When Ideology Contaminates Politics
Tying the future of EU relations with Iran to observance of democratic values is just another mistake. By Javad Mahzadeh
20th century witnessed the most horrifying crimes of humankind. The rise of ideologies like fascism and Nazism was enough to name this century the darkest age of modernity. Directors, writers and intellectuals had no hesitation to show all the physical and psychological trauma of two world wars and demonstrate the huge gap between the actual life of modern human and their ideals.
Only after the collapse of communist bloc the world found a chance to breathe with relief. Now it could evaluate itself, find a way not to repeat the scandalous past and bask in a sweet oblivion. This however did not mean refusing to reexamine the past. What was born after was all self-narration and self-criticism; all in order to forget the sordid face of politics and ’de-redden’ the human life.
Globalization of voices calling for peace and disclosure of tragedies around the world was the fruit of mass media efforts. Some states may have turned their face away from media, but nations have become closer sure enough. Media capture tyrants and totalitarian regimes. With the information explosion no state can deny its nation and no nation is incapable of forcing the state to yield to its demands, though for short-term. A feature of this age is that even authoritarian regimes and their nations hold dialogue.
It is so strange to see European statesmen behaving like intellectuals and writers and stipulating observance of ethical principles as the condition to continue relations with other countries. Seeing Europe tying its relations with an antagonistic country to ideals and values, and not international interests, is just as strange as watching a male giving birth to a baby.
Politics, especially when it comes to foreign diplomacy, has its own framework and logic. It moves on as a fast-flowing river and incorporates everything it sees on its way. Ideology and idealism have no stature in European diplomatic tradition. This is not only what the politicians say but also what European intellectuals -the moral consciences of their nations- believe.
According to recent news, foreign ministers of European Union will discuss the future of Iran-EU relations and Iran’s post-election developments in their 5th of September meeting in Stockholm. It is said that due to the post-election events and Iran’s non-commitment to democratic principles, EU intends to regulate its relations with Iran based on Iran’s respect to democratic values and freedom.
Nothing substantiates such a policy in today’s world. Or we could better say, there is no problem with the world disregarding such values since foreign diplomacy never submits to values and principles. Egypt, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Venezuela and even military groups such as Taliban and Hamas being on the negotiations’ agenda means that all possible options should be used in order to advance diplomacy. When human rights, democracy and civil freedom manifestos have not become global, speaking of such an ideological diplomacy looks useless.
Democracy and human rights are still regarded as American values in some parts of the world. In an era when even such human values are not regarded self-evident and have not been integrated with many cultures and policies, they can not be set as diplomatic conditions.
Commitment to human rights and liberal democratic standards has always been a hot topic for discussion among Muslim intellectuals and it still full of seemingly insoluble contradictions. In such a situation, diplomacy –known to be flexible and out of the reach of principles and inflexible schools of thought- is not expected to behave against its nature, i.e. become ideological and supply states with fewer options to maneuver.
Although European and American citizens have urged their government to refuse recognizing Ahmadinejad’s administration after watching the uprising and crackdown in Iran, such issues are a concern of people or intellectuals and they do not help contemporary politicians to solve any of their problems –which are only worked out with diplomacy.
As ideological foreign policies (religious, Marxist, racial etc.) can not survive and ideologist leaders have no way other than submitting to interactions out of the ideological framework, uniting for democratic values can not restrict diplomatic options. Adopting such policies can fuel unilateralism and confrontation and impede the promotion of democracy. Ironically, one feature of democracy is avoiding deterministic and absolute views.
Perhaps when democratic values become global we can admit the condition set by the European Union. But at an age when global and regional peace needs dialogue between Syrians and Israelis, North Americans and Latin Americans, Afghans and Taliban, North Koreans and South Koreans… setting such immature conditions for negotiations with a Middle Eastern country does not appear wise and diplomatic. Those are the words of citizens and intellectuals and if they enter the realm of politics, they may cause danger. Fundamentalism, factionalism, unilateralism, aggression and reactions in response to isolation and underdevelopment are not only found in analyses. Such phenomena already exist in some regions of the world due to erroneous measures of world powers and they are quite prone to aggravation.
Only after the collapse of communist bloc the world found a chance to breathe with relief. Now it could evaluate itself, find a way not to repeat the scandalous past and bask in a sweet oblivion. This however did not mean refusing to reexamine the past. What was born after was all self-narration and self-criticism; all in order to forget the sordid face of politics and ’de-redden’ the human life.
Globalization of voices calling for peace and disclosure of tragedies around the world was the fruit of mass media efforts. Some states may have turned their face away from media, but nations have become closer sure enough. Media capture tyrants and totalitarian regimes. With the information explosion no state can deny its nation and no nation is incapable of forcing the state to yield to its demands, though for short-term. A feature of this age is that even authoritarian regimes and their nations hold dialogue.
It is so strange to see European statesmen behaving like intellectuals and writers and stipulating observance of ethical principles as the condition to continue relations with other countries. Seeing Europe tying its relations with an antagonistic country to ideals and values, and not international interests, is just as strange as watching a male giving birth to a baby.
Politics, especially when it comes to foreign diplomacy, has its own framework and logic. It moves on as a fast-flowing river and incorporates everything it sees on its way. Ideology and idealism have no stature in European diplomatic tradition. This is not only what the politicians say but also what European intellectuals -the moral consciences of their nations- believe.
According to recent news, foreign ministers of European Union will discuss the future of Iran-EU relations and Iran’s post-election developments in their 5th of September meeting in Stockholm. It is said that due to the post-election events and Iran’s non-commitment to democratic principles, EU intends to regulate its relations with Iran based on Iran’s respect to democratic values and freedom.
Nothing substantiates such a policy in today’s world. Or we could better say, there is no problem with the world disregarding such values since foreign diplomacy never submits to values and principles. Egypt, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Venezuela and even military groups such as Taliban and Hamas being on the negotiations’ agenda means that all possible options should be used in order to advance diplomacy. When human rights, democracy and civil freedom manifestos have not become global, speaking of such an ideological diplomacy looks useless.
Democracy and human rights are still regarded as American values in some parts of the world. In an era when even such human values are not regarded self-evident and have not been integrated with many cultures and policies, they can not be set as diplomatic conditions.
Commitment to human rights and liberal democratic standards has always been a hot topic for discussion among Muslim intellectuals and it still full of seemingly insoluble contradictions. In such a situation, diplomacy –known to be flexible and out of the reach of principles and inflexible schools of thought- is not expected to behave against its nature, i.e. become ideological and supply states with fewer options to maneuver.
Although European and American citizens have urged their government to refuse recognizing Ahmadinejad’s administration after watching the uprising and crackdown in Iran, such issues are a concern of people or intellectuals and they do not help contemporary politicians to solve any of their problems –which are only worked out with diplomacy.
As ideological foreign policies (religious, Marxist, racial etc.) can not survive and ideologist leaders have no way other than submitting to interactions out of the ideological framework, uniting for democratic values can not restrict diplomatic options. Adopting such policies can fuel unilateralism and confrontation and impede the promotion of democracy. Ironically, one feature of democracy is avoiding deterministic and absolute views.
Perhaps when democratic values become global we can admit the condition set by the European Union. But at an age when global and regional peace needs dialogue between Syrians and Israelis, North Americans and Latin Americans, Afghans and Taliban, North Koreans and South Koreans… setting such immature conditions for negotiations with a Middle Eastern country does not appear wise and diplomatic. Those are the words of citizens and intellectuals and if they enter the realm of politics, they may cause danger. Fundamentalism, factionalism, unilateralism, aggression and reactions in response to isolation and underdevelopment are not only found in analyses. Such phenomena already exist in some regions of the world due to erroneous measures of world powers and they are quite prone to aggravation.