|
In an opinion column for the English language
daily The National, columnist Peter Hellyer noted
that the islands have been part of the Emirates
for over 250 years. He described the response
from Iran to the UAE criticism of the visit to
Abu Musa last week by Iran's President Ahmadinejad
as "bombastic and aggressive."
On Apr 17, ministers from the six GCC states
met in Doha to discuss the recent visit by Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the UAE island
of Abu Musa. Not surprisingly, the other five
GCC members expressed agreement with the deep
concern expressed by the UAE at the visit.
As UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed
has noted, the visit was not just unacceptable
and provocative, but was a deliberate breach of
an understanding reached last year between Abu
Dhabi and Tehran that there would be a concerted
attempt by both sides to take the heat out of
the issue of the islands.
Mr Ahmadinejad's visit was the first to Abu Musa
by any Iranian leader since Iranian troops landed
on the island shortly before the establishment
of the UAE a little over 40 years ago. Predictably,
the Iranian response to the perfectly-justified
complaints from the UAE has been bombastic and
aggressive, with the Iranian media quoting a slew
of officials criticising the UAE and stating that
Abu Musa and the other two islands, Greater and
Lesser Tunbs, have historically been part of Iranian
territory, apart from the first seven decades
of the 20th Century.
There was even the ludicrous suggestion, from
one senior Iranian parliamentarian, that somehow
Britain had been responsible for stirring up the
controversy, as if the UAE, which has maintained
its legitimate claim to the islands ever since
they were occupied by the forces of the late Shah,
was incapable of determining its own views about
its own territory.
For the sake of accuracy in the historical record,
let me repeat a few basic facts.
On the nights of November 30 and December 1,
1971, a day before the formation of the UAE -
and having failed to bribe the then-Ruler of Ras
Al Khaimah to reach an agreement to sell Greater
and Lesser Tunbs to Iran - the Shah ordered in
his troops.
As has been reported in moving testimony in articles
in The National, the poorly-armed police on the
islands were overwhelmed, with several being killed.
If that's not a breach of the United Nations'
charter - which holds that the acquisition of
territory by force is illegal - I don't know what
is.
In the case of Abu Musa, the then-Ruler of Sharjah,
under heavy pressure from the United Kingdom,
agreed, with extreme reluctance, to sign a Memorandum
of Understanding with Iran to share the island,
without in any way agreeing to any relinquishment
of sovereignty.
An agreement under duress, as any lawyer will
tell you, is not worth the paper it is printed
on. Nonetheless, Sharjah, and then the UAE, endeavoured
to make the agreement work, despite the Iranian
military aggression against the Tunbs.
Over the years, successive governments in Iran
have continually breached the terms of that agreement,
despite protests from the UAE. A court of law
might well rule that such actions rendered the
original MOU no longer valid.
Why was it, 40 years ago, that Sharjah and Ras
Al Khaimah were so convinced of their legal title
to the islands? And why is it that, in the years
since the establishment of the federation, the
UAE has consistently called for the return of
the three islands? These islands were once part
of the Arab-ruled Kingdom of Hormuz, and have
been part of the dominions of the Al Qasimi family
- rulers of Sharjah and Ras Al Khaimah - for over
250 years. This control pre-dated the emergence
of the dynasty of the late Shah, or those who
succeeded him. Indeed, the Al Qasimi also ruled
much of the southern Iranian coast, including
the port of Bander Lingeh, until 1886, as well
as islands like Sirri, until 1887, before they
were dispossessed.
Even then, the occupants of those areas remained
Arab - by origin, by language and by culture -
closely related to the people on this side of
the Gulf. That much is evident from unchallengeable
historical documents. Not until 1903 did Iran
even make a claim to Abu Musa and the Tunbs.
The UAE and Iran have a markedly different approach
to the issue of the islands. The UAE side has
historic evidence of ownership. Iran invaded and
occupied the Tunbs after it had tried and failed
to buy them. Having bullied Sharjah into the unequal
1971 memorandum on Abu Musa, Iran has consistently
broken the terms of that agreement ever since.
The UAE, while re-affirming its legitimate claim
in accordance with the principles of the UN charter,
has offered to hold talks, or to take the issue
to the International Court of Justice for arbitration,
binding itself to accept the result.
Iran has refused to enter into meaningful negotiations,
has rejected a reference to the ICJ and, rather
than displaying any sign of willingness to seek
a way of resolving the issue, seeks to re-write
history while offering up insults to the injured
party.
The history of the Gulf region provides numerous
examples of the way in which successive rulers
in Persia, now Iran, aspired to project their
power across the waterway that divides them from
the Arabian peninsula. And in each case - from
the Achaemenids over 2,000 years ago to the Sassanids,
whose empire was defeated and overrun by the Arab
armies of the early Muslim Caliphate; from the
Safavids, whose state descended into utter anarchy
at around the time that the Al Qasimi began to
rule along the southern Iranian coastline and
in the northern emirates, to the last Shah - those
aspirations, and empires, all eventually came
to naught.
Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from
that.
(Emirates News Agency,
WAM)
(The views expressed by the author are his own).
|
