According to Ardeshir Amir Arjomand, senior adviser to Mir Hossein Mousavi and the spokesperson for the Coordination Council for the Green Path of Hope, if the authorities of the ruling government of Iran would be courageous, in lieu of than putting their trust in foreign states and entering into negotiations with them, they would trust the people of Iran, listen to the demands of their critics and engage in dialogue rather than placing them behind bars.
In an interview with Kaleme, while supporting an open and transparent dialogue and negotiations designed to lift sanctions and to resolve the nuclear issue, Amir Arjomand warned that the threat of war and economic sanctions adversely effect the long term economic fundamentals of our nation and will have a negative impact on the day to day lives of ordinary Iranians, particularly those who are low income such as blue collar workers, farmers and teachers.
While reiterating that the Green Movement welcomes the easing of tensions with the international community, Amir Arjomand clarified that escalation of international tensions is contrary to Iran’s national security and national interests and an obstacle to the natural progression of its democracy seeking movement. Amir Arjomand added that only those who have set their hopes on change through foreign intervention welcome any escalation with the international community and it goes without saying that they have little public support inside Iran.
The full content of the interview with Ardeshir Amir Arjomand is as follows:
What is the position of the Green Movement vis-a-vis the recent negotiations by the ruling government with the West? What has the position of the leaders of the Green Movement been regarding this issue? How can we avoid the risk of war and sanctions?
As emphasized repeatedly, territorial integrity, political independence, a focus on our national interests coupled with freedom, justice and ensuring continued progress are the fundamental principles of the Green Movement. The leaders of the Green Movement have explicitly stated in the charter of the Green Movement that they support an honorable foreign policy based on a transparent dialogue that rejects adventurous and populist diplomacy and further enhances the dignity of the historic and grand nation of Iran. To this end, they will support any efforts taken in this direction. The Green Movement has consistently called for the easing of tensions with the international community. Our international disputes should be resolved through dialogue and transparent and dignified negotiations.
We must all defend the peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. We must support reasonable measures to avoid the risk of war. We must support and demand the lifting of sanctions. the threat of war and economic sanctions adversely effect the long term economic fundamentals of our nation and will have a negative impact on the day to day lives of ordinary Iranians, particularly those who are low income such as blue collar workers, farmers and teachers. Furthermore, it will have a long term, negative impact on our country’s economic fundamentals. Issues such as the risk of war, economic sanctions and our country’s position in the international stage are not limited to an individual, group, political party or particular faction. These issues effect each and every one of us and are integral to our national security.
It looks as though the ruling government and its opponents, a large segment of whom are supporters of the Green Movement, disagree on the definition of national interests. Furthermore, we have also witnessed a duality regarding the direction of our foreign policy amongst the ranks of the ruling government. What in your opinion is causing such a schism in the area of national security and national interests?
If we look at the situation from a glass half full perspective, the contradictory positions in this area are a result of the differences of opinion in the ruling government’s analysis and evaluation of the capabilities, possibilities and risks associated with the Green Movement. One cannot however, underestimate the role and personal agenda of the powerful entities within the government. Unfortunately those in power can at times place their personal interests before our national interests and they use this power to align our security and national interests with their personal agenda.
At times when negotiating with foreign states, these entities engage in destructive competition amongst themselves, or seek to disrupt or ensure the failure of such negotiations. We have witnessed such a situation in a number of our relationships with the West.
In principle what individual, group or entity is responsible for defining national interests so that this type of dilemma can be avoided? What if the ruling government were to provide a unilateral declaration of sovereignty and national interests without regard for the opinion of their opponents?
National unity is formed in part through national security and national interests. As a result it is important that a consensus be reached in this area. That is why in democratic societies, the ruling government defines such policies through the active and responsible participation of parties that are not in power, opponents, civil societies and the academia. In contrast, in authoritarian countries, the ruling government monopolize the definition of national security and national interests. They view citizens as outsiders and only allow individuals, groups and entities that support them to provide any input or opinion regarding this issue. In the absence of an independent press and a national broadcasting station (IRIB) that is completely under their control we witness a one way communication that is void of any healthy, responsible, free dialogue.
Contrary to the expectations of the authoritarian government of Iran, unfortunately in the long term, this type of behavior will only lead to failed policies in the area of national security and national unity. We have at times witnessed authoritarian government agencies illegally prohibiting any type of dialogue in certain subject matters such as the nuclear issue, mass executions, torture in prisons, the rigged elections and even matters such as presenting economic figures and forecasts and as of late the issue of the effects of international economic sanctions on our economy – falsely accusing both our citizens and the press of violating the law and using it as an excuse to punish them.
These gentlemen believe that by presenting false figures, they will resolve the economic challenges facing our nation. They are under the impression that if all government officials and the IRIB (national broadcasting station) announce that international sanctions have had no effect what so ever, then the world will believe their statement. As though there is no other way to access and determine the real truth.
These methods will not lead to any results and the leaders of the Green Movement tried to compassionately warn the ruling government of the consequences of such policies. Unfortunately, rather than heeding their warnings, they instead chose to incarcerate them, depriving them of their basic human rights.
We witnessed a similar schism in the judgments made by the ruling authorities regarding diplomatic efforts during the reform years versus the current government. Is that not true?
Yes and our citizens and the academia will compare our foreign policy during the reform years versus today and will come to their own conclusions. The highest ranking officials in Iran must answer to the nation when it comes to the results of their adventurous international policies. They must explain why they are doing everything in their power to condemn the foreign policy implemented during the reform years when in reality their position vis-a-vis the international community is extremely weak today.
You mentioned that the Green Movement supports an easing of tensions with the international community that is inline with our dignity and national interests. How does the criticism of the ruling government’s foreign policy effect the Green Movement’s political demands inside Iran? Are you not worried that such a support may be used by the ruling government to paint the Green Movement as compromising with foreign states while seeking to overthrow the government?
A detente of sorts is a positive thing, both from an international point of view and with regards to our domestic affairs. Unfortunately it looks as though the totalitarian government has more problems with Messrs. Mousavi and Karroubi than with those they have referred to as enemies for years; for they are willing to enter into a dialogue and negotiate with such enemies and at minimum agree to some of their demands. In contrast they refuse to enter into any dialogue with their domestic critics nor will they accept their legitimate demands, but rather continue to hold them under illegal house arrest.
I suggest that they have the courage to at minimum trust our people in the same manner they have trusted foreign states. As Mir Hossein Mousavi stated in his statement number 17, they must change their methods and policies so that the country can return to its natural state. Let us not forget that dignified policies in the international arena will lead to a decrease in tensions inside our boarders. Implying that reconciliation with the west is tantamount to desiring the overthrowing of the ruling establishment does not solve any of the real challenges we face.
There are those who believe that foreign pressure in the form of sanctions and the possibility of war may in the end be beneficial to democracy. It looks as though it is your opinion that the leaders of the Green Movement do not agree with this point of view. How will the easing of international tensions impact the green movement and the achievement of democracy?
As I mentioned previously our national security and national interests have priority over everything and a de-escalation in the international arena will only strengthen them. It goes without saying that eliminating the threat of war and the lifting of sanctions will have a positive impact on the democracy seeking Green movement in Iran. The authoritarian government is grappling with illegitimacy and the inefficiency of its policies and as a result seeks to create a crisis in order to avoid taking responsibility for these failed policies. They have created a highly restricted political and societal climate. They avoid the rule of law, stifle freedom, while refusing to react to a crisis and accept a sense of responsibility towards our nation. These types of governments seek to create an ongoing crisis that in itself is undoubtedly a form of dictatorship. Unfortunately such rulers do not learn from history or they would realize that they may be able to create a crisis but will never be able to guarantee that it will end at their command. This is particularly true in the international arena where resolving a crisis may be outside their influence, leading to irreparable damages.
The resolution of the international crisis will lead to more pressure on the authoritarian government to meet the legitimate demands of the people and will provide our citizens with more time to further strengthen the networks and plans designed to achieve their demands. The escalation of international tensions is contrary to Iran’s national security and national interests and an obstacle to the natural progression of its democracy seeking movement. Those who have set their hopes on change through foreign intervention welcome any escalation with the international community and it goes without saying that they have little public support in Iran.
What is your assessment of the current status of the democracy seeking movements in the region?
All democratic movements in the region seek freedom and are fighting corruption with the goal to establish a healthy and effective system of government. It is our duty to support all democracy seeking movements in the region. We must support the brave movement of the people of Bahrain and Syria. In my opinion the unconditional support of Bashar-al- Asad by the authoritarian government of Iran cannot be justified neither from a human, nor a national perspective. This type of behavior will only harm our long term interests in the region.
Translate by BanooyeSabz
Source: http://www.kaleme.com/1391/02/13/klm-99828/