By Abbati Bako
The UN, EU, USA, Arab League of nations and other global political and economic stakeholders must try to find solutions to this chronic conflict and dispute between Israel and Palestine. If this conflict escalate as a regional war to a wider conflicts that can lead to use of nuclear weapons, certainly that can entirely change the history of the world. If the current history of the world has changed, the future generation’s chances to be at peace will be unpredictable.
“The crude oil December delivery contract of global benchmark Brent was trading at $78.49 per barrel on Friday at 9:30 a.m. in London, up 1.1% from the Thursday close. And if the war in the Middle East persists, the price of oil can reach close to $100 per barrel”. Meaning that the world economic interplay may change patterns.
This simple fact can be made into reality when the war affects each and every Continents of the world. On the other hand the world economy and global economic security as well as social and global political brouhaha may change the color into undesirable tests. The world may face food insecurity and economic dwarf.
When the second world war was executed in 1948 the global population was less than 3B then. Hence, today’s global population has been around 8.3B.
Imagine what will happen in both global North and global South Southern Hemispheres, meaning that the world may move into economic harakiri, inflation or generally into stagflation.
Millions of people were lost in the second world war 70 years ago. Hence, if the current war escalates wider from regional to a global war as a result of unresolved political and economic conflicts between Palestinians and Israel that will not be good for global political and economic growth and development. Economy is an important and essential component of the human person in life. Human person is a symbol of economy; without a viable economy life is worthless.
Tehran and the Western world’s dispute has been on a serious note since 1953 during the Shah Reza Pahlavi; since then the issue of nuclear power plants has not been resolved. Is the future of negotiation and mediation possible? Or will negotiation still meet the impasse? Will Diplomats succeed in convincing Tehran to accept the terms and conditions of the US and Western world, especially the reduction of centrifuges? Will the usual crisis between Israel and Hamas affect the future negotiation and mediation? And again, shall the past week’s visit of President Joe Biden pave the way to finding a permanent solution to the unsolved problem? And again, the retaliatory attacks on Israel last week by Tehran can lead to regional war in the Middle East and extension to be a world war 3? Although is probable but not possible especially at this time of global economic precarity and aridity.
*Strategies for Negotiation between Israel and Palestine
In his excellent writing, William Zartman observes that “successful mediation means containing and mending. The mediator must be able to block the impending or escalating conflict, draw the parties away from conflicting perceptions and action, and bring them together in a more harmonious relationship so that conflict only halts but is prevented from recurring”. Meaning that, in negotiations and mediation, gap communication must be avoided.
So, redoubling efforts of the United Nations, IAEA, Russia, S/Arabia, China, Jordan, India, Qatar, Egypt, UAE, NGOs and other global stakeholders may bring permanent solutions to the problem.
Last weeks visit of the US’s Foreign Secretary to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia should create ways and means for the possibility of avoiding regional war in the Middle East and Nuclear weapons’ competition. If crises break out in the Middle East (20% of global oil is deposited in the Middle East) the world economy will not only be melted but may completely be destroyed. Because the current war between Russia and Ukraine will be a child’s play compared to the one in the Middle East. Ninety percent of global economic interplay and viability comes from trade and services; oil is the wheel.
*Recommendations for future negotiations
Considering the now lengthy history of negotiations, threats, incentives and broken promises it seems difficult to offer new approaches for the future in the Middle East. Nevertheless, we can identify a few promising routes to improve the likelihood that negotiations and mediation will deliver a solution to the conflict in the Middle East’s future. Realistically, solutions must be found via Track One diplomacy – where the governments must sit down and develop a solution.
However Track Two, which involves civil society actors, can play a role in providing analysis and intelligence into the situations in each country, and address the possible data conflicts that occur.
1. The UN, EU and US must involve China and Russia in the negotiations with Iran regarding their nuclear program and the war between Israel and Palestine. Although the current war between Russia and Ukraine may be another reason to make things very difficult for China, and possibly India can play an important role in finding solutions to the issue between Israel and Palestine as well as the issue of nuclear power race in the Middle East.
Although China and Russia have their own agendas and may support Iran in a way that the US and EU-3 stakeholders do not agree with, all countries have an interest to avoid tough economic sanctions, or a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. For this reason it is recommended that they are brought into negotiations, and use their links with the Iranian government to bring them to the negotiation table. Take note that any move to attack Iranian leaders or nuclear installations that can lead to serious consequences in the Middle East and beyond.
2. The US should focus on finding alternatives and offers. The EU should continue to pursue diplomatic dialogue with Tehran and warn Israel not to retaliate against the attack made last week by Tehran in response to the killings of Hamas and Hasballah leaders in Tehran and Beirut.
As negotiation theorists tell us that “most research tends to reveal that problem solving produces greater flexibility and more frequent, efficient, equitable, and durable agreements than bargain does.” The goal of the US is for a long-term agreement with the Iranian government about their nuclear program that will guarantee international stability and stability in the Middle East, therefore, more options and flexibility is required and this must be considered.
At the point when Iran is showing real interest in economic incentives – such as those put forward by the EU it will be essential that the US supports such an offer from its own side. It is unlikely that Iran will give up its military objectives without a sizable economic offer at the table . As the above analysis also shows, Iran has strong internal pressures to find economic solutions, over time this may push the Iranians towards the negotiating table in search for trade benefits. Other possible incentives could include; compensating Tehran with other technological means to generate energy. By compromising with them to construct hydro-electric stations at different locations in the country may offer more hope for negotiation.
Other issues such as lifting over 500 UN’s sanctions against Tehran, releasing their frozen account reserves and assets and so on, could facilitate a rapid compromise. Also, the issue of two states solution between Israel and Palestine that may bring permanent peace, stability, economic growth and development in the region.
3. The USA should cool down the debate (during the negotiation/meditation) by use of calmer language. This will give a lot of hope. The US also needs to recognize that threats have not brought results over the last decades. Therefore, the moves by the EU, especially, France and other stakeholders to try and bring Iran to the table should be encouraged, and the US should reduce its public statements against Iran and in particular should recognize its sovereignty over its territory.
The US could also put pressure on Israel to cool down the situation in Palestine to reduce the pressure on Iran to speed up its weapons developments and show its defiance. And again, the week’s ago promise made by President Joe Biden to support Palestine with palliatives for their is a significant move, indeed. The ongoing bombardment in Beirut by the Israel will never help matters. The killings of over 40,0000 Palestinians and injured over 70,0000 will never solve the problem.
Also, the idea of Joe Biden about “two states solution” is a plus in the permanent peace in the Middle East.
4. Iran should agree to the current offers and seek to develop alternative incentives to maintain peace and credibility with its people.
5. Although reaching an agreement may not be easy but EU/US can give a trial. Try is better than I cannot!
*Consequences of Agreement or Non Agreements
If the above strategies are successful or fail it would imply a series of actions and consequences for the parties in the Middle East. Here we evaluate the implications and cost/benefits of agreement or non-agreement.
*Agreement
If an agreement is reached – following up on already negotiated lines that will allow Iran to maintain a nuclear energy programme but also demonstrate economic benefits for its population it would have the following implications:-
– Increased economic inputs by the West, with potential for long term economic agreements of mutual benefit to Iranian and US/European businesses. Economic growth and development is very essential.
– Continued and improved access to Iranian markets by Russia and China, allowing them to continue their economic relations.
– Increased status for Iran in international relations and a potential ‘reputation dividend’ with Western governments being more willing to openly dialogue with the Iranian government, including on mutually interesting foreign policy objectives (such as peace in neighboring states).
– Full implementation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and an increased pressure worldwide to reduce nuclear weaponry.
None agreement:-
If no agreement can be found it is likely that it will have the following effects.
– Final closure of relations with Western states that would be difficult to overcome in future hypothetical relations.
– A probable arms race within the Middle East. An analyst in the Economist states that Middle Eastern countries are “Quote” Israel has demonstrated willingness to attack missile and nuclear sites in neighboring countries before and is likely to do so again most likely in days to come.
– Increased anxiety amongst world allies of terrorist threats, not only in the middle-east, but around the world. For example close allies of the US such as Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia could be at risk and nuclear substances could be in the hands of terrorists.
– Interruption of the oil flow if interests of Middle Eastern countries are diverted elsewhere (arms race and terrorist threat) that could affect all world economies.
– Increased tension in world politics that also diverts world player’s attention to non-productive solutions: such as increased use of sanctions, military threats etc. History demonstrates that these approaches have been unsuccessful in generating changes in regimes, rather, they tend to solidify positions on both sides of the negotiating table.
Professor Daniel Dana (globally aknowledged expert in negotiations and mediations) observes that “abstinence from communication is the essence of conflict, without doubt, no resolution is possible without communication”. Meaning that, politics and economy is a game of communication anywhere in the world.
So, the most important point at this juncture is to make tentative agreement via negotiation/mediation with Tehran, UN, US, EU legitimately, Arab League, IAEA and nongovernmental organizations should play a mediating role.
Also some influential leaders especially from the Middle-East could be involved. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, Syria, and India may give indirect assistance in finding a lasting solution to the dispute and war between Israel and Palestine may come to an end.
*Another option which has to be put into use is the best alternative to a negotiation agreement (BATNA) this system may as well give concrete help.
*Conclusion:
The problem negotiation with Iran is – who’s in charge? With what agenda? And the main mediator? And again, the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran (once) opined that nuclear enrichment is a fundamental right of Tehran”. Could and should mutually and acceptable agreement be reached in the future negotiation and mediation between Tehran and Western World/US? Or on the other hand the current war between Russia and Ukraine will block as well as Plastinians and Israel all means of hope to solve the dispute.
The world is watching!
Abbati Bako,Kent-alumni,Political Strategy and Communication Consultant, Analyst/Researcher in International Politics@Skyline University Kano, Nigeria
abbatibako@gmail.com
+2349077889959
