Don't Sacrifice Democracy in Iran Nuke Talks

At last, talks between the West and Iran over its nuclear program may be getting somewhere as negotiators sit down in Vienna. After the dramatic revelation of Iran's secret Qom enrichment plant at the G-20 summit in a joint appearance by President Obama, British Prime Minister Brown and French President Sarkozy, Iran has given a little. They are allowing IAEA inspectors into the plant on October 25 and seem willing to consider sending enriched uranium abroad to reprocess for medical use -- thus diverting it from any bomb development.

What impact, if any, might this fragile new relationship have on the so-called democratic "green movement" in Iran, led by former presidential candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi, that is still protesting the election results?

I put this question to Shirin Ebaid, the Nobel laureate for peace and human rights activist
from Iran. Here is what she said:

Its impact will depend on whether the nuclear energy issue is negotiated alone, or if democracy and human rights, too, are on the agenda of the talks. Because in the latter case, people in Iran will understand that the West is interested in their fate as much as it cares about its own security, which will strengthen the green movement.

But if in the negotiations, the West sacrifices democracy to gain on the nuclear issue front, naturally the impact is negative. It does not mean the movement will subside, but the people of Iran will be left alone in their struggle.

 

 

Comments

[Brewerstroupe]

The "Green Revolution" is aptly named after the 400 million greenbacks spread around by the Bush Administration.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

Note that the U.S. has been funding Jundullah, the outfit behind the bombing that recently rocked a security gathering in south-east Iran, killing 35 people and wounding another 28.

Its a win-win situation for the spooks. When the insurgents succeed, Iran suffers. When the insurgents are apprehended they can be characterised as victims of oppression in the Western press. Either way they serve the cause of destabilising Iran's Government.

[joabear]

Top 10 similarities between US Republicans and Iranian hardliners:

http://iranian.com/main/blog/anonymous-observer/top-ten-similarities-between-republican-right-wing-and-iri

[joabear]

Leave Iran alone. Can Obama leave Iran alone and not make a back door deal with the hardliners?? Apparently NOT. I'm certain that people like you don't object to this kind of interference, do they?

Obama is interfering in Iranian affairs at the expense of Iranians freedom and propsperity.

""In a sense, it all goes back to the Obama administration’s distorted policy of direct engagement with America’s adversaries, which relies heavily on a rather crude interpretation of the abstract principle of non-interference in international relations.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the above orientation has the dangerous tendency of undermining the very principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states by rewarding criminal state behavior so long as it suits the perceived interests of the United States or those of a particular administration. ""


http://iranian.com/main/2009/oct/obamas-deal-no-deal

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/dont-sacrifice-democracy_b_327091.html

[Roozbeh]

One of the reasons for the Islamic Republic's attempts to build a nuclear facility; whether it will function or not, or how soon there will be a leakage and a disaster, is to impress the populace with a great technological and scientific achievement. It is just a SHOWCASE.

In Iranian culture this sounds very important. In the light of such an achievement, for example, any random lay person will refuse to hear any criticism of the government. THE PLANT IS A HUGE POLITICAL INVESTMENT FOR THE REGIME.

Therefore, the WEST should do everything possible to HINDER the completion of a Nuclear Plant in Iran. It will simply, needlessly, prolong the democratic changes in the country.

[khepri]

Let's all just leave Iran alone. They are a talented people, and their political process will move to the center over time...provided that the cynically indignant, self-righteous West doesn't push them into a corner.

[Macready]

well said khepri . . totally agree

[joabear]

Precisely, Leave Iran alone. Can Obama leave Iran alone and not make a back door deal with the hardliners?? Apparently NOT. I'm certain that people like you don't object to this kind of interference, do they?

Obama is interfering in Iranian affairs at the expense of Iranians freedom and propsperity.

""In a sense, it all goes back to the Obama administration’s distorted policy of direct engagement with America’s adversaries, which relies heavily on a rather crude interpretation of the abstract principle of non-interference in international relations.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the above orientation has the dangerous tendency of undermining the very principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states by rewarding criminal state behavior so long as it suits the perceived interests of the United States or those of a particular administration. ""


http://iranian.com/main/2009/oct/obamas-deal-no-deal

[syvanen]

These words, if correctly translated, seem to contradict other positions that Shirin Ebaid has taken. For example she opposed US funding for opposition groups both inside and outside Iran for the simple reason that anyone receiving those funds would be branded as traitors. She was always a strong critic of the many threats Bush and Rice made against Iran. She knows that the nonviolent opposition to the hardline rule will flourish during peace with the West, and be suppressed by war. Nothing the US says in support of the democracy movement in these negotiations can help their cause, but successful negotiations that lead to peace and security in US/Iran relations will do wonders.

[Neuromaster]

I really doubt the best way to assist Iran's Green movement is to give actual backing to the routine, baseless accusations that all criticism of the current Iranian government is the product of meddling by Western powers.

Iran will categorically reject any proposal that so much as implies that their democratic process is flawed or that their human rights record is tainted. We only strengthen the hard-liners by adding giving their anti-Western rhetoric fuel. They will scream and spit and shout about how the West is trying to control their country and probably manage to work something in about waging a war on Islam as well. The people of Iran _must_ effect social and democratic change itself. Remember: the Green movement might be anti-Ahmadinejad, but they're hardly pro-West. The last thing they want is to be seen as agents of West-sponsored regime change.

It feels good to stand up and preach that we should accept nothing less but the Right Thing. And obviously pushing Iran on human rights and democracy is the Right Thing to do, morally speaking. But realistically speaking our number one priority is ensuring that Iran agrees to submit to international monitoring of its nuclear program to protect our national security interests, curb nuclear proliferation, and prevent an arms race among the other nations of the middle east.

[BiBiJan]

Exactly right, from both ends. Every time the Iranian government speachified the hypocrisies of Western powers, their responsibility for global misery and insecurity, their complicity or direct responsibility for human rights abuses, wars, etc. Western apologists have been known to scream and spit and shout WMD, undesirable, messianic, etc. Hopefully, Iran's government will continue to negotiate narrow issues that can actually be resolved.

[cardineau]

The Qom facility was not secret and Iran complied with the requirements of the IAEA in its disclosure. Next ... unless you are a citizen of Iran, what goes on politically in Iran is the business of the Iranians. Peace in this world is not enhanced by outsiders meddling in the internal affairs of countries. We have not learned that lesson yet ... but we will!

[Mollabaji]

Eileen, Bibijan, Haas, echopapa: couldn't agree with all of you more. The shallow thinkers always use the phoney "human rights" woman Shirin Ebadi to support their phoney arguments. Shirin has become a slave of the fame the West gave her (undeservedly).

[BiBiJan]

Personally, I respect Shirin Ebadi's work for the advancement of human rights. I do not regard it as her fault that some fear/war-monger tries to use her to repeat baseless propaganda.

It is for Mr. Gardell to provide a shred of evidence for what he asserts/implies. I am not holding my breath.

It is fairly obvious folks. It doesn't matter how they try to snuff out any possibility of détente between US and Iran. Nuclear Holocaust, anti-semitism, illegitimate government, and/or human rights. If you see progress in resolution of one issue, expect a petulantce & frenzy in the other areas. Why? Because, if Iran were to have normalized relations with the US, who'd need the dictatorial / apartheid regimes of the middle east as friends?

[eileenflemingWAWA]

At a U2 concert on John Lennon's 69th birthday-Oct. 9, 2009- U2 dedicated "Bloody Sunday" to Iran's Green Movement, and it was the highlight for me.

Green is the color chosen by Iranian Civil Society to symbolize their unity and their hope for a better future.

"Bloody Sunday" was written to honor the 29 that were killed and the many who were wounded on January 30, 1972, when British troops opened fire on NONVIOLENT demonstrators in Derry, Ireland during a March for Civil Rights march.

In 1976, at the height of those "Troubles" Betty and Mairead Corrigan Maguire were awarded the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize for their leadership and vision.

Mairead insists: "that a peaceful and just society can be achieved only through nonviolent means and that the path to peace lies in each of our hearts...I am convinced that humanity is fast evolving to this higher consciousness. For those who say it cannot be done, let us remember that humanity learned to abolish slavery. Our task now is no less than the abolition of violence and war...Everything is changing and everything is possible."

http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1452&Itemid=225

[BiBiJan]

"Ever since Iran reported the existence of its Qom enrichment facility to the IAEA, one central assertion has been repeated as fact over and over by the American media to make the story as incriminating as possible"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/07/iran/index.html

There have been three surveys of Iran which clearly indicate Iranians did infact re-elect Ahmadinejad by a landslide. Analysis of the post-election riots indicate the same. See the links below.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2009/MA200919.html
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb=
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090622_iranian_election_and_revolution_test

There is no evidence of Iran going for nuclear weapons:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2009/MA200919.html
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=7879
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1306353.htm

[BiBiJan]

the terror Free tomorrow poll which predicted a 2 to 1 victory for the incumbant one week into the 4 week election campaign, has been criticized by Juan Cole. A critique of his critique can be found here:

http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/articles/Iran-election.htm#Foot%201

[Hass]

The "Green Movement" in Iran does not want US "democracy promotion" assistance because they don't want to be tainted with the association of super-powers who simply used the concepts of "democracy" and "human rights" whenever it suits their own interests.

The US is hardly in the position to lecture Iran anyway, what with legalized torture, indefinite detention and mass surveillance going on here, not to mention the total lack of accountability for starting a war on entirely false pretenses.

[echopapa]

I cannot disagree more. Basically, the existence of a radical regime and a hardliner Ahmadinejad is due to a "mean" West to Iran's Khatami and alike throughout the past three decades, including the stupid "Iran-Iraq dual containment". Iranians laugh at such phony so-called human right aspirations from the West. If there is a stable change in Iran, it is from within. The "human right" is seen as an excuse and leverage for the West. Since when West raised the human right issues with Saudis, UAE, Pakistan, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, etc. in its major negotiations?! Perhaps they score better in "human rights"!!! Maybe they do, when the West is cooking the stats.
I do not categorically agree with Francis Fukuyama, the American philosopher, but he said something relevant about liberal democracy in general:
"...What is initially universal is not the desire for liberal democracy but rather the desire to live in a modern - that is, technologically advanced and prosperous - society, which, if satisfied, tends to drive demands for political participation. Liberal democracy is one of the byproducts of this modernization process, something that becomes a universal aspiration only in the course of historical time..."
Remove the hostility and sanctions and Iranians figure out themselves how to deal with their regime! hands off!

[BiBiJan]

... And most sanctions against Iran deprive her of acheiving that "technologically advanced and modern" status.

See how there are santions against stem cell research, here:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/watch/player.html?pkg=rc78iran&seg=1&mod=0