SPEAKING FREELY
Don't forget Iran's democracy movement
By Jalal Alavi

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

According to news accounts, the United States is considering holding direct talks with Iran over its controversial nuclear program. In recent days, many influential figures, including former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, Joschka Fischer, Germany's former foreign minister and vice chancellor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to US president Jimmy Carter, and United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, have also called for direct US talks with Iran, not only as a way of salvaging European efforts in this regard but also, perhaps, as an



attempt to thwart any potential US plans for military action.

These are all beneficial developments aimed at overcoming what is nowadays considered an international crisis; however, insofar as they relate to the issue of direct US-Iran negotiations, they require further contemplation.

Carefully assessing recent suggestions regarding direct US-Iran negotiations, it becomes amply clear that some of the most important, albeit negative, aspects of such an important potential step have escaped the attention of those favoring such a risky process.

Generally speaking, these are aspects having to do with, on the one hand, the Iranian government's historical aversion to considering issues related to the human and democratic rights of the Iranian people - a good example of this being the European Union's years of futile "critical dialogue" with Iran over such matters - and, on the other hand, the current US administration's proclaimed support for the Iranian democratic movement.

After America's recent precedent in excluding other issues from surfacing in potential negotiations with Iran over Iraq, the Islamic Republic will in all likelihood ask that direct negotiations with the US over the nuclear standoff revolve solely around the topic of Iran's nuclear program, hence in effect obstructing necessary discussions about its obligations to its people under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1]

Supposing, for a moment, that substantial debates surrounding human and democratic rights do find their way into such US-Iran negotiations, it is highly likely that the Iranian regime will refuse to accommodate such demands, not least for fear of undermining its own survival. Moreover, any discussion over political reforms by the US can also automatically be translated as interference in Iran's internal affairs, thus making it impossible for them to consider.

As for the US administration's apparent support for the democracy movement in Iran, it has been said before by President George W Bush - and I paraphrase - that Iran is being ruled by an unelected few who have blocked processes of reform, and that the United States shall remain on the side of the Iranian people in their struggle for freedom and democracy (hopefully not through military action).

Drawing on the distinction Bush makes between the Iranian regime and Iranian people, it is only natural for the international community, which in this case comprises the many nations and progressive forces of the world, to wonder whether such remarks by Bush will have no bearing on any future negotiations with the Iranian regime.

Among the many publicized US-endorsed inducements considered for the Islamic Republic by the European Union, one can hardly find a substantial demand having to do with respect for the rights of the Iranian people. All one is mainly able to find is talk about economic incentives and potential security guarantees, which if accepted by the Iranian regime will only embolden it against democratic forces.

Surely this amounts to outright hypocrisy on the part of the Bush administration and its so-called advocacy of human and democratic rights. Offering the Islamic Republic the prospect of improved relations with the United States - an offer recently made by John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, at a B'nai B'rith International meeting - in exchange for the termination of Iran's pursuit of nuclear arms, without obliging it to relax its grip on civil society and political matters in a meaningful and verifiable way, is tantamount to yet another episode of totally disregarding the historical democratic aspirations of the Iranian people - the first episode being the 1953 coup against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh. This is not what President Bush or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have stood for so far.

Any prospect of direct US talks with Iran must take two important issues into account, namely Bush's repeated comments in support of freedom and democracy in Iran and the Islamic Republic's rigid structure, which makes it impervious to any calls for social and political reforms (consider the failure of the reform movement during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami in this regard).

Hastily initiating negotiations, therefore, before carefully contemplating the above dilemma will, in time, not only force the US to make inadvertent and unjustifiable concessions to the Iranian regime, but also render Iranians' efforts at democratization impotent for decades to come. After all, this is the type of "grand bargain" the Islamic Republic is looking for, and it might just end up making it with the US, for, according to John Bolton, "Iran's leaders could stay in power and improve their ties with Washington if they ended their pursuit of nuclear arms." [2]

Notes
1. The United States' controversial treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has greatly undermined what leverage the US could have enjoyed in matters pertaining to human rights.
2. Reuters, May 22.

Jalal Alavi is a sociologist and political commentator residing in Britain.

(Copyright 2006 Jalal Alavi.)

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.