Post by Moses on Apr 30, 2005 2:22:07 GMT -5
Middle East
Apr 29, 2005
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD29Ak02.html
Democratic backlash
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
TEHRAN - The Bush administration may be openly contemplating giving economic incentives to Iran's ruling clergy in exchange for denuclearization, yet the US Congress is singing a different tune, that of regime change, as seen by a house committee's recent approval of a bill that for all practical purposes shuns any chance of US-Iran dialogue.
On April 13, the House Committee on International Relations overwhelmingly passed HR 282 titled "Iran Freedom Support Act". It calls for financial support of anti-government groups, as long as they meet some criteria, tightening the sanctions regime on Iran, and penalizing foreign companies doing business with Iran and/or investing in Iran. While it is unclear whether the US Senate will follow suit and adopt this bill when and if it is passed in the House of Representatives, it is nonetheless instructive to point out some of the salient aspects or consequences of this bill and to contextualize it in terms of overall US-Iran relations.
First, this bill sets aside any hesitations regarding interference in Iran's internal affairs and seeks to make "transition to democracy" the US government's central focus on Iran. Second, it broadens the purview of current sanctions on Iran by prohibiting sales to Iran of "advanced conventional weapons" in addition to "chemical, biological or nuclear weapons". Third, the bill authorizes the president to "provide financial and political assistance to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations and entities that support democracy" in Iran. And fourth, it calls for a complete halt of Iran's nuclear program and the "supply of nuclear fuel" to Iran.
Regarding the latter, it is noteworthy that the Bush administration of US President George W Bush, much like the Europeans, has tacitly consented to the recent Russia-Iran agreement for the return of "spent fuel" from the Bushehr power plant to Russia. Hence, if adopted into law, the above-mentioned bill would dictate a policy change on the part of the Bush administration and its atomic diplomacy toward Iran. Yet, such a change would collide with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime which, even in its proposed revised format, allows Iran's import of nuclear fuel for its reactor.
On the other hand, the Bush administration is currently engaged in a highly sensitive and delicate concert with Europe on Iran, which can be quickly derailed if Europe's "package approach" is undermined by a congressional intervention that makes dialogue and political and security cooperation with the current regime in Iran impossible, in the light of last November's Paris Agreement between Iran and the so-called European Three (EU-3 - Britain, Germany and France), which calls for precisely such a cooperation.
Of course, US history is replete with episodes of legislative interference in what is usually referred to as the executive branch, namely the foreign-policy turf, but what is so striking about HR 282 is that it appears on the surface to be completely in tune with the Bush administration's singular focus on Tehran's regime as a member of the "axis of evil", or to paraphrase President Bush in his latest State of the Union Address, the "world's primary state sponsor of terror".
Yet, as stated, increasingly, given the geopolitical realities and the mix of shared or parallel US-Iran interests in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East, the White House appears more and more willing to go multilateral vis-a-vis Iran when, in fact, HR 282 saddles US policy back on the unilateralist track almost by definition.
Not only that, the US government has pledged itself, since signing the Algiers Agreement with Iran in 1981, not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs, yet that appears to be not the least inhibitive of Congress's singular march to democratize Iran - even if it means collaborating with certain opposition groups, such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, deemed as "terrorist" both by the State Department and the EU (in their joint Paris Declaration of November 5, 2004).
There is no doubt the democratic process in Iran needs to be deepened and much remains to be done in all areas of freedom of speech, political pluralism, and the like. Yet it is far from clear that in the light of the United States' unhappy history in Iran, harking back to the 1953 coup and the subsequent quarter of a century of one-man dictatorship, such initiatives by US Congress will actually end up serving this objective.
Instead, it has the likely potential of causing a political backlash against the democratic forces in Iran struggling for a more open polity in a difficult regional milieu, by the mere fact that the US government via this bill has targeted these groups for alliance for a major regime change inside Iran.
At present, there does not appear to be any significant momentum toward regime change in Iran, and the best that can be realistically hoped for is incremental democratization, through a selective "rationalization" of the political and judicial process and the strengthening of Iranian civil society.
Unfortunately, HR 282, by calling on the US president to tap into the funds for the "greater Middle East" to implement the objectives of this bill, introduces yet another blow to the legitimacy of this project, recently adopted by the Group of Eight nations under the rubric of partnership for progress. In other words, this pending bill risks the entire edifice of Bush's Middle East policy, and not just his evolving Iran policy.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and "Iran's Foreign Policy Since 9/11", Brown's Journal of World Affairs, co-authored with former deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, No 2, 2003. He teaches political science at Tehran University.
Apr 29, 2005
www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD29Ak02.html
Democratic backlash
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
TEHRAN - The Bush administration may be openly contemplating giving economic incentives to Iran's ruling clergy in exchange for denuclearization, yet the US Congress is singing a different tune, that of regime change, as seen by a house committee's recent approval of a bill that for all practical purposes shuns any chance of US-Iran dialogue.
On April 13, the House Committee on International Relations overwhelmingly passed HR 282 titled "Iran Freedom Support Act". It calls for financial support of anti-government groups, as long as they meet some criteria, tightening the sanctions regime on Iran, and penalizing foreign companies doing business with Iran and/or investing in Iran. While it is unclear whether the US Senate will follow suit and adopt this bill when and if it is passed in the House of Representatives, it is nonetheless instructive to point out some of the salient aspects or consequences of this bill and to contextualize it in terms of overall US-Iran relations.
First, this bill sets aside any hesitations regarding interference in Iran's internal affairs and seeks to make "transition to democracy" the US government's central focus on Iran. Second, it broadens the purview of current sanctions on Iran by prohibiting sales to Iran of "advanced conventional weapons" in addition to "chemical, biological or nuclear weapons". Third, the bill authorizes the president to "provide financial and political assistance to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations and entities that support democracy" in Iran. And fourth, it calls for a complete halt of Iran's nuclear program and the "supply of nuclear fuel" to Iran.
Regarding the latter, it is noteworthy that the Bush administration of US President George W Bush, much like the Europeans, has tacitly consented to the recent Russia-Iran agreement for the return of "spent fuel" from the Bushehr power plant to Russia. Hence, if adopted into law, the above-mentioned bill would dictate a policy change on the part of the Bush administration and its atomic diplomacy toward Iran. Yet, such a change would collide with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime which, even in its proposed revised format, allows Iran's import of nuclear fuel for its reactor.
On the other hand, the Bush administration is currently engaged in a highly sensitive and delicate concert with Europe on Iran, which can be quickly derailed if Europe's "package approach" is undermined by a congressional intervention that makes dialogue and political and security cooperation with the current regime in Iran impossible, in the light of last November's Paris Agreement between Iran and the so-called European Three (EU-3 - Britain, Germany and France), which calls for precisely such a cooperation.
Of course, US history is replete with episodes of legislative interference in what is usually referred to as the executive branch, namely the foreign-policy turf, but what is so striking about HR 282 is that it appears on the surface to be completely in tune with the Bush administration's singular focus on Tehran's regime as a member of the "axis of evil", or to paraphrase President Bush in his latest State of the Union Address, the "world's primary state sponsor of terror".
Yet, as stated, increasingly, given the geopolitical realities and the mix of shared or parallel US-Iran interests in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East, the White House appears more and more willing to go multilateral vis-a-vis Iran when, in fact, HR 282 saddles US policy back on the unilateralist track almost by definition.
Not only that, the US government has pledged itself, since signing the Algiers Agreement with Iran in 1981, not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs, yet that appears to be not the least inhibitive of Congress's singular march to democratize Iran - even if it means collaborating with certain opposition groups, such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, deemed as "terrorist" both by the State Department and the EU (in their joint Paris Declaration of November 5, 2004).
There is no doubt the democratic process in Iran needs to be deepened and much remains to be done in all areas of freedom of speech, political pluralism, and the like. Yet it is far from clear that in the light of the United States' unhappy history in Iran, harking back to the 1953 coup and the subsequent quarter of a century of one-man dictatorship, such initiatives by US Congress will actually end up serving this objective.
Instead, it has the likely potential of causing a political backlash against the democratic forces in Iran struggling for a more open polity in a difficult regional milieu, by the mere fact that the US government via this bill has targeted these groups for alliance for a major regime change inside Iran.
At present, there does not appear to be any significant momentum toward regime change in Iran, and the best that can be realistically hoped for is incremental democratization, through a selective "rationalization" of the political and judicial process and the strengthening of Iranian civil society.
Unfortunately, HR 282, by calling on the US president to tap into the funds for the "greater Middle East" to implement the objectives of this bill, introduces yet another blow to the legitimacy of this project, recently adopted by the Group of Eight nations under the rubric of partnership for progress. In other words, this pending bill risks the entire edifice of Bush's Middle East policy, and not just his evolving Iran policy.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and "Iran's Foreign Policy Since 9/11", Brown's Journal of World Affairs, co-authored with former deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, No 2, 2003. He teaches political science at Tehran University.