How Nuclear Antagonists Collaborated on Counter-Narcotics Efforts in Iran from 2007 to 2011

HIDDEN COOPERATION: How Nuclear Antagonists Collaborated on Counter-Narcotics Efforts in Iran from 2007 to 2011 Mémoire Myriam Ménard Maîtrise en études internationales Maître ès arts (M.A.) Québec, Canada © Myriam Ménard, 2014 ii RÉSUMÉ L'Iran est depuis longtemps considéré comme un État paria sur la scène internationale en raison de son programme nucléaire. Pourtant, les mêmes États qui ont publiquement dénoncé les ambitions nucléaires de l'Iran ont collaboré avec les autorités iraniennes à la lutte anti-drogue. Cette recherche explore comment les membres de la communauté internationale ont formulé leur discours public sur l'Iran afin de justifier à la fois leur coopération avec l‟Iran contre les stupéfiants et leur dénonciation du programme nucléaire. Les déclarations politiques de sept gouvernements ayant fourni une assistance à la lutte anti-drogue de l‟Iran de 2007 à 2011 ont été systématiquement analysées à l'aide de l'analyse de contenu qualitative et de l'analyse de discours. Notre analyse a révélé que ces pays ont entretenu des représentations contradictoires, construisant l‟Iran simultanément comme un ennemi et un partenaire. Ces résultats suggèrent que la confrontation nucléaire avec l'Iran résulte des pratiques discursives d‟acteurs internationaux. iii iv ABSTRACT Iran has long been considered as a pariah state in international affairs due to the development of the country‟s nuclear program. Yet, the very same states that have denounced Iran‟s nuclear ambitions and pushed for the imposition of international sanctions have collaborated with Iranian authorities on counter-narcotics issues. This research explores how members of the international community framed their public discourse on Iran in order to justify both counter-narcotics cooperation with Iran and denunciation of the country‟s nuclear program. The political statements of seven governments that provided assistance to Iran‟s counter-narcotics efforts from 2007 to 2011 were systematically analysed with the help of Qualitative Content and Discourse analyses. Our analysis revealed that these donor countries held contradictory representations of Iran, constructing it simultaneously as an enemy and a partner. These findings suggest that nuclear confrontation with Iran is not inevitable but rather results from the discursive practices of international actors. v vi TABLE OF CONTENTS RÉSUMÉ III ABSTRACT V TABLE OF CONTENTS VII LIST OF TABLES XI LIST OF FIGURES XIII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS XVII CHAPTER 1 ANTAGONISTIC PARTNERS: HOW NUCLEAR OPPONENTS COLLABORATED ON COUNTER- NARCOTICS ISSUES FROM 2007 TO 2011 1 1. RESEARCH PROBLEM CONTEXTUALIZED: COUNTER-NARCOTICS INVOLVEMENT AND NUCLEAR NON- PROLIFERATION IN SOUTH WEST ASIA 1 1.1 THE AFGHAN OPIUM TRADE PROBLEM: PROVIDING INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO IRAN’S COUNTER- NARCOTICS EFFORTS 2 1.2 THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR ISSUE: OPPOSING DEVELOPMENTS OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM 6 2. RESEARCH QUESTION 10 3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 11 4. ORGANIZATION 12 CHAPTER 2 THE MAKING OF A PARADOX: NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT AND DRUG CONTROL IN IRAN, 2007- 2011 13 1. POLICY RESPONSES TO THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR ISSUE: THE INFLUENCE OF INTERESTS, ALLIANCES AND PERCEPTIONS 13 1.1 EUROPEAN UNION-IRAN RELATIONS: YO-YOING BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT AND CONFRONTATION 14 1.2 FRANCE-IRAN RELATIONS: A DISPLAY OF FRANCE’S ASPIRATION TO BE A KEY PLAYER IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 15 1.3 UK-IRAN RELATIONS: CONSTRAINED BY TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS AND DOMESTIC POLITICS 17 1.4 US-IRAN RELATIONS: A MUTUAL ANIMOSITY THAT DICTATES THE CONDUCT OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 19 vii 1.5 JAPAN-IRAN RELATIONS: MAINTAINING A DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN ENERGY AND MILITARY SECURITY 20 2. THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR CRISIS: COMPETING ANALYSES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE NEO-REALIST, NEO- LIBERAL AND CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 22 3. DRUG CONTROL IN IRAN: PROBLEMS AND POLICY REPONSES 25 4. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN DRUG CONTROL: A FIELD OF STUDY THAT REMAINS LARGELY OVERLOOKED 30 4.1 THE INTERNATIONAL DRUG CONTROL REGIME: A PROHIBITIONIST FRAMEWORK THAT CONSTRAINS POLICY OPTIONS FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS 31 4.2 THE MERIDA INITIATIVE: A SECURITY PARTNERSHIP THAT PRESENTS SIMILARITIES TO THE CASE OF COUNTER-NARCOTICS COOPERATION WITH IRAN 34 CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC DISCOURSE: CONSTRUCTIVISM, QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 37 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 37 1.1 ON THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 37 1.2 ON THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF CRIME 41 1.3 THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION: PUSHING ANALYSIS BEYOND MATERIAL CAPABILITIES AND EXOGENOUS INTERESTS 43 2. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK 45 2.1 QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS 46 2.2 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 46 2.3 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION 48 2.4 ANALYSIS GRID 56 CHAPTER 4 THE POLITICS OF NUCLEAR ISOLATION AND COUNTER-NARCOTICS COOPERATION WITH IRAN, 2007-2011 59 1. THE POLITICS OF NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION: QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DONOR COUNTRIES’ POLITICAL STATEMENTS ON THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR ISSUE 59 1.1 2007: “NORMALIZED” LEVEL OF POLITICAL TENSIONS 60 1.2 2008: NUCLEAR TALKS PROVE INCONCLUSIVE 62 1.3 2009: STALEMATE AND SHATTERED CONFIDENCE 64 1.4 2010: ESCALATING RHETORIC AGAINST IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM 66 1.5 2011: POLITICAL TENSIONS RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS 68 viii 2. THE POLITICS OF COUNTER-NARCOTICS COOPERATION: QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DONOR COUNTRIES’ POLITICAL STATEMENTS ON THEIR ASSISTANCE TO IRAN’S COUNTER-NARCOTICS EFFORTS 69 2.1 ITALY: FAVOURABLE TO STRONG COUNTER-NARCOTICS COOPERATION WITH IRAN 70 2.2 GERMANY: CONVEYING POSITIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF IRAN’S COUNTER-NARCOTICS EFFORTS 73 2.3 FRANCE: CAREFUL DISCRETION HINTING AT THE LEGITIMACY OF MULTILATERALISM 76 2.4 THE UK, JAPAN, BELGIUM AND IRELAND: COMPLETE RADIO SILENCE 78 3. QUALITATIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF IRAN’S RESPONSE TO NUCLEAR ISOLATION AND COUNTER-NARCOTICS COOPERATION 79 3.1 IRAN’S RESPONSE TO NUCLEAR ISOLATION: INCREASING CONFRONTATIONAL RHETORIC 79 3.2 IRAN’S RESPONSE TO COUNTER-NARCOTICS COOPERATION: REITERATED COMPLAINTS ABOUT POOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 85 CHAPTER 5 CONFLICTING REPRESENTATIONS OF IRAN 89 1. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF DONOR COUNTRIES’ POLITICAL STATEMENTS ON THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR ISSUE: CARRYING NEGATIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF IRAN 89 1.1 FRAME 1: IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AS SECURITY THREAT 89 1.2 FRAME 2: IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AS A BREACH IN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS 91 1.3 FRAME 3: IRAN AS A CUNNING ACTOR 93 1.4 FRAME 4: IRAN AS NON-COOPERATIVE ACTOR 94 1.5 FRAME 5: NUCLEAR ISOLATION AS INEVITABLE AND NECESSARY 96 2. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF DONOR COUNTRIES’ POLITICAL STATEMENTS ON COUNTER-NARCOTICS COOPERATION WITH IRAN: CONVEYING POSITIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF IRAN 97 2.1 FRAME 1: IRAN’S COUNTER-NARCOTICS EFFORTS AS GOOD PRACTICES 98 2.2 FRAME 2: IRAN AS A STRATEGIC PARTNER IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE AFGHAN DRUG TRADE 99 2.3 FRAME 3: INTERNATIONAL COUNTER-NARCOTICS COOPERATION WITH IRAN AS POSITIVE YET CHALLENGING 100 CHAPTER 6 THE PARADOX OF CONFLICTING DISCOURSES EXPLAINED: DISCUSSING THE IMPACTS OF STRATEGY, INSTITUTIONS, MANICHAEISM, POWER AND CONTEXT 103 1. CONFLICTING REPRESENTATIONS OF IRAN: A VOLUNTARY, CALCULATED AND STRATEGIC PARADOX? 103 2. CONFLICTING REPRESENTATIONS OF IRAN: A PARADOX DUE TO THE MULTIPLICATION OF POLITICAL ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS? 106 3. CONFLICTING REPRESENTATIONS OF IRAN: A PARADOX CREATED BY MANICHEAN DISCOURSES? 109 4. CONFLICTING REPRESENTATIONS OF IRAN: THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER 110 5. CONFLICTING REPRESENTATIONS OF IRAN: THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXT 117 ix CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION 123 1. FINDINGS: THE POWER OF SILENCE AND THE SHIELD OF MULTILATERALISM 123 2. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIELD: FILLING THE GAPS 125 3. AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 127 ANNEX 1 COMPARATIVE TIMELINE OF THE POLITICS OF NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION AND COUNTER- NARCOTICS COOPERATION WITH IRAN, 2005-2011 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY 139 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Financial requirements for the UNODC Iran Strategic Programme Framework 2005-2007 _______ 4 Table 2. Donor countries‟ political statements on the Iranian nuclear issue __________________________ 51 Table 3. Donor countries‟ political statements on counter-narcotics cooperation with Iran ______________ 53 Table 4. Iranian political statements on the nuclear issue ________________________________________ 54 Table 5. Iranian political statements on the international assistance to Iran‟s counter-narcotics efforts ____ 56 Table 6. Analytical codes _________________________________________________________________ 57 Table 7. Comparative timeline of the politics of nuclear isolation and international counter-narcotics cooperation with Iran, 2005-2011 __________________________________________________________ 130 xi xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. French Ambassador attends a ceremony at an Iranian ANP dog-training center in Karaj ______ 77 xiii xiv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AEOI Atomic Energy Organization of Iran ANP Anti-Narcotics Police BLO Border Liaison Offices CERIUM Centre d‟études et de recherches internationales de l‟Université de Montréal CND Commission on Narcotic Drugs DCHQ Drug Control Headquarters DLO Drug Liaison Officers DTOs Drug Trafficking Organizations ECO Economic Cooperation Organization EU European Union E3 France, Germany and the United Kingdom GPG All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity G8 Group of Eight G20 Group of Twenty IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IR International Relations IRN/I50 Integrated Border Control in Iran IRN/I52 Promotion and Strengthening of Intelligence-Led Investigations Capacities IRN/I53

Load more