Adequate Friends, Decent Rivals, Wise Enemies
IRD: Mr. Kharrazi, you have had years of diplomatic experience a foreign ministry veteran. From your point of view, how important is consistency in diplomacy? And has our diplomatic apparatus shown consistency?
SK: Naturally, concentration in foreign policy and realization of objectives is senseless without existence of a consistent bureaucratic structure which precludes parallel moves and assigns responsibility to diplomacy-savvy officials.
Apparently, we face three types of countries in the international community: friends, enemies and rivals; but even our friends have different priorities and engage in occasional rivalries with us to advance their national interests. Fragmented decision-making loci can severely hurt our national interests. Of course Iran is not the only country facing this problem. Take US for example: Secretary of State, CIA, Pentagon and the National Security Council are moving in parallel diplomatic tracks. This holds true even for countries such as Britain and France.
As a general rule, I think this is the case in countries where foreign policy is ideological to some extent, where diplomacy is supposed to convey a message and when a country aspires to have strong cultural, political and ideological presence in the global community.
Iran’s story is the same. The Iranian National Security Council is now an executive power. This is not of course something ushered in by Ahmadinejad. Since the ceasefire negotiations between Iran and Iraq [in the late 1980s] and later, in the nuclear talks with West, the Council has obtained an independent identity. I’m not of course denying its invaluable service, but dual approaches and redundant measures have always existed. Iranian presidents in particular have always demanded prompt action, but diplomacy is a place to practice patience and test the waters before taking the next step. The accumulation of experience in the diplomatic apparatus has always functioned as a barrier against realization of hasty decisions. In the diplomatic body, political phenomena are defined as projects which cannot transgress a certain procedure. The occasional tensions between head of the government (either Mir Hossein Musavi, Hashemi Rafsanjani or Khatami) have always existed. Such arguments have been more conspicuous in Ahmadinejad’s administration for specific reasons though.
IRD: Is that why Ahmadinejad appointed his so-called ‘special representatives’?
SK: Appointing special representatives is not something new. We have had special envoys for Afghanistan and Caspian affairs before. The problem is that Ahmadinejad appointed too many representatives and assigned them with executive power which constitutes parallel diplomacy. Unlike their predecessors, these representatives are independent from the foreign ministry. Of course with the Leadership’s [Ayatollah Khamenei] intervention the controversy over the appointments came to an end. But as it seems, the disagreement between Ahmadinejad and foreign minister [Manouchehr Mottaki] is serious.
The president feels that foreign ministry is either against his convictions or shows lethargy in following the orders. Ahmadinejad has always shown haste in his decisions. He likes to cut through the structures, but I’m not sure if that serves our national interests well. The point is, foreign ministry is pregnant with experience. Unfortunately their valuable diplomatic capital is not appreciated as it ought to. All the country’s achievements to date are the result of collective efforts of the ministry’s diplomatic experts. And experience is not something you can achieve with a directive.
IRD: Mr. Kharrazi. It seems that diplomacy, as other fields of management during the post-Revolution years, has found the correct direction only through trial and error and that’s the cause of its structural defects.
SK: I beg to disagree. Up until the present administration, foreign diplomacy used to be a disciplined field. Late Emam Khomeini’s strategic visions in diplomacy will never age. Same is for the conceptual discipline of the Supreme Leadership [Ayatollah Khamenei] who has designated dignity, wisdom and expediency as our diplomatic principles and sharply traces diplomatic developments. Add to this Hashemi Rafsanjani’s and Khatami’s experience. So I think trial and error rarely was the favorite approach in our diplomatic profile. Compared with domains such as economy and culture, trial and error has been much less.
Since the very first day [of the Revolution], we had clear diplomatic goals, despite the fact that there were perhaps different approaches or foreign interventions that troubled us. But the fact is, no more is there an unreal idealism or global aspirations. We are not walking on the clouds and our feet are now on the ground. We are living in a world where there aren’t many friends and neither are there decent rivals or wise enemies. So we should adapt our ideal point of view to the realities of the world we are living in. It’s an interminable task.
IRD: Haven’t we also made enemies?
SK: That is true. Unrefined remarks have made some other countries hostile towards Iran. Let me tell you a story: when Mohammad Ali Raja’ei was elected as Iran’s president [in 1981], the then president of France, Mr. [Francois] Mitterrand sent him a letter of congratulation. Mr. Raja’ei responded with a harsh letter in which he had slammed superpowers and France. Emam Khomeini summoned the Iranian president and censured him for responding the French president’s diplomatic etiquette in that fashion. Mr. Raja’ei’s excuse was that he had acted based on the revolutionary doctrines he had learnt from Emam [Khomeini]. Emam Khomeini response was that he was only a cleric and the president’s behavior should be diplomatic and measured. Interestingly, I heard this story from the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Khamenei] in a private meeting during the time I was Iran’s ambassador to France.
Diplomacy needs politesse; otherwise the Iranian citizens have to pay for the harsh words uttered. The truth is that the proactive or ‘offensive’ strategy adopted by the ninth and tenth administrations [of Ahmadinejad] is full of paradoxes and it’s hard to be optimistic about its achievements. The Holocaust controversy was truly objectionable. A part of history which was never a real concern of Iran and the Muslim World, something about the Europeans’ crimes against the Jews, provoked tension and led to crisis. Six million or six, Jews’ murder was a crime in nature. We just gave Israel and international Zionist pressure groups the best excuses to pressurize Iran.
IRD: How is it that in many international encounters we resist a demand, pay the price and later on decide to give in. A recent case was the nuclear fuel swap. Is this because of the parallel moves?
SK: Unfortunately our diplomatic strategy suffers from chaos, the fruit of abstract diplomatic understanding.. Diplomacy is no place for haste, we need measured steps. Otherwise, tension will impose itself on our foreign relations and subsequently leads to interruption of the development process in Iran.
IRD: Three Iranian diplomats have defected to Norway within the recent months. Did you know them in person? Why do such incidents happen for Iran?
SK: I had no acquaintance with them, but I have to say that is no new story and it’s not important either. It happens to many other countries, not only Iran; like the Saudi Arabian diplomat who is seeking asylum in the United States. I think they are taking unfair advantage of the situation for personal interests. These diplomats were no high-ranking officials. However, the foreign ministry should be more watchful to stop further similar incidents.
IRD: Why don’t we see a same thing happen in other countries?
SK: The chain of defections was rooted in the opportunistic behavior and financial interests of these diplomats. They will regret their decision one day. West is not appealing to patriots. Of course, neglecting the role of insider experts and dismissive attitudes can also bear such fruits.
IRD: The official day of Dialogue Among Civilizations was discarded from Iranian calendars [by the decision of Council of Public Culture]. Is Dialogue Among Civilizations a forgotten cause?
SK: No. It’s still relevant to reality of today’s world. Dialogue Among Civilizations was embraced by the international community and the United Nations and it was a feather in Iran’s cap. Following the revolutionary doctrines of Emam [Khomeini] and the Islamic Republic, the Iranian nation proposed an idea which can be a solution to the rampant violence of the world today. [Samuel] Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ promoted violence and return to colonial era conflicts. But Dialogue Among Civilizations, coming from the heart of an Islamic society and supported by the Iranian Leadership and Nezam, was welcomed by the world. Unfortunately, inside Iran it was not taken seriously, revealing a bitter truth that we sacrifice national icons for our partisan interests.
The Supreme Leader supported Dialogue Among Civilizations and of course wanted it to be a platform to regain the rights of the underprivileged and Third World nations. A few years ago, some top international dignitaries [including former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan] visited Iran for a conference on Dialogue Among Civilizations. Some were even received by the Supreme Leader and had a chance to discuss the idea of dialogue among civilizations with him. But unfortunately, the current government has no interest in the idea, so it decides to abolish it in its entirety. I’m afraid of a day when the National Day of the Islamic Republic and Sacred Defense Week will be cut from the calendar. Could Mosaddegh and nationalization of the oil industry be obliterated from the Iranian history? National icons should not be sacrificed for personal matters.
There was a time when both opponents and proponents of Iran’s ancient history suffered an abstract attitude. The same abstract views have surfaced after thirty years. Closing eyes on the Islamic period of the Iranian history and dogmatic glorification of Iran’s ancient history is an abstract approach. With such black and white attitudes, we should worry for our historical and civilizational heritage. The world has moved from Dialogue Among Civilizations towards Alliance of Civilizations but we still don’t take it serious.
They [Ahmadinejad] talk of global management while they lack any clear model or theory to materialize it. Of course, these are personal defects and we should not assign them to the whole political system. I believe Iranian wisdom can weather the crisis through moderation and maintain our national interests.
IRD: What is the motive that leads to propagation of concepts such as Cyrus the Great’s Human Rights’ Charter?
SK: Well I can’t judge their motives. But some observers believe that behind such ideas and actions (such as bringing to Iran the Cyrus Cylinder of human rights), Ahmadinejad and his team want to regain credit among certain social strata. But people easily notice the existing paradoxes. I believe that Cyrus, his cylinder and Iran’s ancient history are the pride of our nation. I hope the only motive behind such flamboyance is revival of Iran’s history and civilization.
IRD: Moving back to Dialogue Among Civilizations, this is the question always occupying my mind: A couple of years after Mr. Khatami proposed Dialogue Among Civilizations, we had 9/11, US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and radical powers rose to power in many parts of the world. The Tea Party Movement is perhaps a relic of those days. Neo-cons were in power in Washington, Tony Blair had allied with George W. Bush and Al-Qaeda was roaming in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In Israel, Ariel Sharon held the power. Looking with a hint of fairness, Huntington’s hypothesis has actually materialized and Dialogue Among Civilizations seems to be pushed aside. Wasn’t the idea too much idealistic? Huntington’s theory looks more down-to-earth.
SK: Huntington’s theory of Clash of Civilizations was based on the realities of the post-colonial era. It was influenced by Bernard Lewis’ studies, and propagated by Michael Ledeen and his fellow radical partners in the US. Their efforts can be only thwarted through dialogue. The challenges between identities, between the developed and developing worlds can be negotiated only through a theory like Dialogue Among Civilizations. Huntington’s theory is descriptive, while Khatami’s is prescriptive, searching for a solution to tackle global crises. Dialogue Among Civilizations rejects clash between cultures and religions and radicalism. It advocates interaction and talk.
If we had learnt a lesson from history, and if we had a clear plan, we should try to reform the international legal structure through a dialogue-based procedure. If Iran aspires to be an actor at the global level, it should have its own initiatives. Typical diplomatic interactions are too inadequate to transform global relations. We have our own mission, our own paradigm, in the global arena and we believe in the rationale embedded in the theory of Dialogue Among Civilizations. The rationale of dialogue is more difficult to adopt compared with the rationale of war and conflict. Dialogue is complicated, war is much easier.