|
TWO PRESIDENTS AT THE UNITED NATIONS
On September 25, 2007, two very different men—both presidents of their countries—addressed the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in New York. Their words were spoken before representatives of many different countries, but their audience was truly global, and the content of their speeches revealed much about the focus they each wanted to place on their countries’ foreign policy and diplomatic efforts.
The schedule of the General Assembly allows 15 minutes for each country’s head of state or head of government to speak. As a result, there may be nearly 200 speeches stretching over several days. The General Assembly does not set a specific topic for the speeches; each country may decide the issues it wishes to highlight in its leader’s speech. As a result, the speeches given by certain heads of state or foreign ministers are often carefully studied to determine what that country has chosen to emphasize in this very public forum.
On September 25, 2007, one of the most closely watched speeches was that given by U.S. president George W. Bush. The American president was under pressure at home because of a war in Iraq that had stretched well beyond the point that many American citizens felt was acceptable. Under American occupation, Iraq had become chaotic, and the violence had divided the country in civil war. This had soured America’s reputation throughout the world, and particularly in the Middle East.
During his 15 minutes, President Bush mentioned Iraq only in passing, as one of the countries where “brave citizens” had “made a choice for democracy.” Instead, President Bush’s focus was on the struggle against extremism, and here he specifically highlighted countries where human rights had been violated, citing Myanmar (formerly called Burma), Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Iran.
“In Be0larus, North Korea, Syria, and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration,” President Bush said. Later, he again spoke of human rights violations in Iran, and he included the country’s capital, Tehran, in his critique of the failure of the UN Human Rights Council to speak out on “repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran.”
On that same day, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also spoke before the General Assembly. As President Ahmadinejad moved toward the podium, members of the U.S. delegation left the room, with only a low-level notetaker remaining. President Ahmadinejad was equally strident in his criticism of the regimes he perceived as violating basic principles of human rights. “Setting up secret prisons, abducting persons, trials and secret punishments, without any regard to due process, extensive tappings of telephone conversations, intercepting private mail, and frequent summons to police and security centers have become commonplace and prevalent,” he said through a translator. His words suggested that the target of his criticism was the United States; later, he was more specific: “The rights and dignity of the American people are also being sacrificed for the selfish desires of those holding power.”
Criticism of the United States by Iran’s president, much like criticism of Iran by America’s president, caused little surprise for those who were listening to the speeches. What interested them was what the Iranian president would say about Iran’s nuclear ambitions—a topic of great international concern. And he did not omit this from his 15 minutes.
He stressed that Iran had pursued its nuclear activities through what he described as “the appropriate, legal path”—the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is the nuclear watchdog agency of the UN. Ahmadinejad insisted that Iran’s nuclear program was peaceful, aimed at developing nuclear reactors to generate electricity. The United States and several European nations did not trust this optimistic assessment, believing instead that Iran intended to ultimately produce nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad criticized the nations that had attempted to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology, stating that “because of the resistance of the Iranian nation,” their efforts had failed.
Finally, he leveled a blistering prediction that “we are nearing the sunset of the time of empires,” stating that “the era of darkness will end. Prisoners will return home. The occupied lands will be freed. Palestine [now Israel] and Iraq will be liberated from the domination of the occupiers. And the people of America and Europe will be free of the pressures exerted by the Zionists [Jewish people].”
Two men, both presidents of their countries, were speaking at the same place on the same day; each was passionately speaking out for human rights and criticizing those who, he felt, had violated the basic principles of dignity and freedom. And yet their views of the world were dramatically different; each felt that the other’s country was a great threat—if not the greatest threat—to global security and world peace.
Legacy of Misunderstanding
The story of Iran today, and its role in the contemporary Middle East, was highlighted that day at the UN. President Bush was not the only world leader who spoke out against Iran. Other leaders specifically cited the threat posed by Iran’s efforts to accelerate its nuclear technology program. French president Nicolas Sarkozy noted that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would mean an “unacceptable risk” for regional and world stability. “There will not be peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of the proliferation of nuclear arms,” he said.
Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, was equally blunt, noting the “disastrous consequences” for Israel and the world if Iran developed the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. “The world does not have to prove to Iran that Iran is building a nuclear bomb,” she said. “Iran has to convince the world that it is not striving towards such a bomb.”
The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran posed grave concerns to the global community. Iran had, in the past, been willing to pursue an aggressive foreign policy, particularly in terms of anti-American activity—most recently in the early 1990s. Equipped with nuclear weapons, it seemed likely that the government in Iran would once more revert to its more aggressive stance, both in the region and around the world.
Similarly, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran raised the likelihood that more countries in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, would move swiftly to acquire nuclear weapons themselves, if only in an effort to deter an attack by Iran. With more nuclear weapons in more countries, there is a greater likelihood that those weapons will be used.
One year earlier, the same kind of conflict had been aired at the UN. Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad spoke on September 19, 2006, again separated by several hours and a very different perspective on the world. President Bush spoke first, in the morning, and at one point directly addressed the Iranian people, telling them that their leaders were misleading them about the United States and were abusing their resources. “You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future,” he said. “The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation’s resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons.”
President Ahmadinejad spoke near the end of the day. He alternately labeled the United States as “the occupiers” (in speaking of Iraq) and “masters and rulers of the entire world” (in speaking of an imbalance between world powers and other countries).
In 2006, the focus of speeches in the UN General Assembly had also been on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and global concern about its nuclear program. While various proposals and diplomatic efforts were undertaken, little of substance was achieved. Iran continued to move forward. Twelve months later, the same two presidents addressed the General Assembly; once again, concern was expressed about Iran’s nuclear technology program.
For nearly a century, Iran’s relationship with the West has been dependent on its leaders’ views of the West. At times, that leadership has depended heavily on Western powers in order to maintain its right to rule. At others, the West has been made the scapegoat for all that is wrong in Iran. The legacy of this roller-coaster relationship has been a residue of suspicion and misunderstanding.
Even the image of Iran that is presented to the world can be misleading. Its president—for example, a man like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—speaks at the United Nations and presents his country’s view of the current world situation. But his is, in a sense, only the face that Iran chooses to present to the world. The president is not the head of state in Iran, nor is he the commander in chief. Those roles are held by the supreme ayatollah—meaning “sign of God,” an honorary title for the most learned religious leaders in the Shiite Muslim faith—whose power combines authority over both state and religious matters. While Ahmadinejad spoke out about the United States, Israel, women’s roles in his country, and more, most Iranians were puzzled at the attention he drew. They knew that their country truly was ruled not by Ahmadinejad but by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and that it was his support that enabled the president to serve as Iran’s spokesman at the UN.
For nearly 30 years, Iran’s power has been firmly in the hands of a small group of religious leaders—the Supreme Council, led by an ayatollah—who have adhered to the principles first spelled out in Iran’s revolution in 1979. Iran is defined not by the man who is its president, nor by the technology it possesses. It is defined by ideology, by the revolutionary values that transformed Iran from a monarchy to an Islamic state. Ayatollah Khamenei is not simply the head of state; he is also known as “the guardian of the revolution.” That revolution allowed a select group of people to become both powerful and wealthy, and they have fought fiercely over the past nearly three decades to ensure that that does not change.
In Iran, the ideologies of the revolutionary leaders continue to form part of the daily fabric of life. To understand Iran today, it is important to first look back. Contemporary Iran is very much a product of its past.
.....
|
