|
 "The war in Iraq seems to be shifting seamlessly into the war in Iran," leading academic Professor Ali Ansari warned the Fabian fringe. With fears growing of a military confrontation between the US and Iran, read the full transcript of the Fabian fringe meeting with Iranian reformist and democratic voices, asking how left-leaning internationalists should approach the Iran crisis.
Fabian Fringe at Labour Conference 2007, in association with the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. 26th September 2007
Speakers: Professor Ali Ansari (St Andrews University),, Professor Volker Perthes (German Institute for International and Security Affairs),, Nazenin Ansari (Kayhan),, Professor Abbas Edalat (Science and Arts Foundation),, Paul Hilder (Avaaz),, Nazanin Afshin-Jam (Iranian-Canadian human rights activist)., Sunder Katwala (Fabian Society).
Sunder Katwala: Welcome to this Fabian fringe meeting, and we are delighted to be holding this event with our German partners, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
When we were thinking about the focus of our international activity should be at conference, we decided it would be important to discuss Iran. I think this may be the only fringe meeting about Iran at this conference. There are increasing rumblings coming out of Washington, and that is something we will discuss. While many of us know what we do not want to happen - in terms of a military conflict with Iran, or Iranian nuclear proliferation - we also want to ask what constructive agenda we should be seeking to promote.
So the question we pose tonight is: What do Iran's democrats want from us? The Fabian Society are interested in internationalism, we're interested in working with people who share our values and we're interested in doing so in a constructive approach. That is the approach we would like to take to international questions and to potential international crises. And I think an implication of that approach, when you're going to discuss what you feel about events in another country, is to actually take a slightly humbler approach than has been the case in the past, certainly in British history or Western history, and try and engage in dialogue with those people that you are seeking to have a dialogue with, with those people you would like to see prevail in terms of their own campaigns for democracy and human rights.
So that's the discussion we're trying to kick off tonight. We'll see how far we get, but we've got an extremely good panel to debate it and I'll just briefly introduce them. We have Professor Ali Ansari who is director of the Iranian Institute at the University of St Andrews and very well known globally as a commentator and writer on international affairs. We have Professor Volker Perthes who is director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and is one of the leading European analysts of foreign policy and the approach towards Iran. We have Nazenin Ansari who is diplomatic editor of Kayhan London, a weekly Persian language newspaper established in 1941 in Tehran but for the last 20 years published out of London. We're very pleased to welcome Nazanin Afshin-Jam, who was born in 1979 in Tehran, Iran but is now based in Canada and is an Iranian-Canadian and human rights activist. You are also a former Miss World Canada, and you have clearly done more to take forward the issue of human rights after that than most. Abbas Edalat is professor of computer science at Imperial College London, he's also the founder of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. Finally, Paul Hilder is about to join us and Paul is with Avaaz.org and he is a democracy from below campaigner.
I'm going to run this as a conversation, there aren't going to be long speeches. I'm going to try and have a discussion here amongst our panellists for about half an hour, I'll then bring it out for contributions from the floor and hopefully we'll learn something tonight about Iran, Britain's perspective on it and Europe's perspective on it and what we might think about, what we might try to campaign on in the next few months.
Professor Ansari, if you could just say something about how you think we should think about the discussion tonight. One of the challenging things is we've got a diplomatic crisis which seems to be looming, we've got a nuclear proliferation issue, but we want to discuss the way in which that is linked to the internal politics of Iran. How can we think about that?
AA: Can I ask, are there any MPs here? Now you see, there's one of my main bones of contention in discussing Iran or engaging with the problem of Iran is simply this: that there seems to be a lamentable lack of interest among members of the political class in what must be the most serious international crisis and problem that we're facing, certainly at the moment.
I've just come back from a trip in the United States and one of the worries and anxieties that many of us have is that the war in Iraq seems to be shifting seamlessly into the war in Iran and a broader Middle East conflict, and it is after all only a difference of one letter.
Now unfortunately to my mind one of the problems we've had in Europe as a whole is really a lack of any sort of coherent strategy or approach towards Iran, towards its political development, towards its political life, the process of democratisation, which had been taking root I think in the country but is now quite severely stalled. If you look at the comments that come out of the current government in Iran they're not actually much interested in notions of democratisation as we would understand it.
But the problem I think we find and I'd like to learn myself is this notion of how we actually articulate a position from a European perspective towards the democratisation process in Iran. I'm very struck for instance to compare some of the reactions of Europe and the international community to processes of political development in other parts of the world - of course we're thinking of Burma today, if you look at the reaction in Burma - if you look at the reactions of Europeans in particular to developments in Iran it's often been a very hands off approach, to the extent that it's become too shy – it's an embarrassment, they don't want to deal with anything remotely political.
What I want to try and articulate or argue for is a view that says, yes we don't want…I think it would be a complete disaster if we move into the realms of any type of military confrontation…but because of the absence of any articulated political position by the Europeans, effectively handed the hardline factions – in both countries actually, Iran and the United States, but let's deal with the United States for the time being – the more neoconservative elements there a gift, we've handed them the initiative as far as Iran is concerned.
The situation in the United States as far as Iran is concerned is wholly different to the perspective the Europeans have, and we've never in some ways taken it seriously enough, we've never wanted to be bothered with it. But the fact is that Britain in particular now is a situation in Afghanistan and Iraq - very much in the same way as the British were in India for 150 years and now back in the Middle East, having left it in 1971 - Iran is a fact of life and we're going to have to get to grips with it and we're going to have to develop an understanding and a knowledge of the country that I think has been missing for the last 40 to 50 years.
SK: Can I just use that as a point to pass on…there's a challenge there to Europe. Volker, what we're interested here is that Europe can have a diplomatic track, we have a diplomatic track in terms of the proliferation issue. Do we have a democratisation agenda as well, or should we have one?
VP: I don't think we have one and I'm not sure we should have one because there are certain priorities which you have to set and there is, as Ali says, an international conflict here, there is talk of war, there are sanctions being imposed by the Security Council, with the backing of course of the Europeans.
We have a strategy here for that conflict, whether it works out in the end or not we don't know, we are going to see. But I think if you want to be effective in international politics you have to set priorities, even if that means that probably some other things which you think are also important will not be dealt with in the first place. And when it comes to the international conflict, which I think is the most dangerous thing here – a conflict about the nuclear programme and how we are going to deal with it – then I think there are three essential elements that will impact on whether we find a negotiated solution or the military strike Ali spoke about.
And probably many people here would agree that a military strike is possible but it's not really a solution - we need a negotiated solution. So one, I think it hinges on the broadest possible international consensus. And here I would say the Europeans have a strategy. They have tried to build that consensus, we got the United States and Russia and China into that consensus, and even the very limited cooperation of Iran with the IAEA now I would say is a result of the international consensus, without that consensus I think they wouldn't even have promised the IAEA to get clean on the records of past acquirements etc.
Second, I think it also depends on whether we can communicate to Iran and others that our conflict is about proliferation and not about regime type or regime change for that matter. Now there may be parts of the international community inside that consensus that want regime change, President Bush made that very clear in 2002 in his speech to the nation. I would say it's not a priority, I would say this is about proliferation, and we have to communicate that because if we say this is about regime change, and we want to halt the Iranian nuclear programme, that is two incompatible goals.
SK: If the priority is proliferation but the danger is a military strike we don't want, where Europe has a diplomatic strategy. What more must the Europeans be doing at a governmental and diplomatic level? What more could the German government and the British government do? What would you say the priority is in terms of the ability to actually stop that crisis?
VP: The priority now on that diplomatic level is probably, a) to keep that coalition together, b) to communicate to Iran that it is really about proliferation and probably, c), to play on time. The Iranians are playing on time, we accuse them of playing on time but to be honest we are also playing on time, we are now playing on the Iranian parliamentary election next year, we are probably also playing on the presidential election. The sanctions have a certain effect there. Some people see that Ahmadinejad is actually making their lives more difficult, so that is what we are playing upon, and I'm not sure we're going to succeed, but if we think that is a strategy we should probably follow up on that.
SK: Let me bring in Nazanin. The argument there is that the priority is proliferation, a military crisis will be difficult, we can't talk then about democratisation as well. Would you like the priority to be democratisation, or is that a sensible approach?
Nazanin Afshin-Jam: The only solution is through democratisation. I think the only long-term solution for the country and the stability in the whole region, and peace and security issues worldwide, depends on the democratisation of Iran.
It's going to have to do with putting all our efforts and support on the Iranian people within the country; it's about supporting civil society, it's about empowering the women's rights movements, the youth movements, the Labour unions who are fighting so fervently within the country – fighting, quote unquote, because again when they try to speak out they're repressed, they're tortured, they're imprisoned, they're killed – so within the capabilities that they have the fact they're so impassioned to try to see democracy and freedom for the nation, the fact they're still rising up. It's us, the international community, we are the ones who have to support those from within. I think that's going to be the only way we're going to see peace and security in the country.
SK: In terms then of people who might want democracy in Iran, we're going to hear a lot from the American right, the neocons, saying, 'what we believe in is democracy in Iran'. Are they false friends to you?
NAJ: I think that anyone who promotes democracy in the country, even under the guise of a false friend or friend, if they're really going to be empowering the civil society they're doing their job.
If the Bush administration is starting to talk about military intervention, this absolutely is not the way. Any sort of advancements the civil society within Iran has made thus far will all be wiped off the map and this will definitely play into the hands of the mullahs – this is what they want, they want the Iranian people within Iran to side with the current regime on the issue of protecting the sovereignty and this is the only way they're going to get connected in that way.
SK: Abbas Edalat, I'd like to know your view of the European approach because here we're now talking about a European approach, we're the good guys, we want the multilateral solution and so on and we're saying let's go to the UN and talk about sanctions.
AE: I think Europe has simply tail-ended the US and the negotiations that Europe had with Iran, in fact it was the US which was the backseat driver and the European diplomats negotiating with Iran are on the record in Times India online in September 2005 saying the US expects us to convince Iran to give up on its legitimate right for full enrichment of uranium and in return it only allows them to have an empty box of chocolates. Europe, despite what it says, is not really having in practice an independent course of action.
It's just following the US, because the US is waging this war drive on Iran, these sanctions we have seen in the case of Iraq, that all the logical conclusion is a military intervention based on giving some sort of veneer of legitimacy that these UN Security Council resolutions provide.
So the US is leading its war drive on Iran, the Europeans are complacent in not opposing this and I have absolutely no respect for people who talk about democracy in Iran but do not stand up now as an immediate task to ask Gordon Brown to withdraw British troops from the Iranian borders that President Bush ordered the UK to deploy.
I have no respect for people who talk about democracy if they don't demand that Gordon Brown should oppose another round of sanctions on Iran, because that would be a prelude to war of the new conservatives, of the Bush-Cheney camp who having invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and produced those disasters for those countries, have their eyes focused on Iran. And Bush is determined before he leaves office to punish Iran for disobeying the orders, for standing up to the imperial interests of the US in the region.
SK: Thank you for that, there are some very clear demands as to what we should be saying. I'd just like to bring Professor Ansari back in and to ask, this argument there is the European different approach to the Americans - it's all a fake. We're on the same side and we're legitimising an American war. Is that an analysis you share?
AA: No I don't share that. I think the Europeans have tried to carve out a distinct position for themselves as far as the proliferation talks have gone and the IEA, I think Abbas is right to say there has been an elephant in the room called the United States that has not necessarily been helpful or productive at times, certainly in the early days of negotiations.
But where I think there has been a gap, and this is where I differ probably in tone rather than in substance, is that we do need to develop other aspects to the strategy. It's not really a question of saying one is interfering, one is getting involved, I don't think that works in Iran particularly, I don't think the imposition of ideas works.
But I think the engagement of the ideas, the engagement with various forces in Iran – who come I have to say both from the elite circles and from the masses, there is a very false dichotomy cast by a number of analysts in the West that you have the masses versus the elite, it's simply not the case. You will find many people within parts of the political establishment in Iran who share these views about political development and democratisation and the question is of engaging with these ideas.
And it's the free flow of information, it has a tremendous impact, young Iranians are hungry for this type of information through the internet, through satellite, through other things. Not all of the information coming from the West is good by the way, some of it is drivel – for a long time in Iran one of the most popular shows was Baywatch, I can't imagine that did much to further democracy. One has to at least be able to sort of engage with the ideas and be aware of these things. Unfortunately I have to say from our perspective, apart from some limited expertise, there's very little awareness of what's going on in student circles, in intellectual circles, the debates that are taking place, and these are the things I think there has to be a European approach to.
SK: That's a good point at which to link to Nazenin [Ansari]. The free exchange and flow of ideas, we don't have enough of it. What are the best ways to do that without it appearing outsiders are going to make things worse?
NA: In the past week I have been following two stories. One was about five refugees in Turkey who had been deported to Iraq Kurdistan, these are Iranian refugees and they are one of the hundreds of thousands who are voting with their feet to come out of Iran.
The second one was the story about Ayatollah Boroujerdi, he is a traditional Muslim cleric who is now in prison in Evin. He is persecuted for opposing the autocratic rule and calling for a separation of mosque from state.
Both these groups, I told them I'm coming here and what do you think that Europe can do to help you guys, and I asked the same question to many other Iranians as well who are in Iran and outside of Iran in Europe, but political activists, and what they said number one, is that what we are trying to do is first of all we need recognition, we need the media to know about us and we need that the world know that here we are, we are fighting a battle against a tyranny, a totalitarian theocracy – although it's not monolithic, but still it persecutes free thinkers and there's not freedom of expression. The parameters of political, economic and social space are so tight and restrictive that it is very easy for any civil society to become an opposition group.
Number one, what academic institutions and research centres can do. It is to raise the profile of the pro-democracy activists. Who are they? Encourage and promote dialogue between Iranians from all political persuasions, not only those within the status quo of the reformist movement but also outside of the system. And not only encourage dialogue between Iranians and Americans or Iranians and Europeans but let Iranians speak to themselves because this is something they can't do in Iran.
SK: There is an important question on a related point. 15 years ago over here in the Labour Party and the Fabian Society, if we looked across at Iran we would have thought we know who we would like to prevail and they are going to be on top, Iran is going to change and that is what's going to happen. So why were we wrong?
NA: Because you did not connect to those people, the disenfranchised that are not in the system, and that has been one of the problems of the failure of diplomacy and constructive engagement. It has not been inclusive of all Iranians but rather exclusive to reformists or to those within the system. International civil societies and NGOs, religious institutions, what can they do? You can increase cooperation and communication with…
SK: But how from outside do we include all Iranians, it's going to be difficult to include any Iranians?
NA: They are known out there. The figures are there. There are over 462 political prisoners in Iran, the names are known. There are various groups whose names are known but they are known within Iranian establishments. For those people who are not engaged within the communities, they are strangers to these people.
SK: Professor Ansari, how do we do this? Is there anything people in this room could do in the next six months?
AA: Make a point about also the past neglect. Nazenin is correct up to a point. I think there was actually very little connection even with the reform movement, let's be frank about it.
Let me give you a good example of this. If you think of Akbar Ganji who is now the belle de jour of the democratic activists abroad, at the time in 2000 when he went to this Berlin conference he was very viciously attacked by these very groups for being a member of the Revolutionary Guard, for being in the past a member of the establishment. And this appalling exercise that happened at the Berlin conference, he ended up being one of these political prisoners.
Now he's seen as actually something that could be a positive force in the development of Iran. I think there's an element where people simply neglected, they simply didn't want to believe that certain things were taking place in Iran at particular levels. They tended to see everything in terms of black and white, and anything that is remotely regime-related is evil, in the same way as we see the dialogue, if I can use that word, in the United States is very one-sided and very monolithic.
SK: But Iranian reformers didn't fail because of something Western democrats did or didn't do?
AA: Not at all and I've written quite widely on this and you're free to go and pick up a copy at some stage. I've said to the reform movement in some detail, if we're looking at what we can do there is a role that everyone can play. The fact is that at the time a lot of things were ridiculed in the country. Any political movement in any country you look at has to have elements of both the populist but also the elite, it's the way political systems work, you're not going to get that change. If you wanted change in this country back in the 19th century, it was members of the elite who pushed it. The Great Reform Bill was not pushed by a commoner.
SK: Paul Hilder, you're the sort of person who if we could get our act together would be one of the people trying to put together coalitions. It's a bit complicated, what are we going to do?
PH: Sorry for being late, we were doing what we could to help the Burmese democrats. I think in some ways the most important thing that we could do, and I have some doubt as to whether it's achievable from the parlous position we're in at this point in time, is to fundamentally change the Western strategy.
The failure of the Western strategy is really very simple and straightforward. Let me try and map it out very quickly. The overwhelming majority of people in Iran are democrats, that's clear from polls and talking to people. The overwhelming majority of people in Iran support the development of civilian nuclear capability which the West is currently trying to deny them.
And the Ahmadinejad regime and the fundamentalists are currently losing somewhat in popularity from the election which they won back in 2004 before that. And one of the only things, one of the main things, propping them up is the mobilization of pressure from the West, particularly the US, the mobilization of a sense of critical threat – 59% of Iranians feel a critical threat from US foreign policy – but frankly the European policy of seeking to deny Iran a civilian nuclear capability is also denying external…
AA: We're not denying them that…
PH: There's a nuance in there, I agree with you, but in terms of how this is perceived in Iran that's what's going on.
SK: Tell us what citizens can do.
PH: Citizens can call on their own governments to change. I don't expect that to happen very fast but it's something we might do.
One of the things that we're considering doing in the near future is sending an open letter to the Iranian people, and that includes the disenfranchised but it also includes the regime and various fractions within the regime, saying we support as global civil society you having a civilian nuclear capability, as with your rights under the NPT, saying to them, please let's de-escalate this, can you do a voluntary suspension of enrichment while we do a deal with the IAEA.
And saying we hope you make the right decisions in your elections which happen in seven months time which are very very important elections. I think the escalation of tensions in the run up to those elections is incredibly counter-productive.
SK: Volker, I don't know what your view is of Paul's critique of the European strategy, but is the European strategy something that can affect what can happen in Iranian elections?
VP: Three points. The first is I don't think we should overestimate our own capabilities to influence elections or other social outcomes in other countries. Britain ,especially the Labour Party, going into Iraq was thinking you could socially engineer a country. I think it's a little bit of hubris that we could do that, and we could not do it in Iran. To an extent, yes, we may influence the fermentation inside the Iranian elite by doing some of the things which Paul mentioned.
Tell them that your elections will be important and tell them, and here I think you were wrong, that we are not denying you nuclear capability, actually in the offer of the EU last summer it was very clear that Europe would be prepared to deliver even light water reactors and the technology associated with it to Iran if there was a suspension, if there was a deal with the IAEA.
So it is very clear that Europe does not want, and for the German government which has taken a position against nuclear corralling in its own country, it was quite a decision to offer to Iran to deliver even light water reactors. So this is not right that we were going to deny them nuclear capacity or nuclear energy.
I think we should really distinguish between what civil society can do in our countries and what governments can do. Yes, civil society can reach out to civil society, we can publish all these excellent Iranian authors, we could show the world that we have 500 independent female publishers in Iran who have difficulties in getting their things published and helping them by translation.
We can do a lot of things. Governments have a different job, governments don't have to reach out to civil society, governments have to influence governments and we have to deal with the government that is there whether we like it or not and get some sort of deal there which avoids military confrontation.
SK: A thing we might develop is, what do governments do and then what do trade unionists do with trade unionists, what do journalists do with journalists, what do academics do with academics. Paul is thinking of putting together an open letter to the Iranian people, Nazanin, what should be in it?
NAJ: You were talking earlier about waiting until the next election happens; that's going to be a very important part, but it doesn't even cross my mind how that's going to have any impact when….they call it an Islamic republic but it's not really a republic – you can't really vote for who you want to vote for.
It's basically picking the least worst or the least fundamentalist. So I think there needs to be change altogether. I'm listening to this panel and I feel like I'm alone. Have we forgotten the cries of the Iranian people? Have we forgotten the human rights abuses that take place? Have we forgotten that just a couple of weeks ago 21 people were executed in one day, that minors are being executed, that women are being stoned to death for adultery….
SK: How will change happen, if we don't want to forget that?
NAJ: We have to use diplomacy, NGOs from here have to help NGOs within Iran. And you said that governments have to deal with other governments, yeah, but how do you deal with a government that's not really a legitimate government? The Iranian people are not really represented by President Ahmadinejad…he doesn't represent the people…we have to listen to the people, create more satellite programmes, create more educational exchanges between the Iranians and abroad. There's just so many different ways…targeted sanctions, we could freeze the assets and bank accounts of these mullahs that are murdering its own people.
VP: Would you say we should stop talking to all governments that are illegitimate?
NAJ: I'm saying stop the appeasement. The Europeans have been appeasing the Iranian mullahs for the last 30 years.
SK: I want to bring Abbas in. Would your view be that outsiders, governments or not governments, can do harm but no good, or are there things you would advocate we should do?
AE: They can do good by listening to the Iranian people. 83% of people in Iran, according to an international opinion conducted from the West, have said that they want a full fuel cycle.
If you talk about democracy, if you want the voice of the Iranian people to be heard and carried out, then you should recognize that the Europeans are not recognizing Iran's legitimate right under NPT.
The IAEA has got an agreement with Iran that Dr ElBaradei has said is a significant progress. The IAEA at the end of August cleared Iran's plutonium experiments, which was considered by the US as a smoking gun, that Iran has got a nuclear programme. That was all discredited, that was all debunked. So Europe, if it has an independent strategy from the US, if Europe has got an independent strategy from the US war drive should fully 100% back Dr ElBaradei's drive to resolve all the outstanding issues on the Iran nuclear programme. Not go to support a US sabotage by bringing about another round of sanctions against Iran.
SK: Is it possible to have this focus on human rights as when the proliferation issue is there?
NA: The problem of Iran is not one of personalities; it's about a system, a system that is anachronistic and ever since after the revolution it started eliminating its former supporters one by one. So that is number one to remember.
Number two is that, yes, there are certain things governments have special duties and responsibilities, civil societies have their own, the media have special responsibility as well, that is to raise the profile of pro-democracy activists, keep their names in the headlines, ask the questions from the regime officials that matter to Iranian citizens, who do not have the opportunity to ask them.
The EU and US and the international community, what is their responsibility? Number one, to speak with one voice, stay united, and increase targeted and smart sanctions against IRI front companies, travel restrictions against their agents and officials who clamp down on pro-democracy activists. There has to be a carrot and stick approach. Financial institutions should refuse to conduct business with IRI front companies and their agents and officials and families who clamp down on pro-democracy activists. International institutions should continue to pass resolutions condemning human rights abuses, corruption and in support of good governance.
They should hold the regime of Iran accountable for its actions. And at the end of the day, Mr Khomeini, Mr Ahmadinejad, are asking for a free and fair referendum in the Palestinian territories, in Palestine and even the United States. They should also support international institutions, support a free and fair referendum, monitored by international observers on the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. If the Islamic Republic is legitimate, let it have free and fair elections.
SK: I'm going to open it up to you, the audience here, but you might feel confused as to the position you might want to take. If you're interested in getting involved you might be guilty of hubris and imperialism; if you're not you might be guilty of appeasement and saying it is a long way away, it's nothing to do with us; if you try to stop the war you might be ignoring the democrats, if you try and help the democrats you might help George Bush to have his war. I'd like to see what you think our way out of this is.
Audience member: I am Iranian, living in London and have been in exile for the past 18 years. I can see that a few members of the panel advise me it's because the political structure of the present regime in Iran, until we are not really knowing the germ we cannot find the solution for treatment. If we know the viral infection then we can create the vaccine and provide treatment.
The things I hear are mostly cosmetic surgery they are trying to provide for the Iranian regime. The regime of Iran is not reliable because the present president of Iran has been to the United Nations and said the women in Iran are the best treated around the world and have got the best freedom around the world, they are talking about human rights saying they have the best human rights in Iran. So these people are lying in front of the international community, so these people are not reliable, how can you talk to a person who is not reliable?
SK: Will you want to see change from within or pressure and change from outside?
Audience member: That is exactly my point is democratization, because the people are talking about democracy movement. Who are these people who are moving in Iran for democracy? All the political activists and cultural and political activity in Iran are based on those people who have been in revolution for the past 28 years and all have got some strategy for killing the people in Iran or they've been part of the corruption in Iran. So we should be clear, we cannot talk to a person who is not reliable, to a government who is not reliable, a political structure which is corrupt. The political solution will be democratization and that will be by the civil society in Iran.
Audience member: I do raise money for Palestine which I think is the greatest tragedy happening today, and we sell a badge which says, 'be nice to America or we'll bring you democracy'. If I'm talking to democrats there are two points I want to make.
First of all I think the president needs a PR person to be able to translate from an Iranian point of view the cultural factor of what he's saying, particularly over the holocaust. It seems to me he's saying that we should not be blamed for the holocaust and the Palestinians should not pay the price for the holocaust and this is being interpreted as we will kill Israel.
I'm sure there's a cultural factor here and I'm sure there may be something here where we need to make the meaning clear of what he's doing and what he really is saying instead of it coming out as propaganda in terms of being anti the Iranian people, and the Iranian people and society is much more complex than is being shown in any of the news programmes.
Audience member: Basically I think that we need to stop the appeasement, which means I think we need to balance our demands.
I think the liberal left tends to focus on saying that the United States shouldn't attack Iran, and I agree. But I think that only makes sense if you say that at the same time Iran should not develop a nuclear weapon, because otherwise we will have war and if we don't have war Iran will have a nuclear weapon. So the French foreign secretary has said Iran is the biggest threat to security today.
As far as those statements which have been made which say we need to have dialogue with the democrats, I think it's basically too late for that, and it's a way of delaying and delaying and delaying. The democrats have been repressed in Iran, the regime is in control and it is an extreme regime which so far has been inflexible. So therefore we have to deal with the regime and that means that I believe we should offer detente to the regime: let's have a new regime as it were. But in order to have this new regime Iran has to renounce nuclear weapons, otherwise we end up with appeasement.
Audience member: I'm really disappointed that seeing as we could be on the brink of a crisis with Iran that there are no MPs here tonight. It's a disgrace and as a British person I'm ashamed. About democracy, I don't think we've got democracy even in this country. We've got a failing system: we have the rise and fall of the Roman empire, we are in the fall of what's left of democracy in this country. We have so many suicides, a drugs problem, major mental health issues in this country.
We are a failing society ourselves so how we can deliver democracy to any country and bomb them into democracy is just so hypocritical it's ridiculous. I speak for the grassroots campaigners and I have a lot of connections with Europe and so many people I speak to, and I do a rolling petition everyday down to Downing Street, and the general consensus is that there is no way that people are going to stand by and allow war to escalate with Iran. So the grassroots has to be taken into account.
SK: I think it is worth saying that I don't think that anybody tonight has talked about bombing anybody into democracy. If there's one view that seems to be fairly strongly held in the room it's that miltary conflict would be a disaster and I don't think anybody thinks we can deliver democracy from outside.
What we're asking is whether or not we can support democrats, which is different, and we don't yet know how we might do that but that's what we're trying to discuss and debate.
Audience member: I was born in Iran. I look at what do Iran's democrats want from us. I think those people who are older than me probably remember that in 1953 we did have an excellent democracy and those people who support this lady's paper with the help of the CIA and the Americans, they actually removed democracy from this nation.
How come we suddenly woke up and then we say, 'what can we do for democrats in Iran'? How can you offer something which you deprived people of in 1953 completely and then installed a puppet…
SK: If there was an American-backed coup in 1953 to end Iranian democracy, does that mean that anybody who has democratic values today should never do anything to support anyone in Iran because of something that happened 50 years ago?
Audience member: I agree with you but I don't think there is that will for Iran. The lady over there thinks that she cares about children but at the same time encourages sanctions. Do you think sanctions would help politicians. In the same way it destroyed the lives of children in Iraq, it would do the same….
SK: A question here, what role do any sorts of sanctions have, can we have sanctions that target the people we want to target and don't hurt people who are blameless? Nazenin.
NA: As far as democracy is concerned, according to the Islamic Republic's constitution women and ethnic and religious minorities do not hold equal rights. Women are considered half of that of men. Here in Britain we enjoy equal rights. [In Iran]…persecuted, denied the right to education, employment and access to justice. The legal system in Iran is not democratic. Democracy is not only one person one vote, democracy is a set of values and I'm very proud and grateful to be in a country where I am protected by the law and there is equal protection for everyone by the law. I wasn't born in 1953 so I don't know who my supporters are…
Audience member: But the paper you are working for is supported by a puppet who was installed by the CIA…
NA: It's an independent paper; you don't know what you're talking about. The sanctions should be targeted not on the people but rather on the companies that do business and are involved in bringing a clamping down on pro-democracy activists. There are many companies involved with the revolutionary guards and they control household products, armaments, telecommunications and they're the ones who actually finance the….maybe you can help at least so that the sanctions are targeted on them and not the ordinary people.
SK: Nazanin, if I can bring you in. You said if you turn away from Iran you will be appeasers. The sense and the mood that you can feel very strongly is that after the Iraq war and the consequences of what has happened, people are worried about supporting calls for democracy. Is that something perhaps that's very strong in Britain…You are based in Canada which opposed the Iraq war, but is that a problem for you, do you think that after Iraq people are very worried about the democratization agenda?
NAJ: I think that people are worried more so about military intervention. Not everyone agrees that this shouldn't take place because, as I said, it will play into the hands of the mullahs and it won't be good for anybody. On the other hand the other extreme, the European countries that have been practising appeasement, that's not the solution either. The solution is in the middle, by supporting those from within the civil movement.
I just want to clear my name, I never said sanctions played out like that. I said targeted sanctions, targeted at specific elements of the regime without penalizing the vast majority. Believe me, I don't want to hurt the women and children of Iran. We shouldn't be thinking about the past anyway, we should be thinking about the future.
What the audience member said about not understanding the language of the Iranian people and the president making his speeches, I'd like to say blatantly President Ahmadinejad says lies, and I'll give you an example. I have a campaign called Stopchildexecutions.com, we're trying to put a permanent end to the situation of minors who are on death row. Iran has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Charter on the Rights of the Child which says they will not execute anyone under the age of 18. And yet they continue to do so.
There's 80 minors on death row right now. They bastardize international law and interpret it in their own way. Under Sharia law it says a girl is an adult aged 9 and a boy is an adult aged 15 so they're criminally responsible for their actions. So what they do is they wait until these minors turn 18 and then they execute them, which is not what the international human rights law is saying, even though they've put their signatures on these international laws. So they're able to blatantly lie about these international human rights law.
What are they lying about on the nuclear question? You can't trust people that are lying. So it's not about denying the Iranian people of nuclear energies, we want to give nuclear energy for the purpose of peaceful measures but you cannot give this gift, or this trust, to somebody who is lying and that's the question.
SK: Paul Hilder, can we find this sort of middle way that we're struggling for?
PH: I'd like to support what Nazinin just said. I think no socialist, no person who loves peace, should be entranced by the false glamour of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We shouldn't be hiring PR for him, we shouldn't be appeasing him … but there are people who we can engage.
I approached this from the point of view of realpolitik, I ask what is actually going to work here. I share Nazinin and Nazinin's passion and impatience for real democracy and reform in Iran. I thought the way in which the EU basked in its own supposed advances on a nuclear track in the early part of this decade and ignored what was happening to democrats in Iran around the elections and the deselection of various candidates was shocking.
The question is, what are we going to do now that is going to work? I think the change is only going to come from Iranian civil society. There are certain things which the international community, as governments, as states and as citizens can do to make that more likely and less likely.
And I think a lot of the diplomacy and chest beating at the moment is making it less likely that civil society will make advances within Iran in the coming period. We should be focusing on what is likely to make those advances possible, among them the crucial question who is allowed to be a candidate in the elections in spring 2008, and really try and establish a context, an external context, which is more conducive towards that at the same time as engaging and opening up.
But let's not assume that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad represents Iran or Iranian democrats. He speaks to a lot of them, and the nuclear issue is one where he speaks very powerfully for them. I would much rather have democrats speaking for Iran on the nuclear issue.
SK: Professor Ansari, have the Iranian President's views on the holocaust got lost in translation?
AA: No, I think we can be quite clear on this particular point. One of the worries I have to say about Mr Ahmadinejad, and this is where I slightly differ from what Nazanin said, is that I think he actually believes in what he said. I don't think he thinks he's lying. I think he genuinely believes in this nonsense. And if you look at his holocaust comments, I think it's fairly clear that he doesn't believe that the holocaust as we understand it happened. He really doesn't believe it. And if you look at his comments and you look at the people who have fed his ideas, he comes from a very particular background. Does that represent broader views in Iran, I'm happy to say no.
A very good example of that is the fact that one of the most popular TV dramas currently being aired on Iranian TV is actually a drama about the holocaust and the holocaust is very much a fact and it's about Iranian diplomats in Paris. One Iranian diplomat in Paris who rescues his French Jewish lover from the Nazis and forges a passport for her to take her back to Iran. The real events it's based on it was actually Iranian diplomats in Paris who forged something like 500 passports so French Jews could go to Palestine. This is very interesting, this is something that's been produced by state television, that is being watched avidly. But I think Mr Ahmadinejad was elected on the basis of what you see is what you get and what he says I think he believes, and he believes some very odd things to be perfectly honest, and I think he does believe that in his views on women … Is he crazy? Well, I'm not a psychiatrist but I have to say we're not on the same wavelength.
NAJ: When he was going to power though he said, what does dress have to do with anything, but when he gets into power there's suddenly huge crackdowns on women, women are being imprisoned….
AA: Absolutely, I'm not saying there's no denying all these things. You're jumping to conclusions here, because what I'm saying is he's more dangerous for the fact that he believes in what he's saying. If he was a liar and actually knew he was an open liar. I mean we have politicians in this country who believe a lot of things they say. This makes him to my mind a more problematic issue.
He can go to Columbia and say there are no homosexuals in Iran, and when everyone laughed at him I think he was genuinely shocked. This is an absurdity, of course, if there are no homosexuals, why are you executing them then? One of the most powerful and positive things he said in favour of democracy, although he didn't know he said it, was there are no absolutes in knowledge - when he was talking about his holocaust revisionism – he said we have to research everything all the time, there are no absolutes. Well great, in that case everything in Islam is up for discussion. If that's the case then actually Islam, and the Islam he espouses, is actually one that believes in very clear absolutes. So I think he's not particularly clever…
VP: Well I don't know whether he's clever or not, and I'm not so much interested in that. He is a president and that's a problem, and as to the one point I think maybe it's my national origin that makes me take that very seriously. If he says and repeats that the holocaust hasn't taken place and organizes this conference. We have had very strong relations with the institute where this conference took place. Months before it took place I saw the president, I mean my colleague from the institute, I told him if you are going to have this conference I'm going to break relations with you.
He said, no and why and we discussed it and I said, look, it is not only that you are doing this thing you are also insulting me as a German. We have done 60 years of historical research. There's a lot of research still going on about the hows and the ways, but after 60 years saying it didn't take place, that is an insult to me as your partner, if you want to go on I won't have relations with your institute. [Applause]
It was more difficult for me to break relations. Some Americans said they would break relations even though they've never had relations with the institute. I'm in favour of engagement and therefore it's more difficult to break it.
I also think we should be clear…you said that 80% of Iranians…OK, 83%, that 83% of Iranians want a full fuel cycle. I'm not sure that 83% of Iranians know what a fuel cycle is, but even if that is the case, I'm not in favour of doing politics after opinion polls, not in my own country and not on the basis of an opinion poll in Iran. If 85% of the Iranians were saying, and we want a fuel cycle for military use I would still be against it and say Iran is a member of the NPT and it has to behave according to the NPT.
There are certain things the Iranians are allowed to do, there are certain things they are not allowed to do. They have cheated, they have to regain trust. Of course in the end they are allowed to have the fuel cycle, that is part of the NPT as it stands today, but they also have to gain the trust that they are not breaking the NPT, that's article 2 of the NPT, you cannot take one article and say the rest doesn't interest you.
AA: On that poll, another aspect of the poll is that Iranians also said in rather large numbers, I think about 70%, that they would not want it at any cost, that if they had a choice between better relations with the West and this civil nuclear programme, they would go for better relations with the West…so there are more nuances to that…
NA: They also said they wouldn't sleep at night as comfortably if this regime had access to that fuel cycle.
SK: Abbas, you've made some statements about the importance of Western citizens standing up in the potential military crisis and advocated that very strongly. The other discussions here – human rights in Iran, democracy, the holocaust and so on – are they important as well or are they distractions as you see it?
AE: They are extremely important issues. Let me make it clear, I have spoken on Iranian state radio and television and every time I've had the opportunity in the context of opposing the US war drive, I have challenged the Iranian government on its record on human rights. I have called for the release of women activists imprisoned in Iran. I have criticized the Iranian government on the issue of the holocaust. I have called for equality for women, ethnic and religious minorities.
What this has all done, within the context of firstly opposing strongly the US war drive, because that is the immediate task - if you don't do that I have absolutely no respect for any member. The biggest problem about democracy is the threat by the West, specifically by the US and Israel, against Iran.
Let me give you a specific example. I am unique in this audience for having a project in Iran, for launching an NGO Iran. In 1999 I launched….internet sites for schools in deprived areas of Iran. Over half the provinces in Iran were covered, 300 schools. We provided school community projects. We had not much impediment from the Iranian government. The major obstacle came from the trade sanctions of the US. From those sanctions that people want to impose on Iran because those prevented us from raising funds in the US from the affluent ex-pat community to send to Iran to provide computer internet sites for school children. This is the only example of a civil society organization that can be represented in this audience and you don't want me to speak about it…
SK: Let's take more questions from the audience. I'd like to put another issue on the table. Women's rights have come up quite a few times. Feminism, women rights, does that sound very Western? How do we support women and feminists in Iran without being accused of being too Western? I hope there might be some questions about that specifically as well as all the other issues we've had, so that we can get some responses especially from Nazenin and Nazenin about how we can best support women's rights.
Audience member: I'm a member of the National Policy Forum. I'm also apologizing on behalf of our Members of Parliament because this is a fairly important debate and discussion and I think the information and discussion that's gone on here today needs to get back. We are talking about the solution is democratization, I just want to know whether the debate that's gone on here today will actually get back to our Members of Parliament?
SK: Yes, we will write it up, we will send it to Members of Parliament, we'll hold a briefing event for MPs on the issue.
Audience member: I guess the MPs knew something which I didn't know and we have probably gathered to discuss Middle Eastern or Third World dictators problems and tried to put a nice veneer on them, or to act as a PR consultancy firm for them. I'm going to explain what I think about this panel, which I respect.
Let me start with you [AE], I have seen you two times on Iranian television, I have never seen you criticize Iranian human rights. Every time there is a crisis in Iran we gather here to discuss and see what is the problem. I think those people who are scientists, at least they know if you want to analyse something the best way of analysis nowadays is what is called root cause analysis. This means find out why women in Iran are oppressed, why there's a threat of war, why there's a threat of terrorism – what are the roots of these things? There's no point in looking at signs and symptoms and trying to cure them while the essence of the disease lies there.
The problem with the Iranian regime is this regime is incorrectable, it's incapable of reforms. The fundamental issue is this regime belongs to the middle ages. The only way this regime will change is if the….Let's talk about the regime which becomes incompatible with today's world, that means they cannot go on because they belong to the past. This regime belongs to the past and the only way they can change is the same way that the Western countries are supporting, for example, the democrats of Zimbabwe.
That is the root. You must decide that this regime is an obstacle, it must be removed. Once you know the cause then we can discuss how this regime can be changed. But the problem is I think we are discussing the wrong things, we are discussing the symptoms and signs. This regime can be changed if you support the real democrats and the real democrats are those who say this regime belongs to the past, is finished, is dead, how we can change it. And the only way is civil disobedience, empowering the Iranian people, putting small sanctions and telling the Iranian regime, sorry we cannot live with you. We try, we tried very hard, we kissed you, hugged you during the years of reform. It didn't work. For how long can we sit here and flog a dead horse?
Audience member: I wanted to pursue comments made about regime change. If you are calling for regime change through military action then you seem to lack the most basic understanding of modern history. [interjection: not through military action]. If you are not then I stand corrected. Secondly, the Iranian people are very intelligent people who have a very long history and we have to understand that this is not a backward civilization who we're trying to tell how to run their democracy. And the issue of nuclear energy and the nuclear issue, the reason you will never really win against Ahmadinejad is the fact that he evokes a lot of national pride and nationalism and so forth.
Ahmadinejad is extremely unpopular and people need to understand that by supporting the political institutions in Iran and the people, some of whom are in jail, that's the only way you're going to be able to help the Iranian people and the only way you'll be able to have some sort of regime change. Which leads me to my question.
Nazanin was saying the mullahs do not represent the Iranian people, Ahmadinejad does not represent the Iranian people. I was wondering who does – Dr Ansari, yourself? And I think it's very important that we keep the support for Iranians who are trying to work for peaceful, non-violent change.
Which leads me to my last point, I recently watched a film about Iranian women trying to get into football stadiums all across Iran. Just a question as to who really represents the Iranian people and how we can go about supporting them?
Audience member: I'm more experienced in Latin America, particularly Venezuela. I'm coming a bit leftfield because I think Iran is a long way away from a nuclear weapon. And the US is not interested in human rights, as they've shown so many times in Latin America, they support Columbia but they don't support Venezuela. They say lies and lies about Chavez and they're doing lies again in Iran. The thing that's common between what was Iraq and Iran and Venezuela is they don't repatriate their oil money back into the American financial system. Iran is selling oil to Japan in Yen, they're selling oil to Europe in Euro. They're not repatriating their profits back into the American financial system. It's nothing to do with immanent nuclear weapon.
Audience member: Malcolm Savage, former Member of Parliament. Can I say I think the issues of human rights, of democracy, of stabilizing the Middle East and not having a nuclear weapon state of their own are all of vital importance.
I'm pleased that it seems to have been said by most people that military action is certainly not the way to resolve any of those problems. I think it should be stressed with what's been said with Ahmedinijad, he is not the major power within what is probably a very complex state.
But I do get slightly worried at the way that some people have suggested that because these people are untrustworthy on some things you can't negotiate with them at all. Two days ago I met somebody who is a Member of Parliament and he said to me, Malcolm, you know the Shinners [Sinn Fein] really are delivering. I would not have believed 10 years ago that I would hear the Rev Dr Ian Paisley say that about Sinn Fein. What he meant was, we're actually getting progress on peace. I would imagine almost precisely the sort of words that have been used, about how you couldn't possibly negotiate even with the SDLP I would have been told at that time. We have to resolve these things by negotiation and not by conflict.
It's a difficult thing and there are going to be difficult people to negotiate with but, by God, when you look at the bloody mess we've got in Iraq the most important issue we've got to concentrate on is to say there must, must not be further military action that could spread disaster across the region. [Applause].
NAJ: We shouldn't think of this question as cultural imperialism, that we're trying to bring Western notions of women's rights to Iran because the Iranian people…women had emancipation in 1953. Before the Iranian revolution happened women had equal rights, they were wearing mini-skirts in the street, they could do whatever they wanted. It wasn't until the revolution happened these rights were taken away under Sharia law, they're lives were considered half of men's, in divorce cases it was unequal.
A lot of people don't realize that Iranian women are very different from the surrounding area in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East where women have been subjected, or they've been suppressed, for hundreds of years and they're not used to a subservient lifestyle. Iranian women are not used to it, they're very strong people. 70% of students in the universities in Iran right now are women. They stand up for their rights. There's a huge campaign right now for one million signatures against discriminatory laws in Iran where women go out into different provinces and cities and try to empower other women to stand up for their rights, to know their rights. And despite the threat of being tortured, killed and imprisoned they still stand up and they have rallies demanding these equal rights.
So the women in Iran are ready for change, the youth movements are ready for change – 70% of the whole population of Iran is under 30 and they want nothing more than freedom and democracy and the separation of religion and state and all these wonderful things that we want in our countries. It's just a matter now that we have to support now.
I sometimes feel like I'm a five-year-old kid who knows the answer to the nuclear proliferation issue, because if we were giving the rule to the people there wouldn't be this problem of nuclear proliferation and questions of attacks, there wouldn't be this problem. So we must give the rights to the people, just like in Burma.
SK: My own view, which I think is probably the mood of probably more than half the people here, is that firstly there is an issue around proliferation to which we need a multilateral and diplomatic solution. We've got to deal with people we might not want to deal with, but that is the only way to do it – and governments will have to do that but citizens can pressure them.
On democratisation, I feel that governments are often not going to be useful advocates of democratisation, although there are probably things they can support and fund. Citizens are going to be useful sources of democratisation. We should not overestimate what we can achieve but we should not think that we can achieve nothing and we want to hear from other democrats what we can achieve. So what I'd like to hear from the panel as we close is an idea about what the British government, or another European government, should be doing, an idea about anything citizens could and should be doing. Ideally things that haven't been said before in the discussion but you might want to repeat points that we have already.
NA: Once again I think every single centre of the population and of the society here has a role to play. The media have a role to play, those in the prison, those outside, they want their names to be known. I've spoken to people…these hostages we have seen when hostages are released one thing that has kept them going is the knowledge that their names are known, that they are not forgotten.
These political prisoners are hostages, let's keep their names in the media, if they're pro-democracy activists, if they go on the streets…even lawyers are being put in jail. Let's keep their names alive. Civil societies, what they can do they can continue…labour unions, teacher unions, student unions, these are the unions that are being clamped down in Iran at the moment. Teachers union was closed, the head of the bus drivers union is in prison.
As far as unions in the Labour party conference, put out motions here in support of the unions in Iran. Institutions, religious institutions, there are clerics in Iran in prison – give out statements in their support. Once again Europe, US, the international community have to speak with one voice and stay united. International institutions, the United Nations, EU, they have to pass resolutions in support of the democracy movement in Iran, in support of human rights, against corruption and malpractices of governance in Iran.
And also hold the government of Iran accountable and once again do not forget that democracy in Iran came to the country 100 years ago. This was the first time the constitutional revolution that came was before the Russian revolution. Women were at the forefront of that constitutional revolution. They started the first schools in the 1890s. they had their first journals and publications. So women asking for equal rights and protection under the law is nothing Western, it's Iranian. And all there is to do is for people, in a globalised community that we live in, it needs a global response, if the political, economic and social space in Iran for activities by the civil society is closed, let the global community give that space of action to the civil society of Iran.
SK:One thing we'll be doing is writing to MPs and in emailing members of the Fabian Society what was said today is suggesting practical steps that different speakers have proposed about what people can do in practical ways to raise those concerns.
VP: Your question has two tracks. One is what can civil societies can do and the other is what can governments do. Civil societies can do a lot. This [Stop Child Executions http://www.stopchildexecutions.com/] is certainly a very good campaign. But civil society can do much more and in one word can engage, can engage this very rich and lively civil society in Iran which is there. It's authors, it's writers, it's sportsmen, it's students. Someone mentioned Iranian women at football, and Germany invited the Iranian women's football team. They weren't allowed to come but I think we should keep inviting them to play with the German team. All these things can be done and a lot more.
What can governments do? I think the first thing, in this country in particular, is the old medical principle, do no harm. And that starts by saying, yes we probably wish for the Iranians a better regime, but is it really our task to, as Nazinin said, to bring change and democracy to the Iranian people? I think it's up to the Iranians to do that, it's not upon us to say we bring democracy to Iran.
I would wish that there was a better regime but, and here I apologise for my security-oriented priorities – but I would say the priority for us is a proliferation case.
I think a lot of people underestimate how dangerous this issue is, a lot of people in the West do underestimate how dangerous it is because there would be proliferation in the region, other countries are about to acquire nuclear capabilities and a lot of Iranians inside Iran do underestimate what a dangerous course they are upon, rightly or wrongly. But if the current US administration is convinced the current regime in Iran has acquired a military usable capability, I am very concerned that somewhere next spring, next summer, there will be bombing. So it's a very dangerous course.
So what have governments to do? Still to engage the Iranian government, whether we like them or not, make them aware what a dangerous course it is and try to play on time here, get an agreement until probably in Iran we have a better government, even though it might not be a democratic one, probably a technocratic one with which we can work better.
AA: First of all, as you would expect from me, clearly the historical record and the historical relationship is an important one. It obviously feeds into various perspectives on either side of the divide and it's one that we need to be more acquainted with. It is certainly true that on the historical perspective there is a credibility gap that needs to be addressed in the West as to its relations with Iran, not least of course we live in this post-9/11 age and in the post-9/11 age when America talks about freedom and democracy it doesn't look good when we look across the border into Iraq.
If I had any single advice I would say read [SK: 'read your book']. Well, read much more than my book, though it's a good start.
We have to be careful not to over-romanticise what can and can't be done from either side of the perspective. I don't think the Iranians necessarily would not be recycling dollars if they had the opportunity to do it - it's largely because of US sanctions they're not recycling dollars, it's not because they don't want to do it. The current Iranian political system is very much a money-making machine and they go where the money is. But at the same time I think as the Iranians tend to over-romanticise and maybe oversimplify what we can and cannot do in one single sweep, these things can be quite difficult and require more thought.
But finally I want to say there has been a number of times that the word respect has been used, vis a vis our colleague Professor Abbas, particularly when you're looking at me. I yearn for the day when as real democrats, among Iranians of all political factions, that people can hold distinct views and be respected for them.
Audience member: I hope that the remainder of the panel can address this because you mentioned realpolitik. And when it comes to sending a message to Iranian democrats, I think our German friend over here said the issue which the West has got involved with Iran has got nothing really to do with human rights because there are so many countries in the world with human rights problems.
Professor Edalat speaks passionately against the campaign of war and sanctions…nobody wants war, nobody wants sanctions, but the international community is taking steps against Iran because of Iranian intransigence to deal with something which the international community considers to be a crucially important issue. Now it's no use shedding crocodile tears when the country is faced with a major problem and ordinary people are suffering because of the intransigence of the government – that is a factor that has to be taken into consideration.
What message will Iranian democrats get if the answer is to ease up on sanctions? What will be the message to Iranian democrats if Iranian intransigence is not addressed? How do you expect change within a society if intransigence is rewarded as opposed to being opposed and stood up against?
NAJ: I do think human rights are inextricably linked to the nuclear question. I don't think human rights is one of those soft power questions that shouldn't come up, I think it can be viewed as a hard power term and I'm going to give an example which is an example of how a government can take action as well.
I don't know if you remember the new human rights council that was being set up at that time. Iran had sent Saeed Mortazavi who was implicated in Zahra Kazemi's murder, a Canadian photojournalist who took pictures outside Evin prison and was raped and tortured and killed. They sent Saeed Mortazavi as their representative of human rights to this new human rights council, and what a slap in the face of the international community that was, to send a murderer to this human rights council. And what the Canadian government did was put out a provisional arrest for Saeed Mortazavi.
Through Interpol the German officials I believe were ready to arrest him provisionally but he had gone through a different route so they didn't actually end up arresting him and he went back to Iran. But it did send out a message, it sent out a message to the international community and to the Iranian people that change can be done and it does scare these people who are in power, that these people cannot go without impunity.
And that's a real message that we do have to send, that one day these people will have to be accountable for their actions. And that's just one of the ways the UK government can do it, by doing these little things, and giving hope again to the Iranian people that they are not forgotten. That's all they want to know, that they have support and that one day they will get a chance to have their voice heard.
And as an answer to the gentleman who asked, who does represent the Iranian people, let's give them a chance to have their voice heard. Let's have a UN controlled referendum or plebiscite to find out. That's all.
AE: Everyone in this room, whether British or German, should start with the threat coming from their own governments. This gentleman talked about Iranian intransigence. In the UK and the US, an illegal criminal war of invasion and occupation against Iraq, for which over a million people died, so we are talking about a war crime of horrendous dimension, it is the duty of every person in this room to fight, to bring to account their own governments for these war crimes. The world nuclear arsenal Israel is just taboo, it's not even mentioned. If you are interested in proliferation, you should fight against your own government. The German company, with the complicity of the German government, provided chemical weapons in Iraq which was used by Saddam Hussein to chemically bombard the Kurds. What are you doing as a person interested and concerned about security?
VP: We brought lots of people to court and they are sitting in prison in Germany. [Applause]
AE: The trade ministry in the UK was complicit in that. What are you doing here to bring the British government to be prosecuted for supporting Saddam Hussein for his war of hydration against Iran.
The issue of democracy, the biggest problem for the democrats in Iran is the threat from the West. Two landslide victories for president Khatami, civil society was flourishing in Iran. What brought that setback? The labelling of Iran as on the axis of evil by George W. Bush. The threat to change the regime in Iran, it was that threat which brought the demise of the reformist movement to some extent and brought the hardliners into power. So the best way to help the Iranian democrats is to ask your own governments not to interfere in other governments, to openly oppose military action against Iran, to oppose the sanction against Iran and to remove the threat. When you remove the threat, Iranian civil society can look after itself. We have got a brochure here signed by Shireen Abadi, the most prominent Iranian democrat who signed our petition calling for an end to the threat against Iran, because once the threat of sanctions and military intervention is removed, civil society can take care of itself. We are intelligent to bring changes that we deserve because we had a big place in human civilisation a few hundred years ago. We can repeat that.
SK: We will end with a non-Iranian view. Paul Hilder, what do you think we've learned tonight about Iran and what outsiders can and should do about Iran?
PH: We've learnt that there are as you said many views within Iran. I would say that I agree with almost everything that everybody on the panel has said.
But I think the question that we had was the critical one, about what kind of message does it send to Iranian democrats if you reward the intransigence of this regime.
I think the answer to that is if you look at it in reality what is happening, the regime has set it up in such a way that punishing the intransigence of this regime rewards it. In other words, the punishments strengthen this regime.
We need to look very clearly at the fact that the sanctions threats are doing relatively little to retard Iran's nuclear programme and a great deal to strengthen the current regime and to make it more difficult for Iranian democrats to succeed. I think a lot of analysts would agree with that.
So the question is, how are we going to have a long-term guarantee of security in the West? How are Iranians going to come to democracy? Security is going to come through I think ultimately democracy in Iran and reform in Iran and not otherwise. So I just want to come back to this point.
I think detente and de-escalation, strategically done over the next seven months is absolutely critical because of that electoral timeframe. One of the critical questions is, who gets to stand? We might run a campaign targeting the Iranians and targeting any attempt to disqualify people from office.
There's a possibility that the Expediency Council under Rafsanjani will step in and attempt to stop the Guardian council from disqualifying people. Another thing we are definitely going to contemplate is this open letter to the Iranian people. Something I'm going to do in the next couple of weeks is go away and ask our thousands of members inside Iran what they think might work and what they think we ought to do.
SK: It's been a fascinating discussion. We've learnt a lot, we'll report on this meeting and share that with other people, not least our MPs. I will invite the contributors on the panel to write short pieces for us which we will send to our own members and others, including specific proposals about campaigns you might want to support. We will continue to debate this issue and we welcome ideas about how best we can do that.
ENDS
|
