the Caspian
Sea do not see that regime suitable for the present
conditions. Therefore, the littoral states of the Caspian Sea have
held many meetings (including the first Summit in Ashgabat, capital of
Turkmenistan, in 2002) in all levels to solve the problem and they
have not succeeded. (3)The Tehran summit failed to doso and it joined
the long list of failed meetings in this field. (4) The summit in
Tehran adopted a 25 point declaration which contained almost nothing
important or any serious commitment related to the legal regime of the
Caspian Sea. (5)
The first point of the concerned declaration was about efforts of the
littoral states for keeping the peace and stability. Point two was
about the commitment to continue meetings. Points three and four were
about the cooperation in economic fields. Point five was on the
exclusive rights of the littoral states, point six referred to the
legal regime of the Caspian Sea and said: the littoral states would
try to find the formula for solving this issue through concluding a
convention in future. Point seven was about sailing of the ships under
the flags of the littoral states and point eight referred to the
urgency of determining a legal regime for the Caspian. Point nine was
about respecting the mutual rights, point ten was on continuing the
process of accord, point eleven and twelve were on preservation of the
environment, and point thirteen and fourteen were on peace, point
fifteen referred to refraining from letting others use their territory
for attacking other littoral states, point sixteen to eighteen were on
observation of the international law, point nineteen was on peaceful
use of nuclear energy, point twenty to twenty four were on respecting
the UN charter, combating terrorism and eventually point twenty five
was on the venue of the next summit which was set for Baku next year.
It seems that as far the question of the legal regime of the Caspian
Sea per se was concerned, Iran lost two points:
1- Iranian regime refrained from using this important event to
emphasize its opposition to the existing agreements between the other
littoral states which are all concluded on the basis of the Russian
forced fed formula called MML. (6) According to this formula the
seabed is divided on the basis of the shorelines of the littoral
states, and the superjacent waters remain for the common use (a
formula that gives the Russians free access to allover the Caspian
Sea). Iran has in the past declared these agreements as �illegal�
and contrary to the general decisions of the littoral states to find a
legal regime with consensus. Iran kept its silence in 25 point
declaration of the Tehran Summit about those agreements. This can have
legal consequences for Iran in the course of future negotiations on
the legal regime of the Caspian Sea and also in case the issue is
finally referred to international adjudication (like the International
Court of justice in The Hague) or a special arbitration tribunal. The
regime of Iran, in contrast to the wishes of the Iranian people (who
had made it clear before the summit that they would not accept any
violation of what they considered as their legitimate rights in the
Caspian Sea for the sake of short-term political gains of the regime,
including the support of Russia from the regime in the confrontation
with the West) seemed to have made a concession to the other littoral
states about the legal regime of the Caspian sea By keeping its
silence. However, after warnings by several experts on the Caspian Sea
affairs about the consequences of the silence in the summit about the
positions of Tehran regarding the existing agreements of the other
littoral states on the basis of the MML (including the direct protest
of this writer in several radio and TV programs) (7) the Special
Representative of Iran in the Caspian affairs and deputy Foreign
Minister tried to correct this issue. After the summit, Mehdi Safari
said that Iran would not sign any document that ignored the legitimate
rights of Iran and he rejected the bilateral and trilateral agreements
for the division of the Caspian. (8)
2- The Second loss for Iran was in the point eight of the Summit
declaration which encouraged urgent action on the determination of the
legal regime of the Caspian Sea. While Iran does not need the oil and
gas reserves of the Caspian Sea urgently (or in the level compared to
the other littoral states, because there are many other sources in
Iran, including the Persian Gulf, that can be exploited with less
difficulty and more gain) and Iran uses this fact as a tool for
pushing others to give more attention to its positions, the point
eight of the Tehran summit declaration seems to be against the tactics
of Tehran.
Some observers have considered Azerbaijan Republic as the winner of
the Summit in Tehran as far as the legal points are concerned
(9). Although Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan each won one point in
this field, we can say that Azerbaijan was the real winner because
Russia and Kazakhstan do not need Iran for dividing their shares.
The leaders of these states were happy about the outcome of Tehran
summit as far as the legal regime was in view. President Nursultan
Nazarbaev of Kazakhstan said: �I announce that no issue remained
unsolved.� (10) Also, Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan said: �outcome
of the summit should be regarded hopeful.
It shows that the legal status of Caspian will be solved successfully.
Declaration of the summit is the best achievement of this event.�
(11) Turkmenistan President said, �This summit showed that our
positions have becomecloser.� (12)
Caspian Summit may eventually turn into a forum for the broader issues
than the Caspian affairs. This means that the littoral states may use
this framework for tackling problems other than the legal regime of
the Caspianand try to make it a political forum in this sensitive
region. Also, the Tehran summit may have benefited the regime of Iran
in some ways (such as portraying that it was not so isolated as the
Western states were trying to show, or making the figures like
Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei, feel great that President Putin
had come to pay a visit to them), but the Summit was a loss for Iran
as far as the legal regime of the Caspian sea was concerned.
Following the summit in Tehran, the Russian President, and the Iranian
President only referred to the political issues. Vladimir Putin said:
�we regard that authority in Caspian belongs to the littoral states.
It is also connected with subsoil resources�I want to underline
especially that all sides positively assessed issues raised.�
Iranian President said: �the Caspian ea will always be the sea of
peace and friendship among the littoral states �this was a
successful meeting�. (13) Was it? If so, for whom?
Notes
(1) UPI, Caspian Meeting and Energy Hopes, Oct. 18, 2007
(2) Bahman Aghai Diba, �The Tehran Summit and National Interests of
Iran in
the Caspian sea�, Persian Journal Oct. 14, 2007
(http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news).
(3) Ibid.
(4) Bruce Pannier, �Caspian Summit Fails to Resolve Key
Questions�, RFL/RL,
Oct.16, 2007.
(5) The full text of 25points declaration of the Tehran Summit, in Persian,
Entekhab Newspaper (www.Entekhab.Ir, dated 10/16/2007).
(6) Dariush Dabir, BBC Persian Service, �the change in Iran�s Policy about
Division of the Caspian Sea�, Oct. 18, 2007.
(7) Interviews with Radio Farda and the VOA following the summit.
(8) Mehdi Safari talking to the press.
(9) Ibid, Dariush Dabir.
(10)Tehran Summit and Caspian States, Journal of Turkish weekly, 16 Oct.
2007
(11)APA Azeri Press, Heads of Caspian States Hold Conference on the Results
of Tehran Summit, 16 Oct. 2007.
(12) Ibid, Journal of Turkish
(13) The New Europe- European Weekly, Putin Wants Iran and Caspian in his
Pocket, Oct. 19, 2007.
Bahman Aghai Diba is a Senior Consultant to the CEO of the World Resources
Company
(http://www.iranian.ws/)
Who were the Winners and Losers of the Caspian Summit in Tehran?
By Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD International Law of the Sea - Persian Journal
Nov 2, 2007, 19:08
The Summit of Caspian littoral states (Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan,
Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan) was convened in Tehran on 16th of October
2007. The Islamic Republic of Iran has claimed that the summit was
great success. (1) However, it seems that from different points of
view, the summit had different winners and losers.
The summit in Tehran was originally arranged to find a formula for the
new legal regime of the Caspian Sea which has remained unsolved since
the collapse of the USSR. The old regime which is still valid and it
will be so until the concerned states find a new one to replace it was
based on the 1921 and 1940 treaties of Iran and the USSR. Those
documents refer to the Caspian as the common property of Iran and the
USSR without going into exact legal meaning of this concept. (2)
At the same time, the newly independent states bordering the Caspian
Sea do not see that regime suitable for the present
conditions. Therefore, the littoral states of the Caspian Sea have
held many meetings (including the first Summit in Ashgabat, capital of
Turkmenistan, in 2002) in all levels to solve the problem and they
have not succeeded. (3)The Tehran summit failed to doso and it joined
the long list of failed meetings in this field. (4) The summit in
Tehran adopted a 25 point declaration which contained almost nothing
important or any serious commitment related to the legal regime of the
Caspian Sea. (5)
The first point of the concerned declaration was about efforts of the
littoral states for keeping the peace and stability. Point two was
about the commitment to continue meetings. Points three and four were
about the cooperation in economic fields. Point five was on the
exclusive rights of the littoral states, point six referred to the
legal regime of the Caspian Sea and said: the littoral states would
try to find the formula for solving this issue through concluding a
convention in future. Point seven was about sailing of the ships under
the flags of the littoral states and point eight referred to the
urgency of determining a legal regime for the Caspian. Point nine was
about respecting the mutual rights, point ten was on continuing the
process of accord, point eleven and twelve were on preservation of the
environment, and point thirteen and fourteen were on peace, point
fifteen referred to refraining from letting others use their territory
for attacking other littoral states, point sixteen to eighteen were on
observation of the international law, point nineteen was on peaceful
use of nuclear energy, point twenty to twenty four were on respecting
the UN charter, combating terrorism and eventually point twenty five
was on the venue of the next summit which was set for Baku next year.
It seems that as far the question of the legal regime of the Caspian
Sea per se was concerned, Iran lost two points:
1- Iranian regime refrained from using this important event to
emphasize its opposition to the existing agreements between the other
littoral states which are all concluded on the basis of the Russian
forced fed formula called MML. (6) According to this formula the
seabed is divided on the basis of the shorelines of the littoral
states, and the superjacent waters remain for the common use (a
formula that gives the Russians free access to allover the Caspian
Sea). Iran has in the past declared these agreements as �illegal�
and contrary to the general decisions of the littoral states to find a
legal regime with consensus. Iran kept its silence in 25 point
declaration of the Tehran Summit about those agreements. This can have
legal consequences for Iran in the course of future negotiations on
the legal regime of the Caspian Sea and also in case the issue is
finally referred to international adjudication (like the International
Court of justice in The Hague) or a special arbitration tribunal. The
regime of Iran, in contrast to the wishes of the Iranian people (who
had made it clear before the summit that they would not accept any
violation of what they considered as their legitimate rights in the
Caspian Sea for the sake of short-term political gains of the regime,
including the support of Russia from the regime in the confrontation
with the West) seemed to have made a concession to the other littoral
states about the legal regime of the Caspian sea By keeping its
silence. However, after warnings by several experts on the Caspian Sea
affairs about the consequences of the silence in the summit about the
positions of Tehran regarding the existing agreements of the other
littoral states on the basis of the MML (including the direct protest
of this writer in several radio and TV programs) (7) the Special
Representative of Iran in the Caspian affairs and deputy Foreign
Minister tried to correct this issue. After the summit, Mehdi Safari
said that Iran would not sign any document that ignored the legitimate
rights of Iran and he rejected the bilateral and trilateral agreements
for the division of the Caspian. (8)
2- The Second loss for Iran was in the point eight of the Summit
declaration which encouraged urgent action on the determination of the
legal regime of the Caspian Sea. While Iran does not need the oil and
gas reserves of the Caspian Sea urgently (or in the level compared to
the other littoral states, because there are many other sources in
Iran, including the Persian Gulf, that can be exploited with less
difficulty and more gain) and Iran uses this fact as a tool for
pushing others to give more attention to its positions, the point
eight of the Tehran summit declaration seems to be against the tactics
of Tehran.
Some observers have considered Azerbaijan Republic as the winner of
the Summit in Tehran as far as the legal points are concerned
(9). Although Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan each won one point in
this field, we can say that Azerbaijan was the real winner because
Russia and Kazakhstan do not need Iran for dividing their shares.
The leaders of these states were happy about the outcome of Tehran
summit as far as the legal regime was in view. President Nursultan
Nazarbaev of Kazakhstan said: �I announce that no issue remained
unsolved.� (10) Also, Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan said: �outcome
of the summit should be regarded hopeful.
It shows that the legal status of Caspian will be solved successfully.
Declaration of the summit is the best achievement of this event.�
(11) Turkmenistan President said, �This summit showed that our
positions have becomecloser.� (12)
Caspian Summit may eventually turn into a forum for the broader issues
than the Caspian affairs. This means that the littoral states may use
this framework for tackling problems other than the legal regime of
the Caspianand try to make it a political forum in this sensitive
region. Also, the Tehran summit may have benefited the regime of Iran
in some ways (such as portraying that it was not so isolated as the
Western states were trying to show, or making the figures like
Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei, feel great that President Putin
had come to pay a visit to them), but the Summit was a loss for Iran
as far as the legal regime of the Caspian sea was concerned.
Following the summit in Tehran, the Russian President, and the Iranian
President only referred to the political issues. Vladimir Putin said:
�we regard that authority in Caspian belongs to the littoral states.
It is also connected with subsoil resources�I want to underline
especially that all sides positively assessed issues raised.�
Iranian President said: �the Caspian ea will always be the sea of
peace and friendship among the littoral states �this was a
successful meeting�. (13) Was it? If so, for whom?
Notes
(1) UPI, Caspian Meeting and Energy Hopes, Oct. 18, 2007
(2) Bahman Aghai Diba, �The Tehran Summit and National Interests of
Iran in
the Caspian sea�, Persian Journal Oct. 14, 2007
(http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news).
(3) Ibid.
(4) Bruce Pannier, �Caspian Summit Fails to Resolve Key
Questions�, RFL/RL,
Oct.16, 2007.
(5) The full text of 25points declaration of the Tehran Summit, in Persian,
Entekhab Newspaper (www.Entekhab.Ir, dated 10/16/2007).
(6) Dariush Dabir, BBC Persian Service, �the change in Iran�s Policy about
Division of the Caspian Sea�, Oct. 18, 2007.
(7) Interviews with Radio Farda and the VOA following the summit.
(8) Mehdi Safari talking to the press.
(9) Ibid, Dariush Dabir.
(10)Tehran Summit and Caspian States, Journal of Turkish weekly, 16 Oct.
2007
(11)APA Azeri Press, Heads of Caspian States Hold Conference on the Results
of Tehran Summit, 16 Oct. 2007.
(12) Ibid, Journal of Turkish
(13) The New Europe- European Weekly, Putin Wants Iran and Caspian in his
Pocket, Oct. 19, 2007.
Bahman Aghai Diba is a Senior Consultant to the CEO of the World Resources
Company
(http://www.iranian.ws/)