|
US President George W. Bush has said that aid to Iran after
last week's devastating earthquake was a sign of compassion,
not a signal that political ties will get warmer with Tehran.
Diplomatic ties between US and Iran were severed in 1980
when revolutionary
students held US diplomats hostage.
Is the latest act of compassion a prelude for better things
to come?
President Bush stressed that if Iran wants to improve its
relations with the US, it must turn over any followers of
Osama bin Laden it has in custody, abandon its pursuit of
nuclear weapons, and embrace democratic political reform.
Bush urged Tehran to hand over al-Qaeda members "to
their country of origin" and follow up on its pledge
to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog agency.
Iran has repeatedly denied US charges that it has embarked
on a nuclear arms program.
Valarie Tan spoke to Professor Ray Nicols, (RN) the former
head of department of Politics at Monash University, Australia.
She asked him first, whether he thinks President Bush has
an ulterior motive for providing humanitarian aid to Iran.
RN: "I think one has to expect of all national leaders
to have ulterior motives. It's impossible not for them to
have them. This is a wonderful opportunity for the US to attempt
to normalize relationships with Iran. It does, of course,
take two to play. Fascinating thing is not so much that Bush
made the offer but that Iran seems to have accepted it without
the usual kind of criticism. Both sides are being extremely
diplomatic and almost humane to one another which is an interesting
and rather pleasant novelty"
VT: So do you think that this positive reaction is a sign
that they will observe or take Bush's conditions?
RN: "One can be optimistic and think so. The reason
I say that is because they already seem to be on agreement
on nuclear weapons. It is a remarkable breakthrough for Iran
to say yes so they would accept UN inspection to their nuclear
program to make certain that they're not 'activable' nuclear
weapons. Now, this is something that would have been unheard
of five years ago I think It's impossible, from this distance,
to be certain why it happened. I think the explanation is
to be found in internal events in Iran rather than pressure
exerted by the United States from outside. I think there will
be some negotiation but I think this the most positive thing
in 20 years"
VT: What kind of signal do they think the international community
will pick up from this move, this humanitarian aid move?
RN: "I expect the international community will be cautiously
optimistic, keeping its fingers crossed. The bad blood between
Iran and the United States does go back a very long time.
One must remember the history of US support for the regime
of the Shah which proved to be far less popular in Iran than
intelligence service which proved to be something much more
than an embarrassment. Therefore any kind of breakthrough
in relations proving, such as what has happened over the last
two, three weeks, is one of the better signs that has happened
on the international stage recently. And given the rather
dangerous world we live in, one can be glad of it"
VT: Do you think that future aid, will be tied to so-called
compassion?
RN: "I would be surprised if there weren't some kind
of agreement. But I would suspect it would be more than just
aid. I suspect there would be trade, cultural exchange as
well and that kind of general easing of the restrictions that
existed in the past. I suspect it would be more subtle than
purely mercenary. Mainly for PR reasons and because we're
dealing with two countries that both are extremely proud.
Neither one of them wants to admit they've been in the wrong
and to get two such prowling lions to talk to one another
is again perhaps more important than the actual details of
what they come up with. It's a good sign for the beginning
of the new year"
|
UN envoy to hold talks in Maldives