 |
During
1999 the Government of the UAE has sought, with considerable success, to
consolidate international support for its continuing diplomatic efforts to
resolve the Iranian occupation in 1971 of the three islands of Greater and
Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa.
While the
UAE, like other member states of the AGCC, seeks to develop bilateral
economic and political links with Iran, there is a clearly defined and
agreed policy, both in the UAE and at the AGCC level, that such
development will not take place at the expense of the UAE's sovereignty
over the islands.
It is now
31 years since Iran forcibly seized Greater and Lesser Tunb on the night
of 30 November 1971. At that time, a Memorandum of Understanding was
signed between Iran and Sharjah, to allow for both to administer part of
the island of Abu Musa, without prejudice to their continuing claims of
sovereignty. Since then and most particularly since 1994, Iran has
continually been in breach of the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding, interfering with free access, building military
installations and placing military equipment on the island and moving in
settlers whose presence has demonstrably and significantly altered the
demographic structure of the population of Abu Musa. It has also, in
contravention of the Memorandum of Understanding, imposed its control over
areas of Abu Musa which were reserved under the agreement
to Sharjah.
UAE
suggestions for resolution
The Government of the UAE has
consistently reaffirmed its right to sovereignty over the islands,
protesting at the military occupation and subsequent fortification of the
Tunbs and at the overt breach of the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding on Abu Musa. At the same time, while continuing to assert
its sovereignty over the islands, the UAE has offered two suggestions to
Iran as ways of seeking to find a solution to the political impasse.
The first
is for the two parties to engage in direct bilateral discussions on the
resolution of issues arising out of the Iranian occupation of the three
islands, including both the proper implementation of the terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding on Abu Musa and the broader, but related,
question of sovereignty. The UAE has set no preconditions on the offer to
hold such discussions, apart from stating the necessity of laying down a
fixed time limit for their conclusion. The second option is for the issue
of sovereignty to be submitted to international arbitration or referred to
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the UAE agreeing to
be bound in advance to accept any ruling made by the Court.
The
Government of Iran has rejected both options. Since the ICJ can only
exercise its jurisdiction if both parties agree to referral of a dispute,
this effectively means that Iran has rejected the good offices of the
world's primary legal body, which would examine in detail any
documentation put forward by the parties. The refusal of Iran to agree to
a process which would require the submission of legal documentation must,
inevitably, cast doubt on the legal validity of its claims.
The
Government of Iran has agreed to enter into bilateral discussions and has
said that these would be without preconditions. At the same time, Iranian
officials have refused to discuss the question of sovereignty over the
three islands, referring only to the need to resolve 'misunderstandings'.
Frequent Iranian statements have reaffirmed claim to sovereignty over the
islands, refusing in particular to enter into any discussion with relation
to Greater and Lesser Tunb.
While, in
the opinion of the Government of the UAE, its claim to sovereignty over
the islands is fully justified, it is willing to allow the issue to be
settled through bilateral discussions, through international arbitration,
or by the ICJ, and is prepared to submit documentation to be evaluated
within the framework of international law.
Legal
issues
International law states clearly that
sovereignty cannot be acquired by invasion, military force or coercion. In
the case of Greater and Lesser Tunb, the Iranian invasion in 1971 in which
a number of Ras al-Khaimah policemen were killed, is a matter of
historical fact. In the case of the Memorandum of Understanding on Abu
Musa, the Government of Sharjah specifically reserved its rights to
sovereignty. Quite apart from the fact that the Memorandum was signed only
under the threat of invasion, amounting to coercion, it has subsequently
been breached substantially and consistently in such a way as to indicate
that the Government of Iran has no intention of abiding by its terms.
Arab rulers since 1330
Aside from the legal issues outlined
above there is a wealth of historical documentation to support the UAE's
claim to sovereignty over the islands. Apart from short and interrupted
periods in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the three islands have
been governed by Arab rulers since 1330. From then until 1622 they were
part of the Arab-ruled Kingdom of Hormuz, based on the island of the same
name, which also included much of what is now the UAE and Oman.
From the
middle of the eighteenth century the islands were ruled by the Al Qawasim
dynasty which today provides the sheikhs of Ras al-Khaimah and Sharjah. At
that time the State of the Al Qawasim included not only much of the
northern UAE and the three islands but also extended along the southern
coast of Iran to include the port of Bandar Lingeh. Treaties signed with
the British in the early nineteenth century acknowledged that the Al
Qasimi dominions extended to both sides of the Arabian Gulf and, at the
same time, represented an acknowledgement of their sovereignty under
prevailing international law.
Bandar
Lingeh remained under the rule of an Al Qasimi sheikh until 1886, at which
time it was absorbed by Iran, regardless of the fact that it had by then
been part of the Al Qasimi state for over a century. In 1887 Iran occupied
a fourth island, Sirri, also part of the Al Qasimi dominions although
administered by the Bandar Lingeh branch of the family. In a protest to
Tehran, the British Government, which had been in treaty relations with
the Emirates since 1820, noted that Sirri, as well as the other islands,
'formed part of the hereditary estates of the Jowasimi (Qasimi) Arab
Sheikhs'. Many of Sirri's inhabitants, rejecting the occupation, then
moved to Abu Musa, which remained uncontested as part of the Al Qasimi
state.
As late as
1903 the British Political Resident in the Gulf was able to state that, as
far as he was aware, Iran had made no claim to the Tunbs. The next year,
however, Iranian customs officials landed on both Abu Musa and Greater
Tunb, although, after protests from the Ruler of Sharjah (which then
included Ras al-Khaimah) and from Britain, they withdrew. At the time the
Government of Iran failed to respond to a request from Britain that it
should produce documentation in support of its claim to the islands.
Al Qasimi state divided
In 1920 the Al Qasimi state divided
into two, with Abu Musa becoming part of Sharjah, and Greater and Lesser
Tunb becoming part of Ras al-Khaimah. Shortly afterwards in 1923, Iran
once again put forward a claim to sovereignty over the three islands, but
following protests from Sharjah, Ras al-Khaimah and Britain, the claim was
dropped. Further incidents of Iranian interference took place, prompting
more protests. In 1926 the Iranian customs were instructed by Tehran 'not
to take any steps in Abu Musa or Tamb (the Tunbs), pending reply from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding status of these islands', a clear
indication that Iran was unsure of the legal validity of its claims.
The
weakness of the Iranian position, in terms of international law, was
underlined during negotiations between Iran and Britain in the late 1920s.
Iran first offered to withdraw its claim to Abu Musa if its title over the
Tunbs was recognised. Failing in that objective, in itself an
acknowledgement that its claim to Abu Musa had no validity, Iran then
offered to buy the Tunbs. The offer was rejected in 1930 by the Ruler of
Ras al-Khaimah with the support of his colleague, the Ruler of Sharjah,
following which Iran then offered to lease the Tunbs for a period of 50
years. Once again no agreement was reached. Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah
continued to exercise their sovereignty over the three islands
unchallenged until the late 1960s.
British withdrawal prompts renewed claims
Following the announcement in 1968 by
Britain of its intention to withdraw from the Arabian Gulf by the end of
1971 the Government of Iran put forward a claim to the whole of the island
of Bahrain. In the wake of a referendum conducted on Bahrain under UN
supervision, Iran was obliged to abandon its claim which had no legal
basis. It promptly revived its then-dormant claim to Abu Musa and Greater
and Lesser Tunb. It is significant, in terms of international law, that it
did so not on the basis of providing historical evidence of its claim to
sovereignty but through threat of coercion.
On
28 September 1971 the Shah of Iran stated in an interview with the London
Guardian that: 'we need them [the islands]; we shall have them; no power
on earth shall stop us'.
Attempts
by Britain to resolve the problem had mixed results. Sharjah, reserving
its claim to sovereignty over Abu Musa but concerned about the obvious
coercion from Iran, agreed to sign a Memorandum of Understanding. In the
case of Greater and Lesser Tunb, Ras al-Khaimah declined to agree to any
form of Iranian presence, with the result that Iran invaded and occupied
them.
The Iranian presence on the three islands today is based in the
case of the Tunbs on military occupation undertaken in contravention of
international law. In the case of Abu Musa, threats and coercion, which
are themselves illegal under international law, were used by Iran to
obtain agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding which has then been
constantly breached in such a manner and to such an extent as to render
open to question the continuing validity of the Memorandum itself. In
effect, therefore, particularly in the light of Iran's militarisation of
those areas of Abu Musa in which it is present, Abu Musa too is under
Iranian military occupation.
UAE keen to pursue peaceful option
Notwithstanding the illegal nature of the Iranian
presence on the three islands the Government of the UAE is keen to pursue
any peaceful option that may lead to a resolution of the issue. The UAE's
offer to submit the case to the ICJ or to international arbitration having
been rejected by Iran the UAE has suggested once again, with the support
of its AGCC partners and with backing from resolutions passed by a number
of regional and international organisations, that the two states should
engage in bilateral negotiations without preconditions, apart from the
setting of a timetable for their completion.
That offer
remains on the table. During the past year the Iranian Government has
stated, as it has done before, that it wishes to improve relations with
the Arab states of the Gulf. The view of the UAE and of its AGCC
colleagues is that such talk from Iran cannot be taken seriously until
such time as it is supported by concrete and positive steps to deal with
the issue of the islands. Their future remains a key factor in intra-Gulf
relations.
For
more information, maps and documents:
http://www.emirates-islands.org.ae/