|
Letter to UN Secretary General on the
three Persian Gulf
islands
by Pirouz
Mojtahed-Zadeh
Monday, March 31, 2008
H.
E. Ban Ki-moon
Secretary General
The United
Nations
New York
30 March 2008
Dear
Sir:
Undoubtedly the letter of 17 March 2008 to
UN Security Council (UN- S/2008/179) by the League of
the Arab Nations invoking article 54 of Chapter VIII of
the UN Charter pursuant to the United Arab Emirates’
territorial ambitions towards Iranian islands of Greater
Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf is
the best example of attempt to exploit the dangerous
precedence set by the United States of America in
forcing the UNSC to pass resolutions against Iran on
false pretences. In that unfortunate process when the
UNSC was required by UN charter to determine existence
of threat to peace, breach of the peace, or any act of
aggression on the part of Iran, the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) was asked to investigate Iran in
order to facilitate the UNSC making that determination.
But, the IAEA, still engaged in their investigations,
was forced by US and her European allies to refer the
dossier of their unfinished investigations to the UNSC
under Chapter VII of UN Charter to pass punitive
resolutions. This was of course highly irregular, as the
then UN Secretary General pointed out that the UNSC was
not the appropriate forum to deal with that dossier.
Worse still, when IAEA reports of completion of
investigations cleared Iran of accusations of strategic
use of its nuclear program, UNSC was forced to pass the
third punitive resolution against Iran. In my
description in international media of the passage of
these resolutions as defying all ideas of legality, I
warned what the United States had done in that respect
was to set dangerous precedence in using international
organizations such as UNSC for purposes that are most
dangerous to world peace. And the case introduced to
UNSC by the Arab League on behalf of the UAE against
Iran, evidently encouraged by US president and his
vice-president in their recent trips to the Middle East,
is a clear example of such exploitation of the said
dangerous precedence to the detriment of peace in the
region.
Sir,
I, Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, a
Political Geography professor at the University of
Tarbiat Modares (in Tehran), have been studying the case
of Iran’s rights in the region of the Persian Gulf and
her sovereignty on islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb
and Abu Musa since these islands were legally returned
to Iran in 1971 by the British, in charge of
protectorate Emirates at the time, and I assure you that
in this letter, I am speaking for the people of Iran who
are the rightful owners of their country, including
these islands, no matter what may be the reaction of the
government of Iran in this context, if any.
Hence, I
would like to draw your attention to the following facts
in order to see the fictitious nature of the story the
Arab League has evidently put together under the
influence of the government of UAE, supported by
anti-Iranian racial inclinations in the Arab side of the
Persian Gulf who for the same racially inclined purposes
use a fictitious name for the Persian Gulf which is
repeated in Arab League’s letter in question to UNSC,
against the clearly stated position of the United
Nations in that respect.
The letter of the Arab
league, a mishmash of half truths, starts by invoking
article 54 of UN Charter which indicates clearly that
“the Security Council shall at all times be kept fully
informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation
under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for
the maintenance of international peace and security. In
order to keep UNSC at all times informed of activities
contrary to international peace and security the
complaining party is naturally expected to provide UNSC
with the proof as to when and how the alleged activities
had taken place. Yet the Arab League’s letter
disingenuously avoids providing UNSC even with a
definite date for the alleged activities, thus implying
that islands in question were recently occupied by Iran,
which is an outrageous manipulation of the facts of
history. Iran has not said even a word about these
islands since 1971 when they were returned to her
legally through the MoU signed by Iran and the Emirate
of Sharjah under the auspicious of the Foreign Office of
the United Kingdom, which was at then responsible for
the foreign affairs and territorial defense of their
protectorate Emirates. Surely the UNSC can not overlook
the fact that activities like the dispatch to UNSC of
the letter in question by the Arab League are designed
to provoke territorial disputes against Iran by
reopening a case that was settled legally and peacefully
more than 36 years ago, before the UAE came into
existence. Such an undertaking will in deed threaten
international peace and security, and/thus ought to
provoke the Iranian government to invoke article 54 of
the UN Charter against United Arab Emirates or the Arab
League for that matter, for agitating peace and security
of the region by trying to revive an issue settled so
long ago, and by trying to internationalize that
agitation through the said letter to UNSC. To facilitate
better appreciation of these arguments, I would like to
draw your attention to the following evidences of facts
related to the case in question:
A- Geographical
evidence:
1- The two Tunb islands are situated in the
northern half of the Persian Gulf well within Iranian
side of the sea. By the Anglo-Iranian general
understanding of mid-1960s the islands situated in the
northern half of the Persian Gulf belong to Iran and
those in the southern half belong to Arabs. Hence, Iran
decided in 1970 to withdraw claims on Bahrain islands
(UNSC resolution 278 on Bahrain 11 May 1970) and Britain
decided to relinquish unsustainable claims to Tunb
islands in 1971.
2- Abu Musa Island is situated on
the median line of the Persian Gulf half way between
Iran and Sharjah and by the power of the 1971 MoU signed
between her and the Iranian government under the
auspices of the UK Foreign Office, sovereignty over it
is shared by the two.
B- Historical evidence:
1-
The three islands in question, like all other islands in
the northern half of the Persian Gulf have always
belonged to Iran.
2- In 1902 the British Foreign
Office decided in a secret meeting to occupy these
islands for strategic reasons (British Foreign Office
document, FO 416//10.
3- The islands of Greater Tunb
and Abu Musa, together with Sirri Island also belonging
to Iran, were occupied by the British in the name of the
Ruler of the Emirate of Sharjah (British Foreign Office
document, FO 416/17, p.191). Lesser Tunb was occupied in
1908 (same documents).
4- The Iranians attempted to
recover their islands ever since, succeeding in causing
interruption in their occupation on several occasions
(for details see Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, Security and
Territoriality in the Persian Gulf, Chapter 9, Legal and
historical arguments, Curzon/ Routledge publication,
London 1999, New York 2002).
5- In November 1971 the
two sides succeeded in solving the disputes by signing
Iran-Sharjah MoU, whereby shared sovereignty over areas
of that island designated to each side was enforced (see
the MoU in 8 pages, in Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, ibid.
Appendix III).
C- Legal evidences:
1- Members of
the Arab League, including Iraq, Libya, Algeria, Kuwait,
South Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates complained
against Iran to the UN Security Council in December 1971
similarly arguing without proof that Iran had occupied
the said islands. The Security Council met on December
9, 1971 and after full deliberation decided, without
objection, to let the case to rest (UN monthly
chronicles, January 1972, Vol. IX, No. 1, Records of the
month of December 1971). The question now is that if the
UNSC decided at the time of the incident that there was
no case for complaint, how Arab League can prove that an
event taken place 36 years ago and did not cause concern
for peace of the region at the time, causes concern for
peace of the region now, and how can it expect the same
international body to ignore all relevant international
rules and regulations as well as the UN Charter by
accepting the same complain again and again.
2-
Whereas the United Arab Emirates does not have relevant
mandate to proceed with a legal complain in this context
at international levels, as will be outlined hereafter,
the question is how the Arab League whose member states
are not directly or otherwise connected to a territorial
dispute that was settled before the creation of the UAE
between Iran and the Emirate of Sharjah could presume
such authority?
3- Considering the above and the fact
that the case of these islands was settled between Iran
and the Emirate of Sharjah by the British before the
creation of the United Arab Emirates, the UAE cannot
defy the Iran-Sharjah MoU that had come into being
before their existence, unless such agreements had been
officially declared null and void by the newly created
state at the time of its creation. Not only did not the
UAE declare the arrangements arrived at by Iran and
Great Britain (acting as the government of the
protectorate emirates of the time) as null and void, but
also the Supreme Council of the Union decided in its
meeting of 12 May 1992 that foreign obligations of
emirates prior to the formation of the UAE will be the
obligations of the Union itself.
4- The MoU of
November 1971, signed by Iran and Sharjah, is a legal
instrument giving no right of interference to any third
party according to international law. Also the return of
the two Tunb islands to Iran by Great Britain took place
on the basis of understanding of the two sides Iran
wished no written agreement which would cast doubt on
her absolute sovereignty over these islands.
Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that permanent
representative of the United Kingdom (responsible for
territorial defense and foreign relations of the
emirates) declared in the Security Council meeting of
December 9, 1971 that the arrangement on the islands
arrived at by his government and that of Iran in
November 1971 constituted a model arrangement for
settling similar territorial issues elsewhere in the
world (UN monthly chronicles, January 1972, Vol. IX,
Records of the month of December 1971).
5- In the
meeting of 12 may 1992 of the Supreme Council of the
United Arab Emirates, H. H. the Emir of Sharjah who is
Iran's partner in the 1971 MoU, refused to entrust his
Emirate's authority over the issue of Abu Musa island to
the UAE leadership and abandoned that meeting. Hence,
UAE President’s act of assuming authority for the case
of Abu Musa Island in the absence of the ruler of
Sharjah and without his consent renders UAE leadership’s
claim on that island illegal. It is noteworthy that UAE
leadership has been usurped by the Al-Nahyan ruling
family of Abu Dhabi since its emergence, against the
text of UAE constitution which prescribes presidency of
the union to rotate among the rulers of the seven member
emirates and that the vice-president should succeed in
the event of the demise of the president.
6- The UAE
leadership has for years been trying to present the
legal return of Abu Musa and Tunb islands to Iran on
November 30th 1971 as a military occupation. In its
scenario the visit to Abu Musa Island of an Iranian
naval vessel that went to hoist the Iranian flag on that
island at that date was enough reason to manufacture
that accusation, disregarding the fact that Iranian
naval representatives were welcomed officially in Abu
Musa by the brother of the Emir of Sharjah. Hoisting the
flag of the recipient state on the territory changed
hand between two states is a legal practice as US navy
hoisted that country's flag at Alaska when it was
transferred to US sovereignty from Russia.
At Greater
Tunb a misunderstanding between the British commander of
the police station and Iraqi elements, planted there to
sabotage the legal transfer, resulted in shooting
incident between them. In a swift response, the Iranian
naval vessel that had just arrived to hoist Iranian flag
there arrested those involved and sent them back to the
emirate of Ras al-Kheimah. Clearly the UAE attempt in
portraying the said local incident at Greater Tunb,
together with official welcome extended to Iranian
representatives at Abu Musa, as Iran's military
occupation of the three islands demonstrate the
falsehood nature of UAE claims.
7- The United Arab
Emirates distributed on October 27, 1992 a position
paper among UN members whereby they asked Iran to adhere
to the terms of the 1971 Iran-Sharjah MoU, and at the
same time claimed sovereignty over all three islands.
That act proved that the UAE was not even aware that by
so doing they contradicted themselves and/thus nullified
their own claims according to international law where it
says; allegans contraria non est audindus, that is; he
whose statements contradict each other ought not to be
heard (A. D. McNair, The Law of Treaties, Clarendon
Press, Oxford 1961, p.185).
D- Other evidences:
1- Arab League’s letter in question speaks of UAE
endeavours to settle alleged disputes with Iran through
negotiations etc. A more truthful examination of UAE
charade in this context will, I think, shed a more
realistic light on that claim: Iranian officials
attempted to discuss with UAE the case of their claims
since publication of those claims. In no less than five
occasions Iranian officials initiated direct contacts
with the officials of the United Arab Emirates and in
all five times the UAE officials declined to talk with
Iranians.
2- As an example, it is noteworthy that
representatives of Iran and UAE met in Doha (Qatar) on
November 18, 1995 to negotiate the issue. Immediately
after the preliminary session and introduction of the
two delegations, the UAE representatives announced to
the news media that negotiations had collapsed because
of Iranian intransigency in those talks, without even
the actual meeting having had commenced (Pirouz
Mojtahed-Zadeh, Iran and UAE. Meeting in the Dark,
Middle East International, No. 515, London 15 December
1995, PP. 18-19).
Your Excellency, considering all
the above, I deem it appropriate to say that any
recognition of this falsehood by any state or
international organization as ‘territorial disputes’
between Iran and the UAE will render that government or
international body party to attempts in manufacturing
territorial disputes that would harm peace and stability
in the region of the Persian Gulf, at a time when the
United States and Israel are trying hard to exploit any
excuse to start their promised war on Iran which will
undoubtedly lead to the World War III according to
American and other political and military
observers.
In my opening remarks I spoke of the
dangerous precedence that is set by the USA in forcing
UNSC to pass resolutions against Iran’s nuclear energy
program without there being a proven case for it. I
assure you that the Arab League’s letter of 17 March
2008 to UNSC on behalf of the UAE is the first attempt
to exploit this precedence in the hope that, now that
the UNSC easily passes resolutions against Iran on the
basis of mere allegations by the single superpower, they
should try their lock. It is not for the first time that
the UAE has put on demonstration the policy of hyena
following the lion in the hope of scavenging on the
kill. The 1992 distribution of their position paper at
the United Nations also came after the US ejection of
Iraqi forces from Kuwait which legitimized a powerful US
military presence on the Arab soils of the region.
Surely the Moslem nations and the Arab League are not
oblivious of the fact that America’s wars in the Middle
East, including the promised war on Iran, are designed
to secure Israel’s geo-strategic wishes of supremacy in
that region at the peril of peace and stability for the
Moslem world, and any attempt to divide the Moslems will
level the grounds for the successful execution of these
pro-Israeli agendas in the Middle East.
Yours
sincerely,
Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh
cc.
H. E.
President of Security Council, the United Nations
H.
E. Secretary General of the League of Arab
Nations
The Persian Gulf: Its Past and Present,
Mazda Publishers
Mazda
Publishers has just published the book “the Persian Gulf
Its Past and Present” by Svat Soucek. This book offers a
balanced version of the history of the Persian Gulf. The
story itself is presented in the natural and
anthropological context of the subject. Please check out
http://www.mazdapublisher.com/BookDetails.aspx?BookID=191
for more information. |
