One more diversion before returning to my series on Carl Schmitt. With all due respect to her courageous, decades-long efforts as an attorney and public intellectual to improve the human rights situation in Iran - Shirin Ebadi’s recommendations for the path to democratization in Iran betray her naive attachment to the failed reformist framework. In a recent interview with The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss, Ebadi urges the U.S. and its partners to:
- discontinue funding for pro-democracy activists inside the country,
- directly engage Iran’s leadership at the highest level via open and public diplomacy,
- offer the IRI tons of carrots and no sticks in the security arena,
- and drop economic sanctions against the regime.
Her case for such a lenient approach towards this monstrous regime is essentially twofold. On the one hand, Ebadi frames any efforts to hold the IRI accountable for its pursuit of WMDs, its trampling of human rights at home, its expansionist aims in the region, or its support of international terrorism as ultimately hurting the Iranian people and undermining the cause of democracy in Iran. While Ebadi clearly distinguishes between the government and people of Iran, she nevertheless equates the international community’s efforts to provide disincentives for IRI’s misbehavior vis-a-vis human rights and non-proliferation with punishing the Iranian population at large. “Sanctions damage the interests of the people, and they’re not going to topple the government of Iran, because the government has a lot of income from the price of oil because the price is so high,” Ebadi says. The problem with such lines of reasoning is that they ignore historical precedent. By historical precedent, I refer two recent cases of similar states disarming peacefully precisely as a result of sanctions and international isolation (North Korea and Libya). Granted both NK and Libya are “lighter weight” rogues states in comparison to Iran, but this is not to say that the right sanctions, given a united front on the part of the international community, couldn’t contribute to the process.
Her case against the Bush administration’s $70 million fund for democratization in Iran is constructed along similar lines. Ebadi views such efforts as ultimately undermining the work of pro-democracy activists in Iran: “When the United States says that it has allocated $70 million for democracy in Iran, whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having accepted part of that money, and of being on the US side. It gives Iran an excuse for what it does.” In making such assertions, Ebadi fails to account for the fact that as long as there have been dissidents in Iran, the regime has accused and persecuted them for being “imperialist stooges,” “westoxicated lapdogs,” “Zionist spies,” etc. etc. ad infinitum any way! Given this reality, the way forward is to allow the activists to embrace the U.S. as a natural and committed ally in their quest for freedom and HR in Iran.
The other major component of Ebadi’s thesis is a blind attachment to the reformist spirit that dominated Iranian politics during the 1990s. It’s based on her assumption that “the time for revolution has passed” and that the only viable option on the table is gradualism. Of course, Ebadi’s mode of gradualism does not resonate with the vast majority of Iranians, not only because of Khatami’s monumental failure (some would say refusal) to bring about real change during the 1990s, but also because the people of Iran, who possess a great deal of political intelligence, have come to understand that the promise of reform serves the regime as a key pressure valve. They understand that the apparent disagreements between the so-called hardline, pragmatic, and reformist wings of the IRI elite serve to mask the regime’s fundamental commitment to retaining structural control of the country.
In light of these flaws, Ebadi’s cautious, reformist attitude and her calls for the international community to take it easy on the IRI form a grand illusion that is out of touch with both history and political reality.
7 Comments
May 1, 2008 at 5:58 pm
She is Ayatollah Ebadi. Have you forgot that? She’s a regime spokesperson
May 1, 2008 at 7:08 pm
LOL.
May 3, 2008 at 4:15 am
Excellent writing and anlysis!
May 3, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Sounds like Mrs. Ebadi knows what she’s talking about, while you, winston, and serendip still dogmatically espouse the same failed policies of the last 30 years. My friend, there’s a point when one must set one’s ideology aside and develop a more pragmatic approach; even if that means dealing with the devil.
Sanctions are useless; economic or political isolation is not achievable; and funding the opposition movement is anathema to Iranian nationalists - we are not Pakistan or Nicaragua; stay out of our politics Condi!
I am dedicated to freeing Iran from parochial religious rule, but I am convinced that the way you and your blogosphere cohorts see the path towards that goal is equally parochial. I’m thankful that we have people like Shirin, Ray Takeyh, and others who understand that revolution should not be a deliberate option.
Don’t you realize that it was a revolution that got us into this mess to begin with? I’ve said this many times - revolutions, at best, ratify preexisting power sources; especially in a country were political activity has been stifled. Just think for a sec - the Shah had quieted essentially all political opposition at the time of the revolution. When it occurred, the most organized and best prepared to fill the power vacuum was the mujahideen-e khalq and the ulamma - not an organized democratic movement. That movement drowned in the efforts of Khomeini and Massoud Rajavi - enemies of peace and prosperity and prisoners of their own ideology.
And take Iraq for example; the war is consequentially equivalent to a revolution in that it created a power vacuum. Who filled this vacuum? The most organized and prepared: The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, al-Dawa, and Muqtada al sadr’s militia - not the pro-democratic Iraqi Governing Council the U.S. naively created.
So ask yourself, after 30 years of political oppression and Islamic education of the youth - who would be most prepared to fill the vacuum left by the mullahs in the case of a revolution? Would it be pro-democratic exiles? Students? Monarchists? You tell me.
peace,
barmakid
May 3, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Barmakid,
You lack the political imagination it takes to be able to envision and propose a systemic alternative.
A revolution need not come in the form of a bloody mass uprising. Given (1) proper support from the international community, (2) the conjuncture of social discontentment and economic frustration, and (3) a democratic force to capitalize on it all - one can imagine a transition like the Velvet Revolution or the more recent Orange Revolution in Ukraine.
Is this to say that the IRI will give in easily to the sight of a million and a half people filling the streets in open revolt? No - but again, under the right pressures, a disciplined movement can guide and channel the spontaneous anger of the people towards the collapse of the regime,
I do not insist that Reza Pahlavi or anyone else be at the forefront of that movement or party. Who knows who it’ll be. But using one’s Nobel Laureate pulpit to call for the international community to pander to the regime doesn’t help.
May 3, 2008 at 10:17 pm
My friend (I’ve been watching too many of John McCain’s speeches:)), you speak of revolutions as if they are predictable and controllable events. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had an “Anar (pomegranate) Revolution.” And even in that case, there would be the same consequences -I never distinguished between peaceful or violent revolution (but we all know that any revolution in Iran would be violent). You can discuss it in rosy and predictable terms like you did above, but such descriptions are unhinged from reality and Iranian history. And please, lets quit this superficial infatuation with “velvet revolutions” and what not - just take a look at Georgian politics now!
Anyways, you made my point for me - “Who knows who it’ll be,” referring to who would lead the revolution. The very unpredictable nature of revolutions, especially in a society that has been politically stifled for decades, is a reason to avoid such an event. Are you willing to allow the possibility for Masoud Rajavi to return to power? Or another Ayatollah Khomeini like figure? Listen, I despise these political clerics as well - but an opposition strategy should not be developed around how to extract them out of power, but how to empower the people.
So you can “imagine” all the scenarios you want sohrab jan, but this isn’t “Ayatollah’s in Wonderland” - it’s real life.
Say no to revolution and yes to evolution! (i.e., gradualism).
peace,
barmakid
May 21, 2008 at 7:59 am
hey dears,
nice discussion. i must say i have to side with barmakid, this is true that the educated people of iran should not be ignored. i believe they are quite capable to bring about the change they want. the change is happening but it may look too slow in some people’s view. in my opinion, staying with a real but slow change sounds a better idea rather than betting on a “democracy” or a “change” which american or any other power are trying to sell to iranian nation. never forget that the iranian nation is very unique, one may not find any other nation like it in the world, and it can not be compared to any other one i believe. so, let people of iran decide what they want, and how to create it. the best help from outside is to be fair to them. if the Mollas do something good, which they have done alot of that to iran, every one should be supporting that. if they do bad , it has to be condemned too. Iranian can not be fooled. one might have been able to do alot of tricks to them a few decades ago, but not any more. the new generation of iranian are educated, confident and know what they are doing. my bit of advice to the exporters of democracy is, if this prize is such a worthy one, please take it to your friends first. take it to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabi ! . This is a tradition in iran i think that when one has a good thing, they will share it with friends not foes. support those who needs it. Iranian know their friends and foes very well. it has been proved to them long time ago, in 1953, during the war with iraq and ….
thanks guys
Leave a Reply