The Foreign Service Journal, May 2008

fic Fleet and deputy chief of naval operations, suggested in the Jan. 29 Washington Times that the set of rules and regulations incorporated in the 1972 U.S.-Soviet “Incidents at Sea Treaty” could be applied as modified for naval operations in the Persian Gulf. He suggested that the navies of U.S. allies and of other Gulf states, including Iran, be invited to sign such an accord. The absence of diplomatic rela- tions between Iran and the United States need not be an obstacle to direct, expert-level talks on procedur- al issues involving the safety of U.S. and Iranian naval personnel and assets. An excellent forum for initial discussions already exists: the bilater- al, ambassadorial-level talks in Bagh- dad conducted under Iraqi auspices. Other venues such as Geneva and Paris, where U.S. and Iranian officials have met to discuss specific issues, could also be considered. The two sides also could meet, either bilaterally or for multilateral talks, under the auspices of the London-based International Mari- time Organization, the United Na- tions specialized agency responsible for improving maritime safety, techni- cal cooperation and maritime security. Both Iran and the U.S. are members. Because of the technical nature of the issues and the benefits that would result from better communication in this area, the issue of political will should not be a major factor for the United States. An Iranian rejection of a U.S. invitation to engage in talks of this nature would put the onus of responsibility on Tehran for any sub- sequent loss of life or limb stemming from an encounter in the Persian Gulf. Precedents and Approaches The result of discussions with respect to naval vessels (and aircraft) of the two sides should be an under- standing along the lines of the Agreement Between the Government of The United States of America and the Government of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas (generally referred to as INCSEA), tailored to the situation in the Persian Gulf and possibly of a multilateral nature, as Admiral Lyons suggests. The French decision, an- nounced by President Nicolas Sar- kosy in January, to open a military base in the United Arab Emirates, strengthens the case for a multilateral agreement. The U.S.-Soviet agreement gov- erning incidents at sea was signed in Moscow on May 25, 1972, by Secre- tary of the Navy John Warner and Soviet Admiral Sergei Gorshkov. It was designed to reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding or miscalcula- tion and the possibility that incidents like that of Jan. 6 would lead to tragic consequences. The agreement provided for steps to avoid collisions: not interfering in the “formations” of the other party; avoiding maneuvers in areas of heavy sea traffic; and requiring surveillance ships to maintain a safe distance so as to avoid “embarrassing or endangering the ships under surveillance.” Other provisions included using accepted international signals when ships maneuver near one another; not simu- lating attacks at, launching objects toward or illuminating the bridges of the other party’s ships; informing ves- sels when submarines are exercising near them; requiring aircraft com- manders to use caution and prudence in approaching aircraft and ships of the other party; and not permitting simulated attacks against aircraft or ships, performing “aerobatics” over ships or dropping hazardous objects near them. A more recent reference point may be the U.S.-Chinese Military Mari- time Consultative Agreement, signed on Jan. 19, 1998, by Defense Secre- tary William Cohen and Chinese Defense Minister General Chi Hao- tian. This agreement followed talks and visits, initiated by the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral Joseph Prueher, in 1996. The MMCA, initially directed at establish- ing a forum for dialogue on maritime communication issues, provides for working-level exchanges on issues of maritime safety and communication and expands cooperation in related areas, including search and rescue at sea and humanitarian assistance. There is also a substantial body of international law and experience on which the parties could draw: the reg- ulations of the International Maritime Organization, the International Colli- sion Regulations of 1960, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Pres. Bush has urged the Senate to approve. Talking with, rather than at, each other is certain to be more fruitful than the path, suggested by some, of retaliatory military strikes to “deter provocations” by the Iranians. It is also preferable to the suggestion by Pentagon military historian David Crist in the Jan. 20 New York Times that we urge our allies to let Tehran know “that any attempt by the Revolutionary Guard to interfere with the free navigation of international waters will be treated no differently from a terrorist attack.” M A Y 2 0 0 8 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 15 S P E A K I N G O U T The 1972 U.S.-Soviet incidents-at-sea agreement could serve as a model.