With the rise of US unilateralism in the contemporary international system, the fear of Islam in the Western World after the September 11th events and its impact on Iran’s foreign policy, the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies held a roundtable on May 5, 2005 to discuss the contemporary approaches to and viewpoints on the Iranian foreign policy in relation to the contemporary international system particularly the West. At the beginning, Dr. Gholamali Haddad Adel, Professor of Philosophy at Tehran University and the Speaker of the Parliament, gave a lecture. Then some ambassadors from various countries, Iranian professors and scholars asked Dr. Gholamali Haddad Adel a number of questions. Professor Mahmood Sariolghalam acted as the moderator in this roundtable.
We all know that in the last two decades, a new phenomenon has appeared in the world of politics called Islam phobia. This phenomenon has been in significant rise within the past four years, after the September 11th 2001 events. While the people of the world who experienced the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War, were hopeful at the turn of the 21st century that the new century would being with an attitude of peace and friendship and that the atmosphere of war and conflict would wither away, what happened was entirely contrary to what everyone expected. Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations theory views all borders between the Western civilization and the Islamic civilization as bloody boundaries seems to have replaced Marx’s and Engels’ theory of historical materialism based upon perpetual conflict between nature, history and society.
The opposition to Islam has risen to a degree that once again discussions are made of the Era of the Crusades so that hatred and animosity are re-ignited. Several years ago in the heyday of the Cold War and the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, some scholars held that the US political system is essentially security-oriented and only develops to its fullest potential when it has confrontation with other international forces. Thus, it appears that American statesmen and politicians frequently need an external enemy in order to create cohesion within the American society and to strengthen the nation’s public ethos. That is to say that by overstating the threat posed by such an enemy and instigating fear in the American nation, not only the United States creates national unity, but also it promotes the chance for the enhancement of its military and offensive capacities. Today, the threat of communism has been removed; so, Islam is portrayed as a major danger in the United States supporting the theory that a new enemy is conveniently born. Hence, propaganda in the mass media regarding the threat of Muslim attacks on Americans, though void and ridiculous, support the theory that “the United States is always in need of a perceived enemy.”
Let me start a dialogue with you as a Muslim who considers himself as belonging to the new generation of Muslims in the contemporary world. First of all, I should emphasize that in our today’s world, there are certain realities that have not unfolded according to our will and will not wither away according to our will either. The existence of the Western World with its particular culture, civilization, science and technology as well as with its geographical vastness in the contemporary international system is a reality as it is the case with the existence of the Muslim World with all its cultural, geographical and economic features. The other realities of the world involve the appearance of China with a population of 1.2 billion along with India with a one-billion population. Every one of us and our states, depending on which culture, civilization and country we belong to, may not like and accept some of these realities. But once we accept the truth, we had better find a solution for peaceful life along with them, rather than trying to eradicate those realities. The second solution proves absolutely easier and more reasonable. These realities indicate the important point that is no solution other than rational interaction. Of course, an important point should be reminded with regard to the difference between Europe and United States. If analyses and theories support the claim that the specific US governmental structure and nature demands an enemy if there were no Muslims and Islam to fear, the US political establishment would have searched for another enemy. That is true that within US governmental, intelligence and even, on occasion, academic circles, China is presented as a serious threat to the United States. To limit China to Asia and to prevent the growth of high-technology in China constitutes one of the major objectives in US national strategy. From this angle, we Muslims have to make sure that we do not fall within the framework within which the United States seeks to portray us as enemies of world peace and security. Europe in comparison to the United States possesses a different structure. The crucial role that the European people play in electing parliamentarians who promote peaceful political structures and interaction on the one hand and in preventing the enlargement of weapons industries on the other indicate the fact that not only in methods and styles but also in structural terms, Europe advocates interaction, mutual understanding, bridging perceptions and interests together as compared to the United States. It is within this framework that Europe enjoys a better image both in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
With such an introduction, it is more appropriate to stress that the Muslim World is a reality in today’s world; a reality whose young generation looks at Islam and the West entirely different from how the two generations earlier did in the Muslim World. One hundred years ago, intellectuals in the Muslim World invited their society to unconditionally surrender to the Western civilization and embrace it, but today, most of the intellectuals in the Muslim World encourage their people to develop the necessary self-confidence to possess an Islamic identity. Profound changes arising from globalization processed during the two last decades demonstrate that although nation-states have come closer together in the fields of economic and political interests and act according to shared standards, there remain many serious differences and even contradictions in the cultural arena. Cultural particularism has surfaced especially in those regions of the world with ancient history and a stronger indigenous identity and authenticity. Hence, to be a Muslim, in a cultural sense, is not incompatible with embarking on numerous activities according to international standards. It appears what has given rise to the fear of Islam in the Western World, or in a more precise term, what has become an alibi for creation of such a fear involves Muslims’ interest in an efforts at establishing Islamic governments in the Muslims’ countries. While confirming the arise of such a tendency among the new generation of Muslims throughout the world, we would like to ask, “why should such an interest and effort be feared?” What do Muslims say and want that could bring about such a panic and fear? Undoubtedly, Muslims need self-criticism in their methods and thinking not only based on Islamic traditions, but also upon general human experience. However, their cultural and political particularism should not logically be a source of fear in the liberal West, democratic West, or the West which defends innovation, both philosophically and theoretically.
The first and foremost ideal and demand of Muslims including the Irandian society at large, to which I belong, is the rejection of foreign dominance and hegemony over their countries. The most vital principle of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic has taken shape exactly on this basis. As the contemporary international system unfortunately moves towards unilateralism, opportunities for independent national assertiveness have become limited and countries face a serious challenge in establishing interaction between the preservation of national sovereignty and economic development. Due to historical factors, the foreign policy of Islamic Republic of Iran has given priority to the rejection of domination over intensive economic development. Unilateralism even seems to have posed challenges for such important countries as France, Germany, Russia, China, India and Canada as well. I do not presume that any human being is ready to accept another one’s domination, and that any nation is not interested in independence. After 230 years after their independence, Americans still celebrate Independence Day, Declaration of Independence, and independence wars. If a researcher puts on paper the changes the US administration has made in its political and security apparatus following the September 11th events, he/she will come to the clear conclusion that the United States took the attack on its territory and security very seriously and it reminded the world that this incident represents an aggression against world security. Exactly for this reason, the United States ought to respect other countries’ identity, independence, and historical processes. The world gives credit to the independence struggles of Vietnamese nation, the South African people’s struggle against apartheid, and the independence endeavors of the Indian nation led by the late Gandhi. To seek independence and to negate domination is a “humanistic issue” approved by Islam as well. Now, a question can be raised that why independence struggles in Europe, Asia, Africa, North America and Latin America and elsewhere should be respected, and why the resistance and struggle by the Muslim Afghan nation vis-à-vis the Soviet occupation forces are appreciated, but when it comes to Palestine and the Palestinian people’s independence struggle, such deprived and destitute but resisting and noble people are labeled “terrorist?” why do Western governments who know the truth in the Palestine question much better than others, support the establishment of a military and expansionist regime at the heart the Muslim World unconditionally? Should not we conclude that democracy and freedom is not of significance per se for the Western states, rather it is defined according to interests and circumstances. The other cause and demand of Muslims in today’s world is that they want a government in their country that respects and compiles with Islamic values and their Islamic identity. The ideal of promoting Islamic governments does not mean aggression on others at all. Today, there is no Muslim country or Islamic government in the world that wishes or is able to wage aggression on another country. Muslims demand freedom and a government which paves the way for free life for them according to their Islamic culture, ethics, values, and commandments. Of course, we maintain that in Islamic societies, there is a diversity of viewpoints and tendencies, and if exchange of opinion is allowed, not only dialogue will be useful but also every society would reach an overall national consensus on how to manage society and how to rationally interact with the rest of the world. At any rate, Muslims with any thought or political inclination will not welcome despotic governments which are generally supported by the Western powers and dominate Muslim people with Western support. To oppose autocracy, longing for freedom, and willingness to living according to one’s cultural identity constitute every nation’s natural aspiration that should be respected. For example, the French continue to celebrate the Great French Revolution and the liberation movement after the passage of 250 years since July 4, 1789. what occurred in Iran in 1979 with the title of the Islamic revolution did not in fact constitute anything more an Iranian united call for the rejection of domination, fall of the despotic government, acquisition of freedom and the establishment of an Islamic society. If the West really wants democracy, freedom and the sovereignty of majority of people over their destiny, it is more expedient for it to stop supporting despotic governments and to allow people in the Muslim countries to determine for themselves like other people all around the world. It is not acceptable and understandable for Muslims that democracy would be supported by the Westerners and Americans only if it will result in the creation of a government favorable to them. If people are allowed in all Muslim countries to participate in the election of their governments, the world will come closer to peace, tranquility and freedom. Once in the early 20th century, then US President Woodrow Wilson developed principles of Wilsonism hoping that peace, justice, economic growth and liberation would be unfolded throughout the would. Wilson sought to realize such ideals by peaceful means such as trade, dialogue and consent. Yet today, “Wilsonism in boots” appears to have replaced dialogue-based Wilsonism. We certainly expect the West to give precedence to the “priority of freedom” over the “priority of interests” and to keep faithful to its historical ideals.
In Iran, 99% of people are Muslim. They have shown their interest in and positive vote for the Islamic government during the advent of the Islamic revolution and they have taken part in 25 elections during the past 25 years. Obviously, the political approach adopted by such a government would differ from that of Western governments. Nevertheless, “difference” should not be feared. What should be feared and we should all be concerned about is discrimination. “Having differences” is a reality in the contemporary world which should be accepted while discrimination is inhuman and ought to be confronted. If the West does not wish to dominate Muslim countries and respect what these nations choose, it can be certainly suggested that the sovereignty of Islam over such countries will not endanger the World in general and the Western World in particular. Muslim countries will experience progress and flourish more rapidly and efficiently through structures that promote and institutionalize freedom and democracy and by preserving their Islamic identity. The progress of these countries will not only benefit them but also will do good for the entire world including the West. Of course, we Muslims acknowledge that in today’s world, most of the economic, industrial, technological, and scientific principles have become universal and interaction in such domains does not recognize any boundary. The main difference between Europe and the United States in treating the Muslim World appears to lie in the distinction that Europe believes in process and the United States believes in quick outcomes. We hold that process presents better evolutionary premises in that nations gain an opportunity to accumulate experience, and reach consensus on their future by themselves.
Indeed, we do not see any reason why there should be clashes and conflicts between Muslims and the Westerns on the one and Christians and Jews on the other. We are ready to learn. Since Islamic culture takes shape on the basis of justice, Muslims will naturally react to hegemony and dominance by others. This spirit of independence lies indeed at the heart of Islamic thinking and logic. For us, if we become certain that foreigners do not intend to intervene in our country’s affairs, the situation is ripe for coexistence with other governments for of the purposes of exchange, trade and cultural-economic interaction with other states. Western states need to revise their relations with Muslim societies and in the process demonstrate sensitivity to Islamic premises and the psychology of Muslims. I want to stress that the Western method in interacting Muslims needs a revision. This revision will not be possible without precisely understanding Islamic culture and history. As the West expects us to fully understand their culture, worldview, interests and system, interaction and dialogue make it indispensable for the West to take the understanding of Islam more seriously, irrespective of power relations. We Iranian people have long lived with spirituality and morality. History has not listed Iranians as aggressive and invading people. If there have been limited cases, they would just be an exception that verifies the principle. Iranians have never been portrayed as frightening figures among the people of the world. We have consistently been tolerant and have kindly accepted religious minorities to live with us. Throughout Iranian history, even one case of genocide or exodus of the followers of other religions will not be found. If we look at today’s Iran, we observe that it has gained considerable growth. Key concepts of politics, economy, and culture have been discussed within Iranian society with the vast media means we wield. The richness of Iranian mind and the experience it has already found with the expansion of communications and the clash of views can be rarely found in the developing world. Therefore, Iran’s cultural value and its complicated cultural structure represent a considerable value. It is not wise for the West to limit itself to mere political problems and disputes in its treatment of Iran and to ignore the value of Iranian evolutionary thinking, thought and society.
In our history, we have been invaded several times, but we still continue to exist. The mystery of this persistence is our cultural steadfastness, authenticity and strength. We neither wished to dominate others nor accepted domination by others. We have continuously defended our independence and we believe that to negate domination and to seek independence not only are not our crimes, but also constitute our honor. The United States today labels Palestinians and many other Muslims as terrorists. Obviously, we are against terrorism, but we believe that the cause has not to be forgotten in resolving the problem of terrorism in today’s world. So, the effect has not been simply taken into account. If extremist movements have appeared in the Muslim World, they are reactions to oppressions, hegemony, and discriminations. It is not prudent for the West to exploit huge propaganda for the software destruction of other nations in order to produce economic surplus, commercially dominate the world and exploit oil resources. Such a political and psychological pursuit contradicts the foundations of Western liberalism and humanism. In conclusion, it should be stressed that there is no reason for Iranian people to foster enmity against states and nations that respect our rights as a nation in administering our country, and the Islamic Consultative Assembly in which I am honored to be a member is ready to open the door to economic and cultural cooperation with such states and nations.
We know well that our country is exposed to enormous challenges and that our management method and thinking in foreign policy orientation play a crucial role in addressing those challenges. The focal attitude of our foreign policy is interaction, reaching out and moderation, and even we have the inclination and capacity for coalition-building and collective work with other countries in pursuit of our national interests. We pursue political stability so that our people can advance and our society would be able to contribute at the world level according to its resources, prestige and capabilities. As our foreign policy conduct within the recent years reveals, we seek to secure Iran’s national security, preserve territorial integrity, and actualize our potential for economic growth and development with prudence, discretion and restraint. I hope with the continued interactive policies based upon respect on part of the West, Muslims and Westerners learn from each other, contribute to human civilization and the turn 21st century into century of economic growth for all nations accompanied with spirituality and respect for humankind. It is natural that to pursue the method and logic of interaction on the part of the West will play a critical role in this process.
Questions and answers:
Q: You emphasized the significance of interaction. You also pointed out that there must not be hegemony and we should boost the national sovereignty whereas the West is striving to diminish the role of national state. We are gradually moving towards supranational structures. Do you think that Iran and the regional countries can move towards any supranational structures within the framework of the regional arrangements and interactions?
A: We do not see any contradictions between national interests and cooperating with other countries. To give you an example, in the recent years, we have moved towards the systematic continuous strengthening of the correlation with the regional countries within the framework of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). We will hopefully establish a union of the Islamic countries like the European Union (EU) to some extent that it is possible. This union will hopefully have cultural and political aspects.
Q: My first question is about interaction between Islam and the West. There are different issues that have various aspects and we should take them into consideration. Many misunderstandings and misperceptions have no realistic base. First, we should understand each other better. The diversity of opinions is natural because as you firstly mentioned there are different views. We can utilize all available ways for presenting our ideas. I mean the idea of “dialogue amongst civilizations” that can remove these misperceptions. You have worked much on education and know how these sections are constructed. Therefore, I would like to know how the Majlis (Parliament) could overcome such obstacles and difficulties. The second question refers to competitions and confrontations amongst countries for their own interests. Of course, we live in an internationalized world that necessitates the countries cooperating each other for our own benefits. Hence, there are many ways for cooperating amongst Iran and the West exception of the United States. Because of the 1953 Coup, the US has a different story. Therefore, we should differentiate. The West is not only the United States. The US is solely one part of it. We can observe the unilateralism approach whereas many countries have expressed international and domestic oppositions. So what can the Majlis do in relation to the interaction with the West? Moreover, how do the Majlis find the economic and political ways for cooperating?
A: Indeed, the seventh Majlis utilize your philosophy and it is our philosophy. In the past 11 months when the seventh Majlis started its activities, I myself met many diplomats and ambassadors and my colleagues in the national security commission are more active. The Majlis has approved many agreements which indicate the positive opinion of the Majlis for international cooperation.
Q: My question refers to national sovereignty. From academics’ point of views, the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot relate the politics to the economics. During the past 25 years, we have been making attempts to have economic relations with other countries. Hence, we should have constructive and extensive relations with the developed countries. We require a new definition of the national sovereignty. Perhaps the current definitions of sovereignty that we are using especially in the political area refer to the independent era of the 1950s and the 1960s. Is it possible to have a new definition of sovereignty in this age of globalization?
A: I do not want to refuse the relationship which exists between politics and economics. I do believe that the decisions on economic and political matters must be optimum. As mentioned, I think it is very significant to be aware of the importance of the independence of this country and this concept must not be destroyed at all. A number of countries are still ignoring such concepts. They should leave their behavior and learn that Iran has changed. As long as others cannot accept this matter, we cannot establish any logical and rational relationships with these countries. Our main problem is the United States. I remember that at the beginning of the seventh Majlis, a reporter asked me about the relations between Iran and the US. The United States has not understood the message of Iranian people. Again, I have to point out that the international community should completely acknowledge this approach. In relation to globalization, it is substantively significant to maintain our independency and many countries are worried about their independency. Therefore, we should maintain our sense of national identity.
Q: My question relates to globalization and national sovereignty. Of course, I have to point out the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has applied many times for the membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) but the United States several times vetoed it whereas the US claims to advocate the free trade. What is your opinion?
A: I fully agree with your opinion.
Q: Though my question will not be in direct connection with your speech, I will express it. You mentioned the significance of interaction and consensus. As you know that the structure of the United Nations is being transformed and the so-called reforms are being carried out in the United Nations. The UN is an assembly where all countries strive to settle their disputes. If the reforms are carried- out, the UN will be transformed essentially. At present, the UN Secretary-General has recommended two patterns for the modification of the United Nations. What is your opinion about reforms in the United Nations?
A: Perhaps it is necessary to organize a separate debate. Nevertheless, I will mention that we are very concerned and we are pursuing the developments in the UN. The worries that exist wihtin Iran and other countries about the intentions and behavior of the United States are not baseless. We are worried about a part of the government of the United States that is striving to control over the UN. You might remember that three years ago, the campaigns of the US started in Iraq and fifty-three intellectuals and academics issued a statement which legitimized and made valid the aggression against other countries. According to that statement, it is apparent that the role of the UN must change. Indeed, it must become a charity organization with its sole mandate to provide humanitarian assistance. In other words the US should be free to wage war in different parts of the world and then the UN should come to collect the wounded and survivals. Therefore, the international community is very much worried about this possibility.
Q: Now we require utilizing the dialogue amongst religions instead of dialogue amongst civilizations. President Bush’s terminologies and words, which are generally disapproval, should not be confused with the United States. From my point of view, we should not respond with the Islamic words. In the past, Islam was the religion of the science and education but today this aspect of Islam has changed. For many years, we regarded the British colonialists as guilty of our difficulties but today we are utilizing the colonial language i.e., English language. We strive to participate actively in the international community and our economics is flourishing. Another point is the Palestine issue. Not only it is not an Islamic issue but also it is a universal issue. It refers to the universal values like philanthropic and justice. Hence, we can pay attention to this aspect. Another question is that why India cannot be a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) as the second great population of Muslims in the world
A: I fully agree with your viewpoint that we should not confuse the Bush Administration’s ideas with the US but today we are dealing with the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration in its attempts for implementing the ideology of neo-conservatives is using a specific set of Christian terminologies and it is another contradiction in the statements of the US. They are frequently talking about the separation between church and state whereas they are using a mixture of politics and religion. I agree with your viewpoint about the Palestine issue that relates to the pure humanistic values but there is not any contradiction between the humanistic values and the Islamic values. At last, we never think that the great nation of India is outside the Islamic world and we welcome the participation by India in the OIC.
Q: Each foreign policy is based on ensuring security and creating new opportunities but we observe that the Islamic Republic of Iran because of the international constraints cannot act efficiently in the later part. So what have you planned to do in terms of making opportunities in the domain foreign policy?
A: We are striving to present a logical Majlis to the international community. In the past 11 months, we have had some sensitivity about the number of contracts but we never deny the cooperation. Again, I have to mention that the Majlis use the opportunities.
Q: You mentioned Islam phobia that the fear of Islam was substituted for Communism but the international community has been afraid particularly after 11 September and this event cannot forget easily. Of course, we find out the differences between the moderate Islam and fundamentalist Islam but the Islamic countries should strive to make clear these concepts for the international community. In recent years, we are afraid of the European new Muslims who would like to enforce the Islamic rules in their lives. If they can do that, we will go back. So can Iran assist us to overcome these challenges and difficulties? Moreover, can Iran present the moderate Islam to the world?
A: It is apparent that the West and the Islamic world should take steps to achieve more understanding. Sometimes we are dealing with the universal meanings but sometimes the definitions are not exact for example, fundamentalist. We have not defined the term of fundamentalist exactly yet. If a fundamentalist is defined as a Muslim who would like to establish a kind of Islamic government in his own country, we urge that we are fundamentalist. Nevertheless, if a fundamentalist is defined as a Muslim who advocates terrorism and violence, we condemn it. Living according to the Islamic rules is possible and necessary. This does not mean that we do not intend to live side by side in peace with other countries and we do not confirm what was carried out in the past centuries under the Islamic ideas. Our thoughts are based on the Koran and the Islamic concepts that can be tangible and moderate for the world.