As you can read here, the Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey has drawn severe criticism attending a diplomatic meeting with Ahmadinejad dressed in Islamic hijab. Her move has understandably upset both activists in Iran and women’s rights advocates back home. Calmy-Rey has defended her move, saying that she was following diplomatic protocol.
Despite my obvious dislike of the regime and the dogmatic dress norms it imposes on millions of Iranian women, I can actually accept the Minister’s explanation. After all, if her job responsibilities emphasize effectively executing policies that are in Switzerland’s interests, then she made the right choice to respect local expectations around dress and appearance when attending the meeting. What should be questioned is not how she chose to appear at the meeting, but the policies she carried out, including the closing of a massive natural gas deal with Tehran. By making deals of this kind and sustaining bilateral cooperation with Iran, individual European actors risk undermining the message the EU and the broader global community is sending to Iran at a time when the regime is operating with a defiant, counterproductive attitude with regards to a number of issues.
4 Comments
March 22, 2008 at 8:13 am
I agree with you that any nation making trade deals with the Islamic Republic only promotes the prosperity of a few mullahs in power, and contributes to the misery of millions of Iranians. I can not accept the minister’s explanation. She bears the title of “minister” which is higher than ambassador, or cosul general. Under diplomatic protocol she is only subordinate to a king. If the foreign dignatory is meeting with a minister in the minister’s homeland then covering herself is tantamount to subrogating Swiss sovereignty to that of the Islamic Republic. That’s a terrible insult to the Swiss people. If the meeting is in Iran then the headscarf is optional. Usually it is observed in meeting with bonafide religious heads of states like the pope. She is slinging the bull, and denying her cowardice.
March 24, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Sohrab,
I agree with your thoughts on diplomatic protocol. But what I don’t agree with is that European countries should not conduct bilateral trade negotiations with Iran simply because they run the risk of “undermining” the EU’s message to Iran.
First of all, it’s not just independent European states like Switzerland. Europe’s economic powerhouse and EU member Germany has extensive bilateral economic relations with Iran. And these relations don’t just benefit a “few mullahs,” contrary to what some people might believe. It helps the Iranian economy, as well as the partner country’s economy as well.
It’s simple; the European states need oil and gas, supplies are limited, and so they will do whatever need be to obtain the necessary resources (unless they want to lose those resources to China or India, as they fruitlessly undertake a moral crusade to isolate Iran).
If we really want to change the government in Iran, then we need to stop looking towards Europe or the US for hope. They’re objectives are antithetical to Iranian opposition movements.
Europe cannot effectively bully Iran into doing anything. They don’t give a damn whether its the mullahs or someone else in power as long as they have access to resources and markets. Should they have really cared about the kind of government Iranians have, they would not have expelled Mossadeq in the 50s and reinstated the shah.
Iranian leaders are fiercely protective of their independence, and rightly so, since the country’s resources and sovereignty has been raped and pillaged by the British, Americans, and Russians in the past century. They are not going to be sanctioned or coerced into doing anything they don’t want to - the sooner we realize that the better.
So if we want Iran to acknowledge its human rights abuses or to stop pursuing a nuclear weapons program, we need to realize that putting the onus of change and responsibility on Iran is not a productive strategy and is actually a counterproductive strategy.
As for the nuclear program, Iran will never stop pursuing it unless the US ceases its blind support for Israel, rests its bellicose rhetoric toward Iran, and withdraws from Iraq.
Cheers,
barmakid
March 29, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Barmakid,
Your argument has major flaws in terms of being reality-based:
“If we really want to change the government in Iran, then we need to stop looking towards Europe or the US for hope. They’re objectives are antithetical to Iranian opposition movements.”
On the contrary, their objectives are in fact aligned: an open, democratic Iran without the IRI would not only mean security guarantees for Israel and nearby Europe or an Iran that doesn’t meddle in the affairs of Iraq/Syria/Lebanon/PA, but also a young nation with plenty o’ petrodollars or should I say petroeuros and hungry for marketization and development unhindered by an insane ideology.
“Iranian leaders are fiercely protective of their independence, and rightly so, since the country’s resources and sovereignty has been raped and pillaged by the British, Americans, and Russians in the past century. They are not going to be sanctioned or coerced into doing anything they don’t want to - the sooner we realize that the better.”
(1) Iranian leaders would be a lot less willing to take the paths of nuclear and strategic brinkmanship with the U.S. and its partners, if they truly valued Iranian security and independence. (2) Carrots and sticks have recently helped to disarm two rogue regimes (Libya and NK)–why shouldn’t this age-old strategy work with Iran, when so many of the elements at play there are similar to the other two.
April 7, 2008 at 10:41 am
There is nothing wrong with her having worn the veil.
Leave a Reply