Regional Movements: Fortunate and Fruitful

This is the second part of an interview Sadegh Kharrazi and Iranian Diplomacy journalists conducted with former president of the Islamic Republic, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (read the first part.) Hashemi speaks of the diplomatic flaws of Ahmadinejad’s government, the foreign policy of his own presidential era, and the prospect of regional pro-democracy movements.

IRD: You spoke of the United States’ measures against Iran, which started after the 1979 Revolution. Sanctions against Iran have turned progressively stricter. We are now witnessing unilateral sanctions enforced by the US, the EU and other countries who believe the UN imposed penalties are not strong enough. What policy can Iran adopt to mitigate the adverse economic effects of the sanctions, and to discourage other countries from joining the pro-sanctions club?

AHR: As you know, the sanctions started after our nuclear dossier was submitted to the UN Security Council. Sometimes it is said that relinquishing our nuclear rights will solve the problem. I think that comes from a wrong understanding. I also managed nuclear affairs during my presidency. The current achievements have their roots in the 1980s. Of course, during [Mohammad Reza] Shah’s reign, the Pahlavi regime had made significant advances in cooperation with the US and some Western countries. The process halted after the revolution, but resumed in the 1980s. Iran's nuclear program was a concern for the IAEA, even during my presidency. They had serious issues. But we solved the problems with active diplomacy and gained their trust. We had made notable progress in manufacturing centrifuges. The nature of the IAEA’s mission was to monitor nuclear activities. We didn’t have non-peaceful goals, so we welcomed their visits.

Our Supreme Leader has issued a religious decree that using nuclear weapons is haram. His explicit stance is the Nezam’s strategy and in actualizing this policy we must not provide any excuses. Our officials should assure the IAEA that Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Our experience proves that interaction works. Nuclear activities did not stop during my presidency. The Arak Heavy Water project started during my presidency. In the last year of my tenure, Iranian researchers managed to develop the final plan for heavy water production. Their project was even verified by a Russian consultancy company. Interestingly, the documents on our cooperation with Russians later helped rejection of the West’s claims that Iran was clandestinely producing heavy water. During a visit by an Iranian official to Moscow, even Putin made the same charges against Iran. The Iranian official had the upper hand, though, and told the then Russian president that a Russian company had verified the quality of Iran’s production. I personally issued a 25 million dollar check for the project to begin.

The centrifuges started their pilot phase in those years. To equip the Esfahan nuclear site, we first signed contracts which the Chinese. They had a 40% physical progress. But they made a deal with the Americans and stopped cooperation. But we were able to complete the project after they left.

So all the projects you are seeing now were initiated long ago. The agreement for using Russian nuclear experts at the Bushehr nuclear power plant was signed during my visit to Russia. Of course, political issues have made progress snail-paced. The laser project also started in those years. Of course the present government has appropriated all the achievements for itself, while Western countries have intensified pressures. We never faced any sanctions or a crisis because of our nuclear activities. Their concerns were always responded to by [former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Reza] Amrollahi. We can still act that way.

S. Kharrazi: I think the rabble-rousing rhetoric of Iranian officials is the problem.

AHR: I think PR on the nuclear program started from Mr. Khatami’s administration based on political miscalculations. But we worked in a fashion that kept the media reserved. In many of our visits to nuclear facilities, we took with us no journalists and did not allow any news to be published.

IRD: In the present administration, on the one hand they want to continue the nuclear course forcefully and on the other hand they create a lot of ballyhoo that causes problems for the nuclear activity, such as the denial of the Holocaust. These chaotic behaviors send back signals to the West.

AHR: Our stance on Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestine-Israel conflict has not changed since the Revolution. Iran’s role in the formation of Hezbollah and its contributions are nothing to hide. Iran has also never concealed its animosity toward Israel. With efficient diplomacy, we can show the limits to our enemies or rivals. This of course depends on your way of handling the affairs. When the foreign ministry is disemboweled of experts and diplomats’ authority is restricted, motivations are lost.

SK: We have had harder times after the Revolution. The Middle East peace process caused a fierce battle between Iran and the US. After the Madrid Talks and the Oslo Accords, Iran was seriously cornered. But I remember how your comments turned around the situation and we weathered the crisis. What we are witnessing now are slogans with no basis but with a great cost for the country and for the people. Unfortunately, now we lack an expert diplomatic vision.

AHR: Yes. As you said, we survived truly hard times through active, wise diplomacy. We never submitted to the West’s –particularly the US’- demands at that time. Our cooperation with Chinese was based on mutual interests. Now they are taking advantage of us like never before and they have created a lucrative market for themselves in Iran. Anyway, if there was a will for unemotional, rational diplomacy, we could establish good relations with the rest of the world in a way that serves our national interests.

IRD: Regional uprisings in a quest for democracy and Islam are now the concern of many. But there are different opinions about the roots of these protests. Some believe Europe and the US are manipulating the developments in their own favor. How do you envisage the future of the region?

AHR: I believe these movements are good in essence and are rooted in the vigilance and consciousness of the people. The cause is clear: this is the age of information explosion, and it is easy to find out the realities. We have the internet and satellite channels, and literacy has increased. Iran is not the only country whose literacy rates have increased. This is a basic cause of increasing consciousness in the region and it’s becoming more powerful. Citizens in countries where the movements have emerged are now quite aware how they were humiliated and could not sense the scent of freedom.

The Islamic Republic has been ahead of the regional countries. Our people’s level of consciousness was always above the regional average. We were the first ones to have a constitutional monarchy and the first country to have a popular revolution that handed power to the people at a low cost. Defeating the Pahlavi regime, that had supporters in the Eastern and Western bloc and among the reactionary forces of the region, was more difficult. But the people’s massive turnout solved the problem. Of course, a correct Islamic ideology and the leadership of Emam [Khomeini]-- which was unique in the Iranian history-- were also effective. He was a smart, brave and experienced religious leader who traced the historical developments of Iran, the region and the world since the Constitutional Revolution.

I see the regional movements in essence fortunate and fruitful. People’s rule and democracy will be established in the region despite the ups and downs. Undoubtedly problems will emerge. In some countries, people have been accustomed to a dictatorship for decades, and now facing different preferences for ruling their countries will cause problems. We had the same problems in the early years of the Revolution. If it weren’t for Emam [Khomeini’s] determination, the religious revolutionary forces and the majority’s support, we would have faced more chaos. Iran fortunately got through this phase successfully. You saw how the Afghans defeated the Soviet army but could not cope with the post-victory situation and are still occupied with great problems. Or you see how the Americans toppled Saddam and gift-wrapped Iraq for its citizens, but tension between domestic groups still exists. So I think citizens’ uprisings against the dictatorships in their countries will pass this tough phase, but with different qualities. Democracy will come at the end of the day and people will live independent lives. Most of these countries have the potential for a decent standard of living.

SK: Regional movements have always spearheaded their battle against domestic tyranny and foreign imperialism. However, the focus is more on domestic dictatorship these days. How do you assess this shift? On the other hand, some Iranian observers following the recent developments in the Middle East believe the US administration is trying to develop a new model for co-existence with regional states which guarantees people’s participation. Turkey is a good example. It is a democratic country ruled by Islamists, and in the meantime is on good terms with the US. This model can be implemented in Egypt, Jordan and other countries. Even the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocated jihad, has now moved towards moderation. There are even no vocal protests against the Camp David Treaty.

AHR: People are attacking imperialism less because imperialist forces have stepped back. Meanwhile, citizens support interaction while rejecting foreign dominance. Also, the priority for them at the current moment is toppling the ruling tyrant. See that in Egypt, although Mubarak has handed over power, his army is still powerful. The same is true in Tunisia. Iranians also had the same mentality during the Revolution. They defied the rule of foreigners, but even Emam [Khomeini] tried to assure Western countries during his exile in Paris. Revolutionaries inside the country made similar remarks. We have to see what happens after full victory, when a new constitution is adopted and parliamentary elections are held.

Turkey also had its bad days. A few years ago, they were struggling with soaring inflation. But a democratic Islamist party came to power which was tolerant and far from inflexible or a dictatorship. They gave a chance to the Kurds, who now occupy some 35 seats in the parliament. The opposition parties are also active. Turkey took perfect advantage of the regional situation during the recent years. The Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet Union’s dissolution were great opportunities for them. They are also utilizing the current circumstances. It takes time for other regional countries to acquire the maturity Turkey now possesses.

IRD: Fourteen years have passed since your presidency. During your term, dialogue, détente and interaction, especially with neighboring countries, were the key diplomatic principles. If you were the Iranian president today, considering all the changes that have taken place during these years, would you follow the same policies? What would be the likely changes?