Iran, democracy and non-intervention
At the beginning of this week, an American friend called Frank circulated an email to me which was an encouragement to join a Facebook group that provides updates and opinions from people in Iran about what’s happening in their country and with the elections. As has become clear as events there have unfolded, there is also a notable amount of traffic on Twitter about the issue and people are showing solidarity with the Iranian people.
I’m a firm believer that — regardless of what our personal politics is — we need to become as informed as possible.
Unlike others who’ve immediately voiced their opinions about the Iranian elections and the mass protest demonstrations on the blogosphere or on Twitter, I’ve reserved my observations on this current affairs issue until there was more DIRECT information from Iranian officials rather than speculation in the global media.
Today Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, delivered his statements about the election results. Notably on the leading political blog, the Huffington Post, which has been live-blogging from the uprising, there have been over 55 thousand (!!!) comments — which may be even more than the number of comments on President Obama winning the election or becoming the Presidential candidate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html
As well as the numerous comments, Huffington Post’s coverage is also recommended reading because it provides links to materials sourced from the BBC, Sky News, Channel 4, MSNBC and other main media channels.
What was noticeable about the Ayatollah’s words was that he singled out the UK for what the Iranian establishment regard as external meddling and incitement of enmity against their Islamic republic. This is interesting because only a few days ago the Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, had appeared on BBC News to say that the government had learnt the lessons from the 1950s when Iran had accused the UK of interference in their domestic policies. He noted that the government is now determined not to make those mistakes again and not to give Iran any opportunity to level the interference accusation.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to have worked because (yet again) not only is the UK being labeled as a meddler it is also being called “the most treacherous” and reminded that it’s in no position to lecture Iran about democracy when its own Parliament is in the state it’s in.
I’ve watched what President Obama has been saying as well as what Prime Minister Brown has been saying and it has to be noted that President Obama’s diplomatic stance seems more appropriate and less antagonistic, imo. Other countries do not make public statements about how “serious questions need to be asked” on how the US, UK or any other Western democracy runs their elections or the results, so it’s probably not wise for the British government to state that “serious questions need to be asked” about the Iranian elections. Probably not a good choice of diplomatic words by the Prime Minister.
There are ways to defend and foster democracy in a way which reminds us all that it’s the FREE CHOICE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE rather than the preference of some external parties (who have neither the mandate, the vote nor the detailed insight into the dynamics of the country and the people’s relationships with their elected and clerical officials) to bring the election results into question.
Naturally, those of us who are democracy-oriented try to promote and preserve its cornerstones throughout the world and in everyday existence. However — and I write this having learnt some lessons from a SemWeb platform where I wasted my time trying to explain to the American CEO that users should have open, public and democratic feedback channels whilst his team insisted on repeatedly closing them and suppressing opinions — we have to be aware of the limitations of our responsibilities and the parameters of the mandates (if any) we have.
There is a UN resolution which states that no country is mandated to demand or recommend regime change in another country. Therefore, the only people who can and should call into question the Iranian election results are the Iranian people themselves.
We may want to steer people towards democracy as much as we’d like. We may even want to intervene to stop them hitting icebergs or having dictatorial and myopic captains. However, sometimes we need to stop ourselves and remember we have a responsibility to our own democratic practices but, perhaps, no power or influence over another’s.
That lack of intervention in itself is true democracy because we recognize the free choice of others (including hitting icebergs) rather than forcing or demanding a like-for-like agenda from them.
Besides, given the still unresolved issues surrounding the global economic crisis and what to do about investment+regulation+prosperity-for-people, it may be better to focus on those solutions rather than get overly involved in Iran’s domestic elections.
June 20th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Countries may not have the mandate to question policy outside their own borders, but what about individuals? It seems to me that the ONLY way for real change to take hold is when the opinions of the indigenous populace accumulate with sufficient magnitude to redirect their own course through history. Outside countries shouldn’t get involved, but there’s nothing that says PEOPLE can’t do something.
Revolutions occur because individuals gather together with sufficient collective force to mandate their own changes. Those individuals are empowered with the information they are able to obtain beyond the rhetoric of the State. If those individuals from within are made aware of the support and concern of those from outside, they are even more empowered.
Our means to communicate between INDIVIDUALS has radically changed over time, particularly with the interwebs. My personal awareness and concern for the events in that country has grown, based on individual understanding. Reaching out one person at a time may not have the force of change, but just like the ant, when hundreds, or thousands, (or millions) of individuals support others on the inside, mountains may be moved.
Twitter, Facebook, Friendfeed, Digg, and even some of those semweb social networks ARE moving mountains. One ant at a time. Solve a political crisis, and the concerns of the banking-investment-regulation-prosperity will naturally fall into place as the world becomes better for all. Turn your back, and let it fester from within, and soon enough, you have another War in the making as countries step in and choose sides. If that happens, this will be one war that won’t have ANY winners. Except maybe the ants and the roaches, who’ve had enough sense to NOT play with nuclear forces.
June 20th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Non-intervention doesn’t mean not educating, illuminating, sense-making or increasing awareness (self and others) about a situation. It’s vital that we do educate etc.
In this case, I mean for countries and governments to not directly challenge another country’s election results when they may have no legal basis to do so. This is because the goodwill and concern that a democratic country has for the fairness and accountability of another country’s election process runs the risks of being labelled as “treacherous”, “meddlesome”, “interference” etc. and other rhetorical antagonisms which build up towards flash points and wars.
That’s the legal and diplomatic side of it.
Nonetheless, there’s undeniably a moral choice those of us in democratic countries can choose to exercise, as individuals and as collectives, to provide support and solidarity for the Iranian people.
We can link to their blogs. We can relay their mobile videos. We can share empathy with their situation.
However, the DRIVE and SEEDS for change need to come from within the Iranian people. Otherwise, the other accusation which will be levied is that the Western democracies and its people instigated regime changes and it becomes a Western democracy versus Islamic republic ideological war.
That doesn’t help anyone, including the ants and the roaches, :*).
Personally, I’d like to see the end of nuclear proliferation within my lifetime. I hope for total nuclear disarmament.
I also recognize that with the current political leadership in Iran this is unlikely and that’s not a nice thought. Nevertheless, the internal elections are a matter for the indigenous population to resolve.
The international community would be smart to say this as awareness and support:
* We’ve seen the public demonstrations. Our concern is with the Iranian people and we hope the election process has been fair, free and considerate towards their political will.
* We’re confident the Iranian people know their own minds and how they’d like their country to be governed and what their country stands for, and what future they hope for their families and children.
* The whole world is watching and supports whatever political choice the Iranian people are making, freely and fairly.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 am
On 22 June 2009, the London Evening Standard published this piece by Philip Bobbitt, the Herbert Wechsler Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the Center for National Security at Columbia University:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23710280-details/Obama+is+right:+this+is+no+time+for+posturing+on+Iran/article.do
He explains why the non-intervention principle is a good one for now.
It’s good to know that, unlike Bobbitt, I am no means an expert on Iran but my analysis on intervention or otherwise seems to make some sense. As Professor Bobbitt writes:
“We can best contribute to the day when Iran becomes a true state of consent by demonstrating that we do not wish to determine the outcome of its internal politics even if, with regard to human rights, “the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights”.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 am
Ok, so non-intervention is a good principle. But how is said non-intervention actually applied? Christopher Hitchens of Slate magazine had this to say on a recent note http://www.slate.com/id/2221020/?from=rss when reviewing the West’s approach:
“…Want to take a noninterventionist position? All right, then, take a noninterventionist position. This would mean not referring to Khamenei in fawning tones as the supreme leader and not calling Iran itself by the tyrannical title of “the Islamic republic.” But be aware that nothing will stop the theocrats from slandering you for interfering anyway. Also try to bear in mind that one day you will have to face the young Iranian democrats who risked their all in the battle and explain to them just what you were doing when they were being beaten and gassed. (Hint: Don’t make your sole reference to Iranian dictatorship an allusion to a British-organized coup in 1953; the mullahs think that it proves their main point, and this generation has more immediate enemies to confront.)”
The whole world may be watching, but revolution is not a spectator sport.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:50 am
The revolution, if any, belongs to the Iranian electorate. They are the ones in the arena. The UN is the referee. Other countries are the sponsors. Whether it’s right or wrong, we are the spectators.
If as spectators we intervene we become like the Romans with their thumbs up and thumbs down with power over whether the gladiators, slaves and prisoners live or die.
That primitive practice died out for a good reason: it takes power and rights away from the direct participants, the ones in the arena. It’s undemocratic towards them.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:21 am
This weekend I read this article which puts the current Iranian election situation into context with the 1979 revolution. It’s entitled ‘Clerical Errors’:
* http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jun/27/ahmed-kasravi-iranian-revolution
It always astounds me when we don’t abide by our own advice to “Learn lessons from history” and we have a propensity to treat historical events as isolated, discrete transactions when actually they are indelibly inter-linked in a continuum and impinge on other events (experiential and as-yet-to-happen).
Yes, and I do wish I could read Farsi and been immersed in a Persian culture so that I can gain some insights into Iranian thinking direct from them as much as via Western translations and perspective of the situation.