RIA Novosti, Russia
Feb 16 2005
IRAN AND RUSSIA DEVELOP NEW ECONOMIC PLANS
MOSCOW (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev)
A delegation of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry led by a
former prime minister, Yevgeny Primakov, is touring the Middle and
Near East, with Iran the key point on the program. The reason is
simple: Iran is the regional leader in terms of the volume and
quality of economic relations with Russia.
Iranian-Russian trade has hit the $2-billion mark, with Russian
exports accounting for 90%. Given that one aim of Russia’s economic
development policy is to free the country from its dependence of raw
material exports, trade with Iran provides an appropriate export
structure: Iran buys Russian planes, cars, and high technologies in
the energy sector, including in nuclear power. New projects are being
drafted, such as the construction of a railroad in Iran, gas
pipelines to Armenia and India, and the Tabas coal power station, as
well as the modernization of other power stations in Isfahan and
Ahwaz. Mr. Primakov’s objective is to identify priorities in the
voluminous plans outlined by the two sides.
Russians engaged in cooperation projects with Iran regard the country
as the regional leader in terms of literacy (81.4%), economic growth
and quality of life. Russia’s political culture believes it
inappropriate to impose forms of governance and life-style norms on
other countries and societies, even when this society is a unique
Shiite theocracy. Indeed, it compares favorably with many Islamic
monarchies in the Near East.
The political results of Iranian-Russian cooperation are obvious,
even if we choose not to mention that Iran has never given support to
Islamic extremists in Chechnya and the North Caucasus, and blocked
every anti-Russian resolution when it recently held the rotating
chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In point
of fact, Iran is still playing a key role in Russia’s gradual advance
to observer status and closer cooperation with the OIC, a role which
is no less important than that of the present OIC chairman, Malaysia.
In other words, Moscow will benefit from a strong and prosperous
Iran, without nuclear weapons but with a powerful economy. The form
of governance it chooses, secular or theocratic Shiite, is
unimportant. The Iranians can cope with their domestic affairs on
their own, as their near unanimity in overthrowing the shah and
installing in 1979 the present, unique regime shows. Naturally, no
monarchies or regimes last forever and Russia has no special reason
for supporting this particular regime in Iran. The only thing Russia
wants is to have its long-term investments in Iran’s development well
protected.
However, Russian interests in Iran should also be protected from
competition. In a sense, Mr. Primakov’s delegation, like any trade
delegation, is part of efforts to get an edge on Russia’s rivals, the
main one being the European Union. It accounts for nearly a quarter
of Iran’s trade (about 15 billion euros), with Germany and Italy
taking the lead. Iran’s trade with Japan, China, and South Korea
should not be ignored either ($6 billion, $5 billion and $4 billion,
respectively).
Russia’s hopes to catch up with these rivals on the Iranian market
are probably unrealistic. Besides, in its special relations with
Iran, Russia can hardly claim a greater role than India, which given
its improving relations with neighboring Pakistan is identifying
increasing economic opportunities in Iran. Indeed, a key
Russian-Iranian project to develop a transport corridor from the
Indian Ocean to Europe via the Caspian Sea is connected with India.
The route will be even more important than the Suez Canal, because
goods to Europe will be delivered cheaper and faster by the
North-South corridor through Indian and Iranian ports and Russia’s
Volga river port of Olya.
Therefore, Moscow can and must take a skeptical view on the zigzags
and vacillation in the attempts made by Iran and the United States to
find a common language. Tehran was a reliable ally for the US and
other countries in their operations against the Taliban and other
terrorists in Afghanistan, but their further rapprochement was
interrupted by the war in Iraq. This war has led to consequences
unexpected even by Iran itself.
The efforts of America and the other occupying powers in neighboring
Iraq have made the establishment of a theocratic state there ruled by
Shiites, who are friendly to Iran’s Shiites despite their
differences, entirely possible. It is worth noting that, as distinct
from the ancient Persian empire, Iraq’s existence as a single state
is a relatively recent experiment. Even its capital, Baghdad, was
built in the middle of the eighth century on the ruins of Ktesifon,
the historic capital of Persia, by Iranians who had overthrown Arab
rule as part of an Islamic caliphate. They installed the Abbasid
dynasty and made Baghdad their capital.
Although this is a lesson from the distant past, it is still
instructive today.