On the Importance of Saint Lucia
What does Ahmadinejad exactly mean when he talks of ’strategic depth’? By Morteza Kazemian
Saint Lucia, Paraguay, Nepal, Mauritania, Liberia and Jamaica. These were the countries shown by Iranian state-run TV during Ahmadinejad’s speech in the United Nations. Apparently the National TV never wanted to show the half-vacant hall of UN General Assembly during Ahmadinejad’s speech, and it never said why developed (France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Britain, the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark etc.) or developing countries had already left or were leaving their seats during Ahmadinejad’s address.
Political scientists, particularly international affairs experts, say that ’foreign diplomacy’ is the strategy or set of planned measures applied by decision-makers of a country to achieve ’national interests-based goals’ in interaction with other countries or international phenomena. From a slightly different point of view, some analysts believe that foreign diplomacy revolves around two axes: national interests and tools to achieve them.
Also, according to political scientists, decision-making is a process of selecting from different options available in a specific situation. A decision is usually taken and actualized considering profits and losses. Additionally, a decision is the resultant of different viewpoints in a given situation. Meanwhile, all diplomatic decisions are made on the basis of a certain domestic configuration. This configuration comprises elements such as values, national identity and prestige, political culture, historical traditions, structural factors (area, the level of industrialization, form of the government etc.) and always-important political issues. The role of functionaries and statesmen, i.e. the ’human agents’, is of course undeniable.
From this point of departure, we can have a more informed analysis of what is happening in Iran’s foreign diplomacy under Ahmadinejad’s rule.
Does our foreign diplomacy function within a rational or ideological framework in its decision-making and strategy-design processes? Is our foreign diplomacy the outcome of the collective viewpoints of experts and driven from discussions and debates by all political groups inside Iran or it just represents the beliefs of a single school of thought? Do our behavior and opinions in the international scene defuse tensions with other countries (especially major world powers) or conversely, add to the friction?
Ahmadinejad can sit in front of key global media and smirk, dodge questions, answer a question with another question. He can reply collectedly, talk about global issues with his trademark confidence, criticize this and that country and picture Iran’s realities upside-down. But what is the consequence of all these maneuvers for Tehran’s relations with the developed world? Are Iran’s ’national interests’ based on a clear strategy and satisfied with our current diplomatic approach? Ahmadinejad attends Barack Obama’s speech without fearing any protests inside the country by pseudo-revolutionaries, but Obama responds by leaving the session during Ahmadinejad’s speech. How is ’dignity’ Ahmadinejad and his coterie talk about met and what is its definition?
The selective footages state-run TV showed of UN assembly during Ahmadinejad’s speech full of shots of Paraguay, Nepal, Mauritanian, Liberia and Jamaica delegations tried to picture a warm reception. But we are in the information age and the number of citizens that can find out the real situation of UN General Assembly during Ahmadinejad’s speech foils any efforts to manipulate the reality.
Regardless of this fact (how the public opinion views Ahmadinejad’s foreign diplomacy), the ’reality’ of relations between Tehran and developed countries is not something to be distorted through media games and concoction. Ahmadinejad’s diplomatic measures will ultimately affect the life of Iranians and harm our national interests. This is not something to hide or deny.
The ’strategic depth’ Ahmadinejad frequently addressed in his July presidential campaign showed its true face in UN General Assembly. Our strategic depth is Saint Lucia; we have to use a magnifier to find this country in the Caribbean. Our strategic depth is Mauritania, Liberia and Nepal, countries with myriads of economic and social problems.
How do Ahmadinejad’s strategic depth, his strategies and behaviors serve our national interests? From a profit-loss viewpoint, are the strategies of Ahmadinejad and his team rational and realistic? Do they get us any closer to the ’national goals’? The answer seems to be clear.
Political scientists, particularly international affairs experts, say that ’foreign diplomacy’ is the strategy or set of planned measures applied by decision-makers of a country to achieve ’national interests-based goals’ in interaction with other countries or international phenomena. From a slightly different point of view, some analysts believe that foreign diplomacy revolves around two axes: national interests and tools to achieve them.
Also, according to political scientists, decision-making is a process of selecting from different options available in a specific situation. A decision is usually taken and actualized considering profits and losses. Additionally, a decision is the resultant of different viewpoints in a given situation. Meanwhile, all diplomatic decisions are made on the basis of a certain domestic configuration. This configuration comprises elements such as values, national identity and prestige, political culture, historical traditions, structural factors (area, the level of industrialization, form of the government etc.) and always-important political issues. The role of functionaries and statesmen, i.e. the ’human agents’, is of course undeniable.
From this point of departure, we can have a more informed analysis of what is happening in Iran’s foreign diplomacy under Ahmadinejad’s rule.
Does our foreign diplomacy function within a rational or ideological framework in its decision-making and strategy-design processes? Is our foreign diplomacy the outcome of the collective viewpoints of experts and driven from discussions and debates by all political groups inside Iran or it just represents the beliefs of a single school of thought? Do our behavior and opinions in the international scene defuse tensions with other countries (especially major world powers) or conversely, add to the friction?
Ahmadinejad can sit in front of key global media and smirk, dodge questions, answer a question with another question. He can reply collectedly, talk about global issues with his trademark confidence, criticize this and that country and picture Iran’s realities upside-down. But what is the consequence of all these maneuvers for Tehran’s relations with the developed world? Are Iran’s ’national interests’ based on a clear strategy and satisfied with our current diplomatic approach? Ahmadinejad attends Barack Obama’s speech without fearing any protests inside the country by pseudo-revolutionaries, but Obama responds by leaving the session during Ahmadinejad’s speech. How is ’dignity’ Ahmadinejad and his coterie talk about met and what is its definition?
The selective footages state-run TV showed of UN assembly during Ahmadinejad’s speech full of shots of Paraguay, Nepal, Mauritanian, Liberia and Jamaica delegations tried to picture a warm reception. But we are in the information age and the number of citizens that can find out the real situation of UN General Assembly during Ahmadinejad’s speech foils any efforts to manipulate the reality.
Regardless of this fact (how the public opinion views Ahmadinejad’s foreign diplomacy), the ’reality’ of relations between Tehran and developed countries is not something to be distorted through media games and concoction. Ahmadinejad’s diplomatic measures will ultimately affect the life of Iranians and harm our national interests. This is not something to hide or deny.
The ’strategic depth’ Ahmadinejad frequently addressed in his July presidential campaign showed its true face in UN General Assembly. Our strategic depth is Saint Lucia; we have to use a magnifier to find this country in the Caribbean. Our strategic depth is Mauritania, Liberia and Nepal, countries with myriads of economic and social problems.
How do Ahmadinejad’s strategic depth, his strategies and behaviors serve our national interests? From a profit-loss viewpoint, are the strategies of Ahmadinejad and his team rational and realistic? Do they get us any closer to the ’national goals’? The answer seems to be clear.