TEHERAN— Tekući pregovori o oživljavanju Zajedničkog sveobuhvatnog akcijskog plana, odnosno nuklearnog sporazuma iz 2015., dosegli su kritičnu fazu. Iran je poslao svoj odgovor na amandmane SAD-a na predloženi tekst EU-a i čeka odgovor Sjedinjenih Država.
Otkako je Iran poslao svoj odgovor, zapadni mediji su uključili svoj propagandni stroj, nazivajući iranski odgovor “nekonstruktivnim” i optužujući Iran da namjerava opstruirati postizanje sporazuma.
Međutim, Iran je rekao da će ostati strpljiv. Glavni zahtjev Teherana naveden u njegovom prijedlogu je uklanjanje daljnjih dvosmislenosti u tekstu sporazuma i izbjegavanje ostavljanja Washingtonu rupa u zakonu.
S tim u vezi, Mohammad Marandi, savjetnik iranskog pregovaračkog tima, tweetao je u ponedjeljak:
“Borrell je saveznik SAD-a i zaboravlja da su razlog za ove pregovore zapadna kršenja JCPOA-e i sankcije pod maksimalnim pritiskom usmjerene na iranske građane, čak i kao što je Iran bio u puna usklađenost. Iran neće prihvatiti rupe u zakonu i dvosmislenosti. SAD nameće troškove EU.”
Tweet se odnosio na izjave visokog predstavnika EU za vanjsku politiku Josepa Borrella u ponedjeljak, koji je rekao:
“Dakle, moram reći da posljednji odgovor koji sam dobio, ako je svrha brzo zaključiti dogovor, neće pomoći. (iz Irana) Dakle, ono što ja radim, da se nastavim konzultirati sa svim drugim sudionicima JCPOA, a posebno sa SAD-om, jer je to zahtjev koji moraju ispuniti posebno SAD…o tome kako dalje. Ali žao mi je što moram reći da sam danas manje uvjeren nego…prije…u pogledu mogućnosti sklapanja posla upravo sada.”
Nakon Borrellovih komentara, glavni ruski pregovarač u Beču, Mihail Uljanov, tvitao je:
“Jasno je da #Iran neće prihvatiti rupe u zakonu i dvosmislenosti. Nisam siguran da je #EU zaboravila tko je odgovoran za trenutnu situaciju. Unatoč kompliciranom karakteru međ. odnosi sudionici #ViennaTalks do sada su pokazali sposobnost da budu pragmatični.”
Dvosmislenosti su prepreka svakom promišljanju jezika. Diplomatske dvosmislenosti mogu ugroziti političke dogovore. U konferencijskoj diplomaciji, uspješan diplomat angažiran u pregovorima o tekstovima često će nastojati uvjeriti svoje sugovornike da postignu dogovor o obliku riječi koji kombinira preciznost s dvosmislenošću. To dvoje se može spojiti u istom odlomku ili dužem tekstu, rjeđe u istoj rečenici. Preciznost će u pravilu služiti u svrhu njegove vlastite strane u određivanju zahtjeva ili ograničenja obveza; tražena dvosmislenost poslužit će za ublažavanje tjeskobe s obje strane ili za osiguranje margine za naknadno tumačenje.
Dražen Pehar, bosanskohercegovački znanstvenik, u opsežnom radu na web stranici Diplomacy.edu pojasnio je korištenje dvosmislenih izjava i riječi i njihovu korist za strane u “mirovnom sporazumu”.
“Pa posrednici, odnosno oni koji sastavljaju takve tekstove, razmišljaju otprilike ovako. Ako dvije strane imaju jake i kontradiktorne interese i ako se čini da nijedna strana nije spremna ustupiti dio svojih maksimalnih zahtjeva i/ili ako pregovori traju kratko i strane ne mogu detaljnije razgovarati o takvim ustupcima, tada pitanje sukoba interesa može se riješiti tako da tako kažemo simuliranjem kompromisa u vrlo rudimentarnom obliku. Posrednici mogu smisliti formulu koja je otvorena za najmanje dva različita tumačenja; koje može nositi najmanje dva značenja, A i B, jedno da zadovolji interese strane A i drugo da zadovolji interese strane B. Značenje A će tako biti u skladu s interesima ili preferencijama strane A, dok znači B će biti u skladu s interesima, ili preferencijama strane B. Time posrednici održavaju cjelovitost i sveobuhvatnost nacrta, i, u isto vrijeme, čine mali korak prema razradi, u kasnijoj fazi, kompromisa između maksimalnih zahtjeva nekadašnjih sukobljenih, sada pregovaranje, stranke. Drugim riječima, dvosmislenosti osiguravaju da, s jedne strane, stranke zadrže svoje individualne percepcije o tome ‘kako bi se stvari trebale odvijati’, a da se, s druge strane, usvoji jedan zajednički jezik, koji obje strane mogu kasnije ravnopravno koristiti, ” napisao je.
Sjedinjene Države koristile su ovu tehniku 2015. kada su potpisale JCPOA. Amerikanci su napisali potpuno točan, objektivan i netumačiv tekst o obvezama Irana prema JCPOA, što im je bilo u interesu. No, vlastite su obveze bile napisane na način da se mogu tumačiti na razne načine.
U pisanju teksta JCPOA Iran je bio pogođen dvosmislenošću u riječima. Stoga Iran ne želi da ga ponovno ugrize ista zmija u ovim rundama pregovora o oživljavanju JCPOA-e.
Neka nam svima bude jasno. Iranski odgovor osmišljen je na način koji bi ubrzao završetak pregovora. Nema pretjeranog zahtjeva Teherana ili bilo čega što nadilazi izvorni tekst JCPOA. Ono što je usporilo Sjedinjene Države u slanju odgovora EU je to što nisu voljne sastaviti nedvosmislen tekst koji bi mogao koristiti Iranu. Ako postoji jedna fraza koja bi mogla sažeti trenutnu nevolju JCPOA-e, to je ova: Pravi rat riječima.
Words War of Nuclear Deal
TEHRAN— The ongoing negotiations to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka 2015 nuclear deal, has reached a critical stage. Iran has sent its response to the U.S. amendments to the EU proposed text, and is awaiting the United States’ response.
Since Iran sent its response, the Western media have turned on their propaganda machine, calling Iran’s response “unconstructive”, and accusing Iran of intending to obstruct reaching an agreement.
However, Iran has said it will remain patient. Tehran’s main demand stated in its proposal is to remove further ambiguities in the text of the agreement and avoid giving Washington loopholes.
In this regard, Mohammad Marandi, advisor to the Iranian negotiating team, tweeted on Monday, “Borrell is a U.S. ally & forgets that the reason for these negotiations are Western violations of the JCPOA & maximum pressure sanctions targeting Iranian citizens even as Iran was in full compliance. Iran will not accept loopholes & ambiguities. The U.S. is imposing costs on the EU.”
The tweet was referring to EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell’s remarks on Monday who said, “So I have to say that the last answer I got, if the purpose is to close the deal quickly, it is not going to help it. (from Iran) So what I’m doing, to keep consulting with all other JCPOA participants, and in particular the U.S., because it is a request that has to be fulfilled by the U.S. in particular…on how to proceed. But I’m sorry to say that I am less confident today than…before…about the prospect of closing the deal right now.”
After Borrell’s comments, Russia’s top negotiator in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, tweeted, “It’s clear that #Iran will not accept loopholes and ambiguities. I am not sure that #EU forgot who is responsible for the current situation. Despite complicated character of int. relations participants in the #ViennaTalks demonstrated so far the ability to be pragmatic.”
Ambiguities are an obstacle to any reflection on language. Diplomatic ambiguities can jeopardize political agreements. In conference diplomacy, the successful diplomat engaged in the negotiation of texts will often strive to persuade his interlocutors to reach agreement on a form of words which combines precision with ambiguity. The two can be brought together in the same paragraph or longer text, more rarely in the same sentence. The precision will as a rule, serve the purposes of his own side in stipulating claims or limits to commitments; the sought-for ambiguity will serve to allay anxieties on either side or to secure a margin for subsequent interpretation.
In a comprehensive paper on Diplomacy.edu website, Drazen Pehar, a Bosnian scientist clarified the use of ambiguous statements and words and their benefits for parties to a “peace agreement”.
“Well, mediators, or those drafting such texts, reason approximately in the following way. If two parties have strong and contradictory interests, and if it seems that neither side is ready to concede a part of its maximum demand, and/or if the negotiations are running short of time and the parties cannot discuss such concessions in more detail, then the issue of conflicting interests can be resolved by, so to speak, simulating a compromise in a very rudimentary form. The mediators may come up with a formula which is open to at least two different interpretations; which can carry at least two meanings, A and B, one to gratify the interests of party A and another to gratify the interests of party B. Meaning A will thus stand in harmony with the interests, or preferences, of party A, while meaning B will stand in harmony with the interests, or preferences, of party B. Thus, the mediators maintain the integrity and comprehensiveness of the draft, and, at the same time, make a small step towards elaborating, at a later stage, a compromise between the maximum demands by erstwhile conflicting, now negotiating, parties. In other words, ambiguities make sure that, on the one hand, the parties retain their own individual perceptions as to ‘how things should proceed’ and that, on the other, one common language is adopted, which both parties may later equally use,” he wrote.
The United States used this technique in 2015 when it signed the JCPOA. Americans wrote a completely accurate, objective, and uninterpretable text about Iran’s JCPOA commitments which was in their interest. However, their own commitments were written in a way that could be interpreted in various ways.
In writing the text of the JCPOA, Iran was hit by ambiguity in words. Hence, Iran does not want to be bitten by the same snake again in these rounds of talks to revive the JCPOA.
Let us all be clear. Iran’s response is designed in a way that would speed up the conclusion of the talks. There is no excessive demand by Tehran or anything that goes beyond the original text of the JCPOA. What has slowed down the United States sending its response to the EU is that they are unwilling to draft an unambiguous text that could benefit Iran. If there is one phrase that could sum up the current predicament of the JCPOA, it’s this: A true war of words.
wpDiscuz
