RSS

Wed, May 5th 2010, 05:27

Henelito A. Sevilla, Jr, Asian Center, University of the Philippines-Diliman

Strong and powerful regional actor in the Persian Gulf and or Middle East and a weakening authority at home is exactly an appropriate description that could possibly describe Iran as a regional actor and a government (where mixed authority from the "divine God" and People ) which currently evaluating its legitimate acceptability in its own people.

The question then is: How the Obama administration in terms of Persian Gulf security, approach this duality? What strategy should the United States and its Arab allies adopt to bring Iran into a negotiating table?

The series of bilateral, regional and international negotiations with concerned states in the world brought new reality in the issue of nuclear proliferation. Recently, the Secretary H. Clinton just revealed the top security secret in terms of the number of the US nuclear warheads. This act of nuclear transparency boast Obama's credibility as to its commitment to lower the number of nuclear warheads. it gives signal to the world community that they should follow the same step. But what is transparency here ? Is transparency the only issue in line? Definitely, There are other issues need to be considered but to be transparent is somehow a rational move to avoid security perception among the rival powers. It will encourage a mutually constructive strategy through talks and negotiations. And finally it can even lead to Confidence Building (CBM) where a state can evaluate its position in the international community, its strengths and weaknesses. Finally it can bring dialogue into.

The US approach to the Persian Gulf security should include Iran and Iraq and of course Yemen so as to have a general representation of powers in the Gulf. Though this is not to suggest that the Gulf states do not need the US presence, it will somehow erase negative psychological make up among the players in the region with each others.

On the issue of nuclear weapons in the Gulf, i think it is naive to talk just about Iran's nuclear without including Israel, India and Pakistan into the agenda. it was become clear that the issue is very much politically maneuvered by the United States. It thus mean that for as long as the iranian Islamic government does not cooperate with the United States, then it will continue to be the target of sanction from the US and of course from the international community due to US initiative to present Iran as a threat to the International community.

I think what we need in the Gulf is a new re-thinking of security that is constructed in such as way that all littoral states as well as the US would support it. it is sometimes if not all of the time a matter of "perception of threat" constructed and presented to the public by an interested party/ies that "threat" become visible. In this case a new re-thinking that encourages the avoidance of threat but promotes peace and understanding.

Language construction supported by material elements would make this concept realize and thus enemy/ies are created.

What is wrong in this case is for the Islamic Republic of Iran and other actors to find timing to cooperate and that timing should start from mental creation of a particular concept that supports a creative agenda for peace.

If the campaign for nuclear abolition is given high priority and if the campaign for cooperative security regime is in the mind of actors involved in the Persian Gulf then there is no way for a conventional arms rivalry in the region to proliferate. What happen will be enough arms to secure borders but not arms to compete with each other. I doubt if the American and European Arms dealers would follow this religiously as it is always the interests of the West and local regimes to subject the region to insecurity and rivalry.