Zarif’s Facebook Diplomacy
Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s new Minister of Foreign Affairs, is a regular Facebook user, with a lively page that he updates regularly. He is one a very small handful of Iranian officials present on Facebook, and maintains his activity despite the rather odd twist of the site being officially blocked by Iran's government censors. Zarif's page, in recent weeks, has exploded in popularity, reaching nearly 95,000 likes. The virtual debate that he held today on Syria has created unprecedented buzz amongst Iranians online. He first posted a short piece with six questions about Syria, simultaneously posting in Persian and English. After receiving an impressive degree of feedback on the two posts, he wrote another explanation, responding to some of the opposing or critical comments left for him. What follows is an overview of the some 1,100 comments left on the Minister's post before 11 am Tehran time today.
What Zarif Said
In his original post, Zarif posed seven questions, beginning with one he said he has pondered for years: “Is war a useful instrument to advance foreign policy or humanitarian responsibilities in the 20th and 21st centuries?” To this end he asks several questions and suggests that it is more likely that Bashar Assad's opponents are the ones who used chemical weapons on civilians, and criticizes the West for its unwillingness to condemn the Sardasht and Halabja attacks, where Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and sarin in attacks on Iranian soil and in norther Kurdistan, respectively, killing thousands of civilians.
Zarif stressed that negotiations as the solution to the problem, arguing that the use of military force is against international laws and nearly always fails a tool in achieving foreign policy or humanitarian objectives. In comments, he said that in the past century, nearly 85 percent of countries who have initiated wars were totally annihilated or at least failed to achieve their objectives.
In his second post, defending his earlier statements, he accused some of obstructing a constructive, expert political debate through unhelpful rhetoric and and posed two additional questions: if we accept the use of force (regardless of excuses and their justifications), have we not enabled the powerful to use it whenever their interests warrant it, to kill and destroy people, to destroy their own economic resources and to fall into a trap that leads to endless terror and violence? Do you know of even one case where the powerful have accepted the heavy costs of a war for public interest or for safeguarding human rights?”
The Reactions
Zarif's questions and comments provoked the widespread reaction of Iranians on Facebook, with many Iranian journalists and activists participating in the virtual dialogue. Zarif spent the better part of his Friday morning involved in the debate, which involved journalists and activists engaging in two-person debates and heatedly speaking for and against various viewpoints. Several themes ran through the discussions:
1. Special praise of the Foreign Minister: Some users praised Zarif for engaging in direct dialogue with citizens, for his open presence on Facebook, his tolerance in hearing opposing, and at times insulting, opinions, and having a peaceful attitude. They also criticized the Islamic Republic’s blocking of Facebook, and jokingly asked him where he got the software to evade the Internet blocking.
2. The Failure of Ahmadinejad’s approach: Many asked the Rouhani government, especially in the foreign policy area, to avoid Ahmadinejad’s defiant stances. They said that Zarif’s list of questions reminded them of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s raising questions, and cautioned the new Foreign Minister, “For eight years, every question was answered with another question. Please don’t do that anymore.” Many also criticized Zarif's silence on the costs of Iran's support for Syria: “You don’t talk about the Islamic Republic’s taking the people’s money to buy arms and send to Syria for Bashar Asad to fire at unarmed people, and instead, you keep repeating the repetitive statements of the previous government.” Some also criticized Zarif as an experienced diplomat for his abstract and idealistic manner of discussion, and asked him why he would support one side of the dispute prior to release of UN investigations about the event.
3. Condemning Iran’s foreign policy: Nearly all those participating in the debate asked Zarif to explain Iran's role in the development of the current situation in Syria. They asked why, if Iran’s political position is so moral and legal, does Iran stay silence about Assad's crimes? Some commentators also criticized Iran for tying its fate with that of a dictator. “If you were fair and would also condemn Assad’s crimes, your words could be acceptable. But lives of human beings and the fatality statistics are just numbers for you that would provide for regional interests! It appears you have no doubt that maintaining Syria is necessary for safeguarding the [Iranian] regime, but why would an Islamic regime see its survival in supporting criminals, and why would it create enemies for itself?!” asks one user.
Some also took issue with the presence of Revolutionary Guards in Syria, and called Zarif on the hypocrisy of criticizing Western intervention as intervention, when Iran has its own presence on the ground. “You don’t see anything wrong in the interference of the Islamic Republic in Syria through utilizing the IRGC and paying more than $17 billion to the murderer Bashar Assad in less than two years, while the Iranian people are hungry! But it’s a very bad thing if others interfere in Syria!” says another user. There were suggestions as well: “Tell the guys not to work so hard and get on a plane and return from the Syrian front. Rest assured that Iran’s words will be a lot more credible then, and American misbehavior will also be better demonstrated. We are the ones providing fuel to this war by dispatching resources and forces to them, and then we speak of the risks of the US entrance into the region and destabilization? Which one should we believe?!” The users have also asked Mr. Zarif that if such developments had taken place in a country such as Bahrain, whether Iran would assume the same position.
4. Joining Zarif in criticizing the West for silence under similar circumstances, some users, including those living in Iran’s border regions, spoke of the problems stemming from the chemical warfare used in these regions and criticized Western countries for their silence in the face of those catastrophes. At the same time, they have not sanctioned Zarif’s comparison, saying that Western countries should not necessarily be blamed for keeping silent yesterday and assuming a position today, but that the attitude change that has happened should be encouraged and promoted.
5. Requesting alternative solutions: Most users asked Zarif what solutions Iran proposed for the situation. It appears that Zarif’s suggestion of negotiations as a tool for convincing Assad and solving the Syria crisis were not convincing to many. According to one user, “Haven’t all these negotiations and discussions by different countries been sufficient? Now we have to wait for several more years? How many more deformed children with strange illnesses need to be born in that region and how many thousands more will need to suffer and what more scenes should humanity tolerate because of the use of chemical warfare and killer bombs?”
6. Cooperating with the West in an attack on Syria: Many commentators argued that Assad refuses to negotiate and as such there is no option other than use of force. The interesting point is that even opponents of the West have said in this area that considering the nature of Assad’s regime, in order to end the endless war, they agree to at least a limited war. One of the users wrote, “Can this be solved with negotiations, too? Bashar Assad has been killing the Syrian people with Iran’s money and arms for the past 2-3 years. Isn’t this war? Isn’t this bad?!” Some users expressed frustration with the negative vote of Britain's House of Commons about the country’s military intervention in Syria, and said that their only hope is in the US now. One of the examples the users offered in support of an attack on Syria is the West’s interference in the Bosnian war. Some also referred to Russia’s positions explaining that Russia does not have any humanitarian positions with which Iran can join, and that in fact Iran has fallen into the trap of Russia, who has multiple economic and security objectives in this matter.
7. Expressing concern for Rouhani’s government: A number of Iranians expressed concern with the coincidence of this spike in regional tensions with the beginning of Hassan Rouhani’s government, and demanded new policies that would help Iran emerge unscathed during this critical time. One user warned Zarif, “Our unilateral support of Bashar Assad may lead to a permanent wound in Syrian people.” Some also warned Zarif against lending his distinguished background to the Iranian government’s present policies, and asked him to heed his reputation as a progressive and a reformist. Some said rather than playing the role of an intermediary for saving a dictator, Zarif should address Iran’s issues and problems and refrain from extending the confrontation with the West and try to negotiate with Iran’s Supreme Leader to change Iran’s policies in this area. A number reminded Zarif that the main issue for Iran right now is sanctions and the failing economy, and reminded him that they voted for change in government policies. Most users also expressed concern about the possibility of Iran’s getting involved in a new war.
8. Condemnation of Iran’s domestic policies: Using subtle arguments condemning military attack, some Iranians used the occasion to criticize the domestic policies of the Iranian government, asking Zarif, "If it is not possible to pursue humanitarian and political objectives through military means, how would it then be possible to deliver people to heaven by using bayonets?" And, addressing Zarif’s humanitarian position, they wrote, “In a country where the people’s human rights are being violated every day and every second, shouldn’t the leaders of the country be viewed with skepticism?”
9. Expression of outright disgust for Bashar al-Assad: A common point in the responses was their outright disgust for Bashar Assad. Most said that if Iran is truly seeking a non-military resolution, then it ought to include a solution to end the dictator’s reign, and also to refrain from using Iranian financial sources for its support. Many encouraged Zarif to think about ways to make Assad to step down. One commentator said: "107,000 people were killed so that Bashar Assad would stay in power. What I want to know is, is it so important for Bashar to stay?" One of the users also suggested: "To Keep Syria and Iran undivided, in a bold and daring negotiation with the Americans, trade Bashar Assad with them! To prevent war, bring Bashar to Iran promptly before it’s too late, or send him to Russia."
10. Rehashing the Iran-Iraq War: The events of the Iran-Iraq War also emerged as a key issue in the debate. Many Iranians highlighted the way Iran handled that war, the rejection of initial mediations, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s rhetoric, noting, "Up until yesterday, your leaders considered war to be a blessing, and said that even if the war with Iraq dragged on for twenty years, we would keep up the fighting.” Some users defended Iran’s military intervention and demanded that Iran enter the probable war, but overall, defenders of Iran’s foreign policy were in absolute minority.
This report was compiled until 1:00 p.m. Tehran time, and the number of comments on Mr. Zarif’s post has now reached 2, 982. Iranians, it would appear, care deeply about their country's role in Syria's crisis, and regardless of his policy spin, Foreign Minister Zarif has offered them an unprecedented space to air those views.