|
U.S. media and opinion makers have devoted much
comment to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's
proposal to provide $85 million in assistance to
help promote democracy in Iran. One of these opinion
makers is Dr. Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian
Studies Program at Stanford University and
co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the
Hoover Institution, who has spoken out about the
U.S. government's proposal in articles published in
"The Wall Street Journal" and elsewhere. In an
exclusive interview with RFE/RL's Radio Farda,
Milani discusses his views concerning the promotion
of democracy in the Middle East and Iran.
Radio Farda: In
your recent article with the interesting title of
"Checking Account for Democracy," you welcomed the
Bush administration's allocation of $85 million for
the promotion of democracy in Iran. But in the
article you don't sound very optimistic that this
move will have a significant impact on the democracy
movement in Iran. Why?
Abbas Milani: I think that if it's well spent
-- in other words, if it is not squandered on things
that cannot be done and it is not given to groups
that cannot manage it wisely -- then it can be very
effective, particularly if it is used primarily to
create something like a surrogate radio and a
surrogate television. Something that would be the
equivalent of what an Iranian television and radio
would have been, had Iran been a democratic society.
I think, if Iran had such a media outlet a few years
ago, for example, I think things would have been
very different in Iran today. And I think they will
be very different in a few years once such an
institution is created with the help of this money.
Long Democratic Tradition
Radio Farda: Do
you think the United States and the West have been
successful at promoting democracy in the Middle East
and in Iran? And if you think they have not been
successful, what do you think is the reason?
Milani: The chance of promoting democracy,
successfully, in Iran is greater than anywhere else
in the Middle East for two very, very prominent
reasons. One is, the Iranian society has an
indigenous, powerful, now 100-year-old democratic
movement. This is not something that has to be
created ex nihilo, from nothing. This is something
that is there; the United States doesn't have to
create it.
Secondly, the United States faces in Iran a reality
that is the opposite of every other Middle Eastern
country with the exception of Israel, and that is
that the government talks anti-American rhetoric,
but the people, the street, is predominantly
pro-American. What you have in the rest of the
Middle East is that the government is trying to be,
at least ostensibly are, pro-American, but the
people, often influenced by advertisements in the
media of those very countries, are anti-American. So
in the case of Iran, you have a democratic movement
that exists, that has made great strides in the past
(it is now in a period of relative retreat because
of the [former President Mohammad] Khatami defeat,
the disappointment that came as a result of Khatami,
but those forces there, they haven't gone away), and
the population is predominantly pro-American. In
other words, they will listen. It is not like they
will not listen to something that is openly,
transparently American.
Radio Farda: You
said it is easy to promote democracy in Iran, but I
also asked whether you think the United States has
been successful in promoting democracy. If not, what
has been at fault?
Milani: The problem in Iraq, the reason that
democracy promotion in Iraq has not been successful
is because in the case of Iraq there was not [an]
indigenous democratic movement. The United States
decided to invade Iraq, and that created a Pandora's
box that some scholars had anticipated but many
planners did not anticipate, in other words, the
emergence of this kind of insurgency and all of the
other things that have happened.
But at the same time, if you look at the Middle East
today and compare it with 15 years ago, you, I
think, have to admit that there are more democracies
in the Middle East than there were. The Palestinians
just had the freest elections in the history of
probably any Arab country. In Lebanon, the people
succeeded in pushing out Syria. There is a very
viable democracy in Kurdistan, in the British part
of Iraq. There is at least the possibility of
democracy coming to Egypt; at least flickers of it
are on the horizon, at least [Egyptian President]
Hosni Mubarak knows the old trick of saying, "If you
push me, you will get Islamic radicalism" is no
longer enough to dissuade the U.S. from pushing for
democracy. There have been failures in the other
places, or small successes as in the case of Iraqi
Kurdistan.
What has happened in Kurdistan is truly incredible.
It's a very viable, democratic part of Iraq that
thrives. But there, the U.S. had to face the problem
that it was working in a milieu, in an atmosphere,
which was very, very anti-American. And it had to
face the reality that there wasn't much of a
democratic movement in these countries to begin
with.
The U.S. had to sort of force democracy on these
societies, and that can't be done. You can't force
societies to become democratic. Democracy needs a
lot of things. It needs civil society, it needs a
middle class, it needs a technocratic class, it
needs a culture of tolerance. And these things are
beginning to exist on a very extensive basis in
Iran. In the case of Iran, I think if there was a
television and radio station that was doing this
kind of a promotion of democracy, I think it would
be a very different story.
Helping Iranians Help Themselves
Radio Farda: You
wrote that this help can be used by those who are
denouncing violence in their fight for democracy in
Iran. As you have indicated, U.S. financial support
for Iran-based democrats is a sensitive issue. So
how can these forces be helped by the U.S. without
being hurt?
Milani: Fist of all, several things have to
be very clear. One is that the U.S. is not looking
for a [exiled Iraqi opposition leader Ahmad] Chalabi
in Iran. Second, that the U.S. is not trying to
decide who the next ruler of Iran will be. Third,
that the U.S. will not support any group that has a
history of terrorism, a history of violence, a
history of oppression. Fourth, that the U.S. will
not help movements that want to dismember Iran, that
are trying to break Iran apart.
The U.S. could be tempted to do that, and it would
be easy because there is a lot of national
resentment among Kurds, among Turks. The U.S., I
think, has to say clearly, categorically,
unmistakably: "We won't do this. We won't support
terrorists. We won't support anyone who is
advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
And we don't plan to force a solution on Iran."
The only thing that the U.S. should say it wants to
do is to help the Iranians themselves in this
process. That's a very crucial thing. That's a big
difference between Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, the U.S.
essentially went in, occupied the country, ran the
country for a while, and then said, "OK, let's see
if you can have a democratic government here."
That's hard to get. But my suggestion is that that
should be avoided in Iran, and a different path can
be tried. And I think that if it is tried and if it
is made clear that the U.S. respects the rights of
Iranians to determine their own future, then you
will get a different result, and you will get a good
result.
Radio Farda:
Regarding your suggestion of the creation of an
American visa office in Tehran, how should we
imagine this? How realistic is this idea?
Milani: Well, as I said there, I don't think
the Islamic regime will allow it, but the U.S.
should make the offer. It should be clear to the
Iranians, who now are forced to go to Turkey and
Dubai and Germany and to spend a lot of money and
wait in a lot of lines and be humiliated to get a
passport, that this is essentially the fault of the
regime. It's the fault of Mr. [President Mahmud]
Ahmadinejad's rhetoric.
It is crucial, I think, for the U.S. to separate the
Iranian people from this regime, to speak to the
Iranian people and say: "Look, we don't have any
problem with you. We respect your right to develop a
nuclear program within the existing laws. But the
problem is with this regime, and if we don't give
you visas, it's because the regime doesn't allow us
to have a visa office there."
It must be made clear who is responsible for the
problems that the people of Iran face. Because it
has a monopoly on the media, the regime has very
successfully told people a lot of stories. They have
sold the nuclear issue as a David and Goliath story.
America, they have tried to sell -- tried, they
haven't been successful -- as being a bully,
singling Iran out and denying Iran its rights. It
must be made clear that it is the regime's
irresponsible rhetoric and its action, its lying and
betraying the trust of the Iranian people and of the
global community, that has gotten Iran into the
current impasse. It has to be made clear to the
Iranian people that the U.S. is willing to work with
them. A truly, editorially independent media would
go a long way in doing that.
www.rferl.org
Top |
® 