Daily Times

One of the most important sessions at the Eurasian Media Forum (EAMF) 2014 in Astana, Kazakhstan was the ‘New world order to defuse east-west tensions’. “Russia will not give up Crimea and the world must accept that reality,” former speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich stated to an audience of politicians, experts and journalists. What could be hoped for as a workable scenario was to affect a fragile balance, giving Crimea to Russia and accepting a weakened Ukraine. “We must stop posturing — this is our best hope — that we can muddle through,” he said. The need is to prevent an out-of-control situation that could involve Russia advancing on Estonia.

Ehud Barak, the former prime minister of Israel, reiterated the need to achieve a new balance of power, more on the 19th century pattern than the Cold War, highlighting the redundancy of the supremacy of a single world power today.

Vladimir Pozner (Channel One, Russia), the moderator, emphasised the reality of the changed world order since the nuclear stalemate of the Cold War, warning against talk of a new Cold War, as the new intensification of relations between the east and west was no longer about simple differences in ideologies.

Gingrich argued that the world was returning to “normal history” after the Cold War years, rather than to any kind of new order, and the present phase of “muddling through” was being conducted with the help of the globalisation of technology and commerce. The key point is the absence of a single superpower, negating the concept of hegemony. The US’s military capability is tremendous but limited. “We are probably the leading power but we are not the only one,” he said. The chaos over finding a workable solution in Crimea exposes the absence of a model for dealing with issues of such complexity, he added.

Barak urged national leaders to work for a new balance of power based on a multilateral understanding, warning of other ominous developments globally with special mention of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the Muslim world’s division between Shias and Sunnis. “We are one world,” he said, “The big difference between our situation and previous generations is the media factor. The media cannot be ignored. They reach into every home and they change the ability of leaders to take decisions.” Konstantin Zatulin, director of the Institute of CIS Countries, Russia, said the disintegration of the Soviet Union had led to the termination of the old world order. The Russian position now is that a positive dialogue between warring nations is imperative to avert the escalation of conflicts.

Sameh Seif Elyazal, chairman Al-Jumhuriya Research Centre, Egypt said that the requirement for international cooperation was even more essential in the modern, post-Cold War world, one giant issue being terrorism, affecting the global dynamic of peace.

Alessandro Minuto-Rissi of Italy, former deputy secretary general NATO, had a relatively optimistic view, as he believes people in general are better informed today, courtesy the quick dispensation of news and analyses via the internet, and thus better equipped to prevent the repetition of the mistakes of the past.

The Communist model may have collapsed but the core principles of equality, justice and fairness of Communism still exists, Rajiv Sikri, former secretary of the external affairs ministry, India, mused. He stressed the importance of forming new paradigms of morality in international relations, which would be welcomed by younger generations globally. On a separate note, Sikri was one of the few panelists in the conference who made sense constantly, basing his views on common sense and the encompassing idea that it is time to move away from stated positions as there is no one set of values/rules that is applicable to everyone, everywhere.

The session ‘Iran’s nuclear programme, winners and losers’ opened the Pandora’s Box that has shaped the US-west narrative towards Iran, and subsequently the Middle East, for what seems like an interminable period of time now. To ensure peace and defuse the existing tensions in the region, the solution to the question of Iran’s nuclear programme, which Iran refuses to tag as a plan to make nuclear weapons, must be found without further ado. Gingrich said that economic sanctions against Iran were not the ideal solution but were better than the only other alternative: war. And my reaction to that was: seriously, Mr Gingich? Devastating an entire nation by crippling its economy through extremely heavy-handed sanctions to appease your only ‘real’ friend — Israel — in the region is the ‘only’ option available to the sole superpower? I did ask him how he viewed the role of the US as the broker of peace in today’s very turbulent times and whether the superpower fears becoming the ‘dispensable nation’, losing its impact as the influencing negotiator in all conflicts affecting global peace. Gingrich answered with a smile that the US is not the sole superpower, and would not be able to affect major decisions without the input of all major players and the countries in question.

On Iran’s issue, Gingrich repeated the much-repeated US-west demand of open inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which would work to improve Iran’s relations with many countries that advocate the imposition of even stronger sanctions. “This would be the least bad step, before war,” Gingrich warned.

In response, Seyed Mohammad Kazem Sajjadpour, advisor to Iran’s foreign minister, termed the sanctions as absolutely unjustified. “These sanctions have been imposed unjustly on the false assumption that we intend to build nuclear weapons but we have never had a military nuclear programme.” The west-inclined media is instrumental in the creation of that misconception, and the lifting of sanctions is imperative for the creation of a new dynamic of mutual trust, he added.

Taking the US-Iran war of nukes-versus-sanctions to a different angle, Rajab Safarov, general director of the Centre for Modern Iranian Research, Russia, said that the sanctions, creating more hostilities, were futile in resolving international differences over Iran’s nuclear programme. His rather ominous prediction was that the nuclear deal would go through not because of sanctions but because the US was a staunch opponent of Iran developing closer relations with Russia.

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian-American Council, the US, said that there was possibility of a solution because both the US and Iran are attempting reconciliation to reach a compromise as the US has stepped away from its erstwhile impractical position of no uranium enrichment by Iran in return for Iran’s agreement to inspection. The positive change in Iran’s position under its new government highlights its departure from its earlier stated position, opening a door to a new dynamic in its acrimonious relationship with the US and its allies. Gingrich said that all countries are in agreement over Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy resources for peaceful purposes.

Sikri pointed out that the stance of Iran — a country surrounded by US bases and US allies, with a record of intervention — is quite understandable, as it required guarantees and respect for its right to enrich uranium for its own nuclear programme. “The Iranians are smart and they are not suicidal,” he said, arguing that Iran could make a responsible contribution to bring about stability in the conflict-riddled Middle East. India did not approve of unilateral sanctions, he added, saying that such sanctions were tantamount to blackmail that hurt other countries, including India.

Another very important panel was ‘The Middle East tinderbox — who holds the key to resolving the Syrian conflict?’ in which Ehud Barak participated. ‘Ukraine crisis. What do Ukrainian people expect and fear?’ and ‘Will the economic ‘revolution’ happen?’ were two more panels, and if I had not been bound by the word-limit constraints of an op-ed, I would have gone on writing, but alas.

The magnificent, breathtakingly beautiful performance of the ballet Swan Lake after the reception held at the truly magnificent Astana National Opera and Ballet Theatre was my first-ever ballet-viewing experience, and as I watched mesmerised, silent, I knew that was one evening I would not forget any time soon. A big shout-out to scores of young volunteers who were instrumental in ensuring the smooth running of this and that of the EAMF 2014, contributing hugely to its success. The EMAF 2014 was a great experience, interacting with people from across the globe and participating in/attending discourses that were enriching intellectually and academically Thank you, Kazakhstan.

(Concluded)

The writer may be contacted at mehrt2000@gmail.com