Iran on Tuesday called on the Caspian Sea littoral
states to safeguard security, stability and environment of the world's largest
lake through compliance with the existing legal regime of the sea until the
final approval of new agreements.
“The
Islamic Republic of Iran sees it possible to resolve Caspian Seas issues and
meet countries' interests merely through consultation and cooperation among the
regional states and believes that all problems of the Sea can be solved only
through partnership among the littoral states, and the interference of the
trans-regional countries will only complicate the problems in the sea and
creates new challenges,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi,
addressing a session of the special working group for the formulation of the
legal regime of the Caspian Sea in Tehran. (Fars News Agency, 23 April)
Salehi
said the legal regime that already exists in the region based on the agreements
signed between Iran and the Soviet Union in 1921 and 1940 should be respected
by the littoral states until new agreements are reached. The agreements shared
the Caspian equally between the two countries. Since the breakup of the Soviet
Union in 1991, however, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan also want equal
shares with Russia and Iran.
Iran could insist that the three new republics along with Russia could and should each get an equal share of what belonged to the Soviet Union; meaning Iran retaining its 50 percent share, and the other four countries each get 12.5 percent shares of the Caspian resources.
Iran could insist that the three new republics along with Russia could and should each get an equal share of what belonged to the Soviet Union; meaning Iran retaining its 50 percent share, and the other four countries each get 12.5 percent shares of the Caspian resources.
25 comments:
Should we also ask for Azerbaijan to be annexed back to Iran now that the treaty is over? It looks like reasonable following your line of logic. It just doesn't make sense for Iran to alienates its northern neighbors. There are now 5 countries around Caspian and they should get equal share in it, (or by border length).
And why should they have equal share of the Caspian sea when we agreed with the Soviet Union on a 50/50 bases?
Is it our problem if the Soviet Union broke up and became a number of independent states? They should've shared the Soviet Unions 50% of the Caspian sea and we should've kept the 50% part as agreed.Now because of incompetence of the present government in Iran the remaining share of our Caspian sea is only 13%.
You have some funny logic because in that case why alienate the West against Iran when the government of Iran insists on destroying Israel and trying to build nuclear bombs by stealth?
The agreements with the Soviet Union were actually treaties that were approved by the parliaments of the two countries and signed by the heads of state. The 1921 treaty was signed by Reza Shah and Lenin, who was then the head of the newly instituted revolutionary government in Russia, the predecessor of the Soviet Union. In 1940, the Soviet union and Iran reaffirmed the treaty of 1921 and the agreement was signed by the heads of state. That's the standing legal regime of the Caspian.
In 1991, the Soviet Union fell apart and four countries were formed around the Caspian in its place. based on the treaties of 1921 and 1940, Iran's share of the sea resources does not change. The four new countries should share the Soviet portion.
No government in Iran can justifying giving away its 50-percent share in the name of friendship with the four foreign counties. Such move is more commonly called treason. Of course Iran needs to keep friendly relations with all the four countries, but not at the expense of its territorial integrity. The country just fought an 8-year war with Iraq. No one said that in order to to maintain friendship with Iraq, Iran should have accepted the occupation of Khoramshahr. 50-percent of Casoian resources is as important, especially when it has been agreed to by both sides in two binding treaties.
That's what worries me about this Islamic government as regards the Caspian.Is it not the case that one of the senior clergies of Iran said that Syria was more important than Khuzistan and they are prepared to lose it rather than Syria?
Just by looking at the map, note where the borders meet the sea, one can easily make the assumption that Russia got to retain its 50% share. Is that the case?
@ 9:11
Perhaps we should demand of Azerbaijan to be incorporated into Iran proper and then allow them autonomous status together with the current region of Azerbaijan inside of Iran. It would benificial for the Azeri areas as a whole and the rest of Iran in several ways if the Republic of Azerbaijan were to accept. It would make for both a stronger Azerbaijan region and a more powerful Iran due combined natural resources and an economy that can be shared to a certain extent.
Do you think that your sponsors, including the US, would support that Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan will have smaller share of the Caspian Sea than the Islamic Republic.
You also ommited one important information explaining who, by name, sponsored from Iranian side - signed that 1940 treaty with the Soviet Union. Was that a government inspired by ajatollahs or shahs?.
I believe someone had already explained those Caspian Sea' issues, at this blog, in the 2012, but there is no access to them, because Mark has changed your website.
A-F
A-F,
As usual, you have nothing to say on the issue, just throwing insults at the bloggers. Why am I not surprised? Think harder please and tell us what you think about the issue at hand; you will be a better-informed person doing so and will help us understand the issues better. Not that difficult, or is it?
Notwithstanding your typical accusations, all the previous posts on Caspian Sea are still here!
US/Zionists and the global oil plunderers are now very active in the Caspian basin and their long-term agenda is both the destabilization and conflict for both Iran and Russia. The only rational long-term solution is 50/50 Iran-Russia control. Most of the other tiny pip-squeaks are not in a position to do much as Armenia has proved by occupying 20% of puppet Azerbaijan for the last two decades.
Uskowi 1:42PM
In addition to my previous part of reply, I have to add additional thoughts.
You stated that no government in Iran has the right to justify giving away its 50% share, but several weeks ago you hadn't courage to state clearly your position regarding Iranian Persian Gulf island when it was asked during discussion.
The government of the Islamic Republic is in a mode of discussion and haven't signed any new treaty so far.
The Soviet Union and the status of Caspian Sea have changed due to the efforts (as they claim) of your Western and Zionist sponsors.
You have earlier urged Iran to come to the terms with the West (at any costs and limitations). Today you are continuing your miserable tactic to undermine credibility of the leadership and its policies.
You apparently doesn't regard facts that Azerbaijani parliament passed legislation welcoming an US base on the Azerbaijani teritory. That legislation was somehow suspended in order to keep Iran in check.
You try to sow discord and separate and blame Russians for schemes of your sponsors.
Iran talks about equal share of Caspian Sea in order to show hipocrysies and gain time, at present, like it does with the 20% nuclear enrichment's negotiations now. It means that those 20% limitation will not last forever, in cases of the enrichment and Caspian Sea seabed's ownership... The superpowers are not forever and their demise may come sooner or later.
P.S.
Regarding your tactics and characterizations that I "AS USUAL have nothing to say and throwing insults at bloggers"...and that the posts on Caspian Sea(from 2012?) are there, I have to state that I do not see an access to the previous 2012 comments posted by other bloggers in the past and related to the Caspian Sea dispute.
Your recent article about Russian's warship visit to Bandar Abbas ommited as usually part of essential informations and even delivered incorrect ones; about ships.
Your previos statements that the April 6 and April 7 articles were always posted (on the Internet) are not true in my experience - because I could not see them for about 3 days, and maybe other bloggers had the same problem. The reason for those suspensions, according to my research, are a form of censorship - to prevent other bloggers to see "politically incorrect" posts and respond to them timely...
A-F .
USKOWI transforming !!
FOR the first rime in 'the world' have you attempted to be objective and balanced on the Caspian sea issue,in the past you have disappointed us much with your indifference on the whole dispute of the islands claimed by the gulf stooges!.
how we all wish you stick permanently to this principle! instead of those lopsided views you hold-LIKE " THE West's 'HARMLESS' MILITARY TARGETS IN IRAN "
@attacking a nuclear facility is just okay because it is a military site
@killing millions as a result is okay -because it is a military site-
@killing more later with poisonous gasses and radiation is still okay because it is a military site!!
For those who have shown interests in this blogger’s position on the three islands, please read the entry on April 1, 2008. And on Caspian Sea issues, please read the entry on October 15, 2007.
B.M.A.,
“The West’s Harmless Military Targets in Iran” comes out of your mouth. Your use of outright lies to describe this blogger’s positions is indeed regrettable. You have read and commented on this blog for longtime and should know better.
A-F,
Please accept this as the last warning that we will not allow you to continue throwing personal insults at this blogger in the guise of commenting on our views. Your shameless accusations that this blogger has “sponsors” is considered a personal attack and such “comments” will not be published. You are welcome to continue posting comments that would not contain personal attacks.
So that means Iran gets beaches and seashores of all those countries besides Russia too? 50% means that Turkmenistan for example will have no maritime border and Iran will be right at their sea shores with its coastal guards.
Now, there are 5 DIFFERENT countries around Caspian see. They are all UN supported countries and there is no longer a USSR. That treaty was with the USSR not with Russia. If Iran gets 20% instead of 13 that is quite a victory.
For those ignorant conspiracy theorist commenter who thinks Russia gets 50% (down here) — read before you post your speculations as facts: Russia does not even have the biggest legal regime of the Northern part of the Sea, that is Kazakhstan with 28%.
Also, this is a good informative article that does not waste its reader's time by ideological hollow arguments of treason and non-practical solutions:
http://www.payvand.com/news/13/feb/1186.html
B.M.A at 4:05AM
I have to disagree with your characterization that someone "...is transforming".
The goal of Iran's enemies is to isolate Iran and inflame its relation with neighbours, so they would seek a help from the West which may include military presence of the West on their soil.
In order to do that, they have to create pretexts, using their operatives at different levels and it will also include the tensions with Iran's Caspian Sea neighbours.
"Israel" and the West have already made incursion into the Azerbaijan and they dream to open official base, which could make an attack on Iran an easy way.
Now, they need a pretext that Iran makes treat to Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan and that one of those pretexts would be a demand that other litoral countries should have less seabed than Iran.
Because Iranian leadership is smart and delays any discussions about divisions of the Caspian Sea's seabed, they use other method to discredit Iranian leadership and distort facts by their operatives, claiming that the Islamic Republic's leadership gives away the Iranian teritory.
When in previous comment I was asking about names and affiliations of those who signed 1940 (1921) treaties, I was going to point out, that it was not the leadership of the Islamic Republic that had given Azerbaijan away to the Soviet Union, but people who are conected to those who are willing to create additional pretexts for the Zionist and the West to open their official military bases in Azerbaijan and at other places.
A-F
Because treats, including zionists' ones, and double standards against me on this blog, I may soon end my presence on this blog .
If you and others wish, then please read my previous comments, including those with an initials "A-F" as well as the comments from the 2012 year.
All four republics did border the Caspian as part of the Soviet Union. It is not the question of borders here, but the percentage of resources, including underground oil and gas fields. the treaties with the Soviet Union called for all resources to be split by two between the two countries.
A-F,
This post is a report of what the Iranian foreign minister said in the meeting on Caspian Sea, that the 1921/1940 treaties are in effect and constitute its legal regime unless and until it is revised through new treaties. I agree with this assessment. In you accusatory mode, you are basically calling the country’s FM an enemy of Iran, because your point of view is different from his. No government has the right to give up the country’s 50-percent share of the Caspian resources (no borders, see my comment above) in the name of preserving stability, and the Iranian FM is well aware of this. It is up to the four republics to come up with an acceptable proposal that maintains Iran’s rights, while preserve their Caspian border areas.
It is interesting that you claim there are “Zionist threats” against you presumably because of your comments on this blog. Now that you have decided to end your presence here, we wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.
-calling for a truce-
Brother A.F
-given your good grasp on the issues and the general current affairs on Iran, i would wish to assure you that many people here appreciate your input and views on diverse issues raised .IT is wrong on your our part to trim yourself down to look as though you are engaging in a -one on one- verbal exchange with Uskowi totally forgetting that you are talking to many people here!.
Uskowi's position is clear as we don't expect Him to be different as He has dedicated himself to a negative campaign of the regime -though through well researched criticisms.Won't you learn then that you have a duty to inform or rather to correct the misinformation or the negative campaign from some bloggers here?.
BY shying away, you are not helping matters,but rather denying yourself and your listeners a useful exchange !IT IS for this reason and more that i wished you stayed and if possible fight for your presence rather than disqualify yourself out of the duel!!.
I second BMA's comment. I think you should stay and be an alternative source of righting the misinformation in this negative campaign against the incumbent government of Iran in the name of political/social/economic "objective" analysis.
B.M.A at 6:35AM and Anon at 1:03PM
Dear friends, thanks for your solidarity, I was in process to respond to your comments and due to some problems it will be ready in next days.
A-F
B.M.A at 6:35AM and Anon at 1:03PM
Thanks again for your help and with respect to you, I would like to inform you, that I will look forward for the historical event of the Iranian elections and track its outcome as well as yours and other comments.
Therefore I am planing, if not blocked by the staff of this blog, to add few of my modest thoughts around that time and may be after that.
Regarding of my previous problems I assume that you know them from my previous comments and explanations. If they are not known, please be advised to find them if they were not erased or deleted.
General genesis of my problems emerged gradually and came to the point that most of my important comments, by my perception, were delayed or witheld and made my communications with other bloggers impossible or null.
I complained in order to find causes of problems and as a signal to other bloggers.
The begining problems included name calling, slurs and disparagements that were toleraated by the staff of this blog if not inspired.
In the next stage I was accused that my comments are not related to articles and I asked myself whether other people slurs and curses meet requirements of "relation to articles"?.
After next stage of "delays" I have recently learned from the April 25, 2013 at 1:34AM Uskowi's comment "...you are(I am) basically calling the country's Foreign Minister an enemy of Iran, because your point of view is different from his", that they characterize my comments in a new distortive way.
In reality my comment to B.M.A at 6:47PM states that:
"Because Iranian leadership is smart and delays any discussions about divisions of the Caspian Sea's seabed, they (enemies of Iran) use other methods to discredit Iranian leadership...., claiming that the...leadership gives Iranian teritory away".
Several months ago when one blogger cursed and disparaged FM Mr. Salehi, it was me who objected and responded to that derogatory comment of that blogger and there was no reaction from the authors of this blog; they simply approved that derogatory comment.
That's all and thanks for you patience.
A-F
A-F,
It's OK for you not to respond to my comments, but let me repeat it for the benefit of all our readers. I said this post was about what the foreign minister of Iran had said. Please read the post again. Mr. Salehi had said that until and if a new treaty is agreed and signed/ratified by all parties, the current Caspian legal regime remains in effect. Salehi had reasoned that Iran and the Soviet Union had signed the treaties if 1921 and 1941 and therefore those treaties remain in effect unless it is changed through a new treaty and that has not happened. I defended his logic. You said my views would cause problem for Iran in its relations with the other four countries and called it anti-Iran views. Well, then you were in effect saying that Salehi's view was also anti-iran. That simple. Please read the comments thread and tell me if I mis-charachterize your comments.
Salehi is right. the two treaties remain in effect. And I personally believe no government in Iran has the mandate to give away most of Iran's 50-percent share of Caspian resources to four other countries in the name of keeping good relations with them. Such action would be called treason, note a peace loving action.
One of the diplomacy's tool is a time game- waiting with demands for a right time. The present leadership of Iran reacts correctly in its diplomatic strategy of gaining time to solve primary goals.
Your statements in your article that "...no government (has the right) to give 50 share.... away" carries "silent message of a critique"; before the Iranian elections.
Policies of Iran, represented by sklilful diplomacy of Mr. Salehi, focus at present on the proposals to share underseabed's resources according to previous treaties, but it is doubtful whether they will be accepted by litoral states who symphatize with the West and before Iran will prevail over the West in its struggle to secure other rights.
A-F
I concur with A-F although I am of the view that Iran, now that there are 5 countries around the caspian should actually be happy with 20% and fortify its relationships with the central Asian countries. I agree that the subtext here is always critical of Iran. No matter what the news, the objectivity mantra of journalism is so deeply buried in this blog that any comment comes across as a cruel criticism of the incumbent regime in Iran. I'm thankful to AF and Mark Pyruz for unfolding the problematic rhetoric of other bloggers here.
KM
Post a Comment