|
Each week the Council publishes Talking Points in AIC UPDATE to improve dialogue on issues integral to improving US-Iran relations.
Human Rights
On December 20, 2004, the UN General Assembly criticized the human rights situation in Iran, including the lack of freedom of expression, excessive judicial punishments, and systematic discrimination. The Government of Iran promptly rejected the resolution as “politically motivated.” Though the resolution was adopted by a relatively close vote, human rights abuses are a definite impediment to normalized relations with the United States.
Violations of the provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights call into question the credibility of the signature of the Government of Iran, and such lack of respect for international commitments is detrimental to Iran’s national interests.
The Government of Iran has made a commitment under article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), that it will impose the death sentence "only for the most serious crimes". The enactment and enforcement of laws to the contrary questions the credibility of Iran’s international commitments to political, social and economic development.
The repeated denunciation of human rights abuse charges by the Government of Iran does not remedy the negative international impact of such accusations. The Government of Iran must make concerted efforts to prevent human rights abuses. Documented episodes of systematic abuse must be remedied by real action, legislative or other, rather than politically motivated denial.
The normalization of relations with the United States will require, on behalf of the Government and Peoples of Iran, correction of the serious defects in the judiciary system of Iran that have allowed and continue to allow the arrest, detention, sentencing, imprisonment and execution of many individuals in violation of internationally accepted standards, especially those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Iran is a signatory.
Nuclear Crisis
It is imperative that the United States become engaged in Iran’s nuclear
discourse to ensure a comprehensive resolution that meets Iran’s energy and
security needs.
The first round of agreements between the European Union (EU), the IAEA, and
the Islamic Republic of Iran addressed only energy issues while neglecting
security concerns.
The United States has not offered a realistic alternative to EU policy and
has carefully avoided direct engagement of the issue.
The United States believes that the current Iranian regime is determined to
develop a nuclear weapon, an allegation that the regime in Tehran fervently
deny.
Iran is convinced that the United States views the nuclear problem as an
issue that can only be solved by regime change.
No one should assume that the positions of Washington and Tehran are fixed.
The prospect of normalized relations could reshape views within both
governments.
Negotiations on a long-term arrangement will necessitate United States
backing of EU incentives, to mitigate Iran’s legitimate economic, political, and
security concerns.
Iran should show good faith in negotiating with the EU and implementing an
agreement that suspends uranium enrichment activities. This includes full
cooperation and clarification on declarations to the IAEA and the clarification
of earlier reporting failures.
There is little chance that the United States, or Israel, would take
pre-emptive military action against Iran’s nuclear plants, and less still that a
major military conflict between the United States and Iran will occur.
The United States should support EU incentives, by offering Iran its own
incentives that ensure resolution of Iran’s economic, political, and security
concerns.
American Iranian Council
PRESS RELEASE
Tel: (609) 252-9099 Fax: (609) 252-9698
AIC Supports Sharjah Urban Planning Efforts to Create a Better Middle East
Princeton, NJ (December 23, 2004) – The American Iranian Council supports the Sharjah Directorate of Town Planning and London South Bank University’s Eighth Sharjah Urban Planning Symposium (SUPS). The annual SUPS invites influential scholars and practitioners to debate major topics, raging from rapid urban development in the Middle East, to vision planning and globalization, urban growth techniques, innovative urban development, and planning coordination and strategic urban management.
The SUPS 8 will focus on urban development planning following the changing state of the world's political economy. The American Iranian Council supports the efforts of SUPS 8 to consider new theories regarding federalism and how these theories can inform a better strategic planning and coordination.
Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, President of the American Iranian Council, is a member of the SUPS International Advisory Committee. Dr. Amirahmadi is also the President of Caspian Associates, a consulting firm specializing in developing countries and emerging markets and a frequent contributor to the SUPS. SUPS 8 will be held on April 3-5, 2005 – Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
American Iranian Council
ALERT
U.S. Treasury Department (OFAC) Clarifies Activities Permitted Under
Sanctioned Regimes
Princeton, NJ (December 15, 2004) - In a December 15, 2004 press release, the U.S. Treasury said that its
Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) has issued a ruling clarifying
its rules on publication in countries under U.S. sanctions. The change
in the controversial ban on publication came after Nobel Peace Prize
winner Shirin Ebadi sued the United States because its economic embargo
on Iran blocked U.S. publication of her memoirs.
Iran, Cuba, and Sudan are currently under U.S. sanctions, per the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading
With the Enemy Act (TWEA). However, OFAC is amending the Iranian
Transactions Regulations (ITR), along with the Cuban and Sudanese
regulations, to authorize certain activities relating to publishing
that entail prohibited exportation and importation of services from
Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. The clarified guidelines state “U.S. persons
are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary and ordinarily
incident to the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books,
journals, and newspapers (collectively ‘written publications’), in
paper or electronic format.” For publication purposes, restrictions on
interactions with government officials and any persons acting on behalf
of the Government of Iran still exist.
The U.S. Treasury press release and rule clarifications are available
at: US Treasury Press Releases.
From the President's Desk
Iran will pose the most daunting foreign policy challenge for the
second Bush administration. The nuclear issue is only the most
immediate problem; others include Iran’s support for terrorism and its
lack of democracy. Unless a new course is set, Iran could become
another Cuba or Iraq for the United States.
On the nuclear front, Britain, France and Germany seem to have
succeeded in convincing Iran to temporarily suspend enrichment of
uranium in exchange for supplies of fuel and European trade. The United
States has given this dialogue grudging support, but wants to report
Iran to the UN Security Council as it suspects Iran’s intention.
This stance makes the mistake of viewing Iran’s nuclear challenge as an
isolated problem. Yet, Iran’s nuclear ambition is directed toward the
“American threat” to its security, and as long as this threat is not
removed any solution to the nuclear matter would be temporary. Viewed
from this angle and as a part of the larger US-Iran dispute, the
nuclear problem presents a historic opportunity; and coupled with the
US problems in Iraq, it creates a strategic imperative for a US-Iran
engagement.
The administration has dealt with Iran as if the current regime were
about to collapse, and will respond only to the sticks and not to the
carrots of diplomacy. Yet, the Islamic regime is not going to fall
because of the sticks; it has demonstrated a convincing ability to
weather repeated crises. However, as a capitalist state, it does
respond to incentives.
There are three alternatives for dealing with Iran. One is the Cuban
option – sustained economic sanctions and political pressure without
diplomatic relations. In the strategic and volatile Middle East, which
holds the largest chunk of the world’s oil and gas reserves, prolonging
the dispute with Iran would not serve America’s interests
There is the Iraqi option – forced regime change. This one would lead
to death and destruction on a larger scale than in Iraq. Iran is a
bigger country with a more complex geography and a highly nationalistic
people. It is also a more strategic nation with huge energy reserves.
Besides, the U.S. still needs to win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The third option is the one the U.S. pursued with the countries of the
former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, along with a host of other
dictatorial regimes in Asia and Latin America. It maintained diplomatic
ties and used both the carrot of trade and the stick of demanding
liberalism to contain the regimes and promote democracy.
This last option is the only viable one. To get it started, Iran should
suspend uranium enrichment and agree to transfer spent fuel abroad in
exchange for guaranteed fuel supply. To clinch the deal, the United
Nations should initiate the idea of a global moratorium on enrichment,
as world’s stock of enriched uranium will last for decades.
A dialogue on a regional security framework would be the next logical
step. Along with the dialogue on a global moratorium, it would help
Tehran justify giving up its right to enrichment, maintaining national
pride. It also would close the troubling loophole in the
Non-Proliferation Treaty that lets countries enrich uranium to a
certain point.
|
|
My discussions with Iranian officials convince me
that an initiative
along these lines can succeed if it is pursued as a step toward
normalization of relations with the United States. The officials
realize that they must make concessions on the nuclear issue, but have
little incentive to do so if they get no relief from America’s
sanctions and security threat.
Breaking the logjam of the nuclear issue can open the door to progress
on other grievances. Most notable among them are terrorism and
democracy. The issues are closely linked to each other and to the
nuclear problem, as President Bush has asserted. A democratic Iran will
not support terrorism, threaten neighbors, or build nuclear bombs.
The challenge is thus to find the right approach to democracy. The
experience of the last 25 years suggests that no nation has become
democratic while lacking relations with the U.S. Two other factors have
also been influential: economic interaction with the West and sustained
pressure by the UN for observance of human rights and the role of law.
Since the late 1970s, in roughly 30 authoritarian regimes where these
conditions were met, societies have moved toward democracy. Think of
South Korea, Eastern Europe, Russia and South Africa, where the U.S.
maintained diplomatic ties and a level of trade relations with the
authoritarian regimes, while sustaining tough political pressure.
In contrast, where these conditions were not met, authoritarian regimes
remain in power. Look at Cuba and North Korea, along, of course, with
Iran, where broken diplomatic ties, economic sanctions, and political
pressure have encouraged a conservative drift. Then there is Iraq,
which the U.S. invaded after 13 years of multilateral sanctions.
Critics will point to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among other states, where
the conditions are met but the regimes remain authoritarian. Most of
these countries are Islamic and/or oil exporters. The truth is, Islam
and oil remain obstacles to democratization. Reforming Islam and
diversifying oil-based economies are thus keys to democratic regime
change.
Assuming that Iran satisfies the U.S. on the nuclear issue, the two
should follow up with an expression of interest to normalize relations.
Further talks could lead to resumption of ties and to strategic and
economic concessions. Given domestic demand and outside pressure, the
regime will reform as its fundamentalist ideology and oil economy
falter.
The interests of neither country would be served by pushing Iran to
become an Iraq or Cuba for the U.S. in a region that is as strategic as
it is volatile. Several polls have indicated that most Iranians want to
normalize relations with the U.S. and become another South Korea, not
maintain hostilities and become another North Korea.
Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi is a Professor and Director of the Center for
Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
and President of the American Iranian Council.
|
The following is an excerpt from the English version of a speech given by Dr. Farideh Farhi at the AIC Conference “Energy Situation and Nuclear Crisis in Iran” held in Los Angeles on October 29, 2004.
(Part One of Four)
Iran’s Domestic Environment and the Nuclear Program
by
Dr. Farideh Farhi
Let me begin by stating that most of the discussion regarding Iran’s nuclear program has focused on Iran’s attempts and in many ways its inability, to neutralize the international focus on its nuclear program. What has not been discussed as much is the internal politics that has thrown the nuclear issue right into the middle of the Iranian political discourse.
When about four years ago I did a study of the domestic conversation about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, I literally could not find a single person inside Iran who would acknowledge that Iran had a worthwhile and existing nuclear weapons program. To be sure, there were sporadic discussions, particularly after Pakistan tested its first bomb, about whether Iran should or should not pursue a nuclear weapons program, with the overwhelming majority of discussants opposing nuclear weapons. But when I asked questions about the nature of Iran’s extant program the basic answer, even among those who opposed a future program, was total lack of knowledge and skepticism about the existence of a current program. In the word of one prominent reformist, Hamidreza Jalaeipour, the only thing nuclear in Iran was civil society.
But the situation has changed dramatically in the past couple of years and now the Iranian nuclear program is at the center of the Iranian political discourse. To be sure, why this is so has much to do with the pressures that are being imposed on Iran from other countries as well as the IAEA. However, these pressures would not have led to the kind of contentious conversation that exist in Iran today had there not been a very contentious political environment in the country.
The end result of all this, in a country known for its authoritarian ways, has ironically been an open field for discussion entailing very opposing points of view regarding one of the most important foreign policy. And this open discussion has developed an interactive dynamics with the decision-making process, increasingly forcing the decision-makers to become more transparent and feeling the need to explain their decisions.
How this happened is very interesting to examine because it reveals quite a bit about the dilemmas the Iranian leaders are faced with and why at this point in time, being caught between an intensely politicized domestic audience (on this issue) and demanding external players, they must walk on a tightrope that is satisfactory both to their western interlocutors and domestic audience.
Dr. Farideh Farhi is an independent researcher at the University of Hawaii-Minoa, and has previously taught comparative politics at the Universities of Colorado, Hawaii, and Tehran. Dr. Farhi has written extensively on Iran’s burgeoning reform movement, and is the author of States and Urban-Based Revolutions is Iran and Nicaragua.
Top academics, policymakers and professionals serve on the AIC Board. AIC UPDATE includes relevant opinions, articles, quotes, and commentaries of AIC's Board Members.
AIC Board Member Gary Sick is quoted on the growing China-Iran trade partnership, highlighted by a $70 billion deal for oil and gas. The partnership seems to undermine the three decades of economic embargo of Iran by the United States.
“ ‘The more they get involved with Iran, the more likely they are to cast a jaundiced eye on any kind of international sanctions against Iran,’ said Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor who served as a National Security Council adviser under U.S. Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and wrote `All Fall Down: America's Tragic Encounter With Iran’ in 1985.”
The full article, titled “China's Thirst for Oil Undercuts U.S. Effort to Rein in Iran,” can be found at www.bloomberg.com
The following are excerpts from "William O. Beeman and Donald
Weadon: Iran, U.S. Dance Nuclear Gavotte, Providence Journal, December
4, 2004.
"After weeks of brinksmanship, on Nov. 28 Iran formally agreed to
voluntary suspension of nuclear-fuel enhancement -- adding to an
earlier agreement to a return of International Atomic Energy Agency
inspectors, days before the IAEA governing board's meeting on the Iran
nuclear issue. On Nov. 29 the IAEA endorsed Iran's agreement.
...
This last-minute accord, negotiated exclusively with European powers,
was a firm rap in the chops for the United States. It met all formal
concerns over the peaceful nature of their program under IAEA
protocols.
...
This blocks the further step of promulgating a long-desired U.N.
Security Council battle to formally sanction Iran, and undercuts the
case both to intervene militarily and to impose the lesser punishment
of a broader economic boycott against the Islamic Republic.
...
One solution already abortively pursued is to support regime change in
Iran from within. Iran's youthful population is well disposed to the
United States, highly educated, and longing for greater freedom. The
problem is that, because of America's dreadful past dealings with Iran,
anyone that the United States supports is discredited with the Iranian
people.
....
In the short term, if the Bush administration truly wants nuclear
cooperation with Iran, the most obvious solution would be to actually
talk to the Iranians. Handling a specific problem such as nuclear
proliferation need not be endorsement of a whole regime; the United
States deals with numerous governments that are far more oppressive
than Iran's.
However, since America has no diplomatic relations with Iran, this is
difficult. Still, the lack of formal diplomatic contact need not bar
dialogue. Colin Powell's Nov. 23 "polite conversation" with Iranian
Foreign Minister and former U.N. Ambassador Kamal Kharazi, at a meeting
in Egypt concerning Iraq, is the kind of tentative step that might
start a thaw.
Removing the extraordinarily obstructionist measures imposed by the
U.S. State and Treasury departments on educational and cultural
exchanges between America and Iran would be another important step.
In any event, it is certain that leaving the Iranian situation a
festering impasse is a mistake. The dramatic moves envisioned by
Bolton, Ledeen and the other neoconservatives are at a dead end.
Without a change in strategy, the United States is headed for yet
another quagmire."
###
William O. Beeman is director of Middle East Studies at Brown
University; his forthcoming book is The Great Satan vs. the Mad
Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other (Praeger).
Donald Weadon is a Washington, D.C., lawyer and adjunct professor at
George Mason University, with many years' experience in Mideast
affairs.
The full text of this article can be found at Providence Journal
|
