Medium & the Message

A couple of years ago, when some of the developing countries, especially India, were talking about the "natural demise" of the idea of Non Alignment in its original form and were talking about Non Alignment 2.0 and other half-baked concepts, nobody could have predicted the electrifying atmosphere that the NAM Summit created last month. To give them their due, they were not wide off the mark. Some of the previous NAM Summits were lacklustre affairs focussed more on fun, frolic and photo opportunities than on real diplomacy. But this year, there was a big difference: the venue was Tehran.

With the exception of probably the Moscow Olympics, none of the international events in the near past had suffered such massive propaganda for sabotage as the just-concluded NAM Summit in Tehran. Under the US-Israel-EU-GCC understanding that aspires to isolate Iran diplomatically, it was essential that this summit failed. It would have been a bitter blow to the Iranian interests had that happened, especially when Iran was taking over the leadership.

Some initial reporting from the West and India leading up to the summit focussed on the supposed absence of important countries and their representatives. But as the day approached, it became evident that more than 100 countries were going to participate and as many as 40 heads of state and heads of government would attend the meeting in person. The presence of Egyptian President Morsi and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was another blow to the isolation designs. Naturally, the Western press slipped into their by now predictable mode of under-reporting. However, the message was sent where it needed to be sent.

More than anything else, the impressive presence of international leaders has given Iran's foreign policy initiative a certain legitimacy that the US and the EU wanted to deny. While the editorials in the West focussed on discrediting the meet and trivialising it, the people who mattered got the message loud and clear. Former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, had to concede rather reluctantly and bitterly that the containment policy of the West has received a major blow. Experts also believe that the summit has exposed the inherent dichotomy of  the so-called Iran engagement policy of President Obama.

“The summit serves as a stark reminder of the abysmal failure of the Obama administration’s policy of 'engaging' Iran while revealing its complete miscomprehension of the Islamic Republic’s political rationality. Diplomacy with Iran was essentially war by other means; the offer of dialogue accompanied by threats of a military strike and/or further 'crippling' sanctions if the outcome of the 'dialogue' was not to Washington’s liking,” maintains Amal Saad Ghorayeb, an international affairs scholar and expert who is based in Beirut.

On the issue of Syria, Egyptian President Morsi's open declaration for the regime change has been selectively picked by the Western press to drive home the point that after all, Iran could not draw the desired mileage from the summit. A section of the press also interpreted Morsi's please-all exercise as having not fully approved Iranian policies and that it was using the visit just as a hedging point in its relation with the US. What people deliberately missed was Morsi's explicit declaration that Egypt and Iran were “strategic partners”. Now my experience of international diplomacy lexicon tells me that the word “strategic partners” is never used for a partner when you ultimately want that partner as a hedging chip. And, even on the issue of regime change in Damascus, Morsi was categorical that it should not come through international intervention. It does not take a Machiavelli to see here that Morsi's idea of regime change is not in sync with what Saudis, Turks or Americans want.

Iran played on the idea by announcing a task group comprising Egypt, Venezuela, Lebanon, Iraq and itself that will look into the situation in Syria. That Egypt agreed to be its part indicates that the country wants its foreign policy to be fiercely independent of the influence of Turkey or Saudi Arabia.

This stand actually is in sync with the Iranian approach in Damascus. Iran has time and again asserted that it wants a free and fair election in Syria for a systemic change in leadership and not a government hoisted by the West working in the interest of Israel and Saudi Arabia. This approach comes from Iran's age-old belief that any independent democratically elected government in the region will always work for the Palestinian cause in particular and the regional cause in general. Only dictatorships and monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Mubarak-era Egypt see their interests syncing with the West and Israel.

“The two big points of the Iranian push on how to deal with the Syrian situation stressed on the need for a ceasefire in Syria for three months at the end of Ramadan, and for free and fair elections. Iranian policymakers are willing to roll the dice on elections in Syria because, first of all, they judge correctly that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad appears to retain the support of at least half of the Syrian society. Thus it is not at all clear that he would lose an election,” says Hillary Mann Leverett, a Washington-based Middle East expert who was part of  the Bush administration while working as the director for Iran, Afghanistan and Persian Gulf Affairs at the National Security Council.

 In fact, it has other manifestations as well. The driving force of a Saudi-led Iran containment policy is to play to the old Arab paranoia that sees Persia as a non-Arab, Shia dominion that will act against Sunni Arab interests. It does find some traction in the region. However, repeated polls have suggested that the streets in the Arab world have refused to see Iran as a threat or hostile entity. At least much less than they see Israel and the US. Morsi's visit will only help Iran's perception on the Arab streets, something that it wants.

Another diplomatic victory that Iran has posted is the NAM's support for its civil-nuclear programme that the West has targeted over the past decade. This will put additional pressure on the US administration that relies on the old Roosevelt-era maxim of iron-hand-in-silk-gloves in its dealings with Iran. At the same time, it provides a much-needed cushioning for Iran to withstand these pressures.

After completing its leadership of NAM in 2015, Iran will pass the chair to Venezuela for the next three years. We can expect to see some concrete moves in these years that will give the grouping the respect it deserves. Clearly, Non Alignment 2.0 will have to wait. NAM is not dead yet.

saurabhshahi@thesundayindian.com