Khatami at Monticello, calls for de-escalation with U.S.
Iran's former president, Mohammad Khatami, came back to Charlottesville yesterday. His main message while here was that American and Iranian leaders should both find ways to de-escalate the hostility of their rhetoric and to work together to pursue common interests.
This, after saying at a gathering at the University of Virginia (UVA) here Thursday-- and also on other stops on his current five-city tour of the US-- that "The solution of America's problem in Iraq can't be unilateral. It needs the cooperation of the neighbors in the region and of the UN."
Iran is, of course, one of the weightiest of Iraq's neighbors.
During his return visit to C'ville yesterday, Khatami was visiting Monticello, the "historic" (by American standards) home of this country's third president, Thomas Jefferson. After touring Monticello, Khatami and his entourage of some dozen people participated in a 30-person "scholars' lunch" in the library of the nearby International Center for Jefferson Studies (ICJS), to which I'd been invited. As when he was at UVA on Thursday no-one asked Khatami this time either about Iran's currently very controversial nuclear program, though I gather that on other stops on his tour he has been asked about it and has expressed his strong support for his country's right to pursue peaceful nuclear development.
I would not have expected him to say anything different. On the other hand, if I'd gotten a chance to ask him a question at yesterday's lunch, I might well have asked his views on how he thought the present nuclear-accusation crisis could be de-escalated.
His current tour around the country is anyway very significant since it is the first time such a high-ranking Iranian personality has been allowed to travel round this country since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1978. (Iranian officials with business at the UN are allowed to go to New York to conduct that business. But under the UN's headquarters agreement with the US, such diplomats can be limited by the US to traveling within a tight radius of New York City, and in Iran's case these restrictions have applied continuously since the revolution.)
On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Pres. Bush had signed off personally on the decision to allow Khatami to tour round the country this time. Here's what Reuters reported about that:
-
"I was interested to hear what he had to say," Bush told the Wall Street Journal... "I'm interested in learning more about the Iranian government, how they think, what people think within the government."
... "My hope is that diplomacy will work in convincing the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. And in order for diplomacy to work, it's important to hear voices other than [current President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's," Bush added.
I actually did get the chance to sit next to one of the visiting Iranians, who was with the "Interest Section" Iran maintains in Washington under the auspices of the Pakistani embassy. But the circumstances didn't give us much time to chat.
Amongst the American participants, there were a handful of Iranian-Americans. A couple of these later remarked in particular on the high quality of Khatami's rhetoric in Persian (as well as on the breadth and intellectual quality of what he said.) These people noted that this time-- unlike on Thursday-- Khatami was speaking extemporaneously, without any prepared text, which made the rhetorical skill he displayed all the more evident.
Even for myself, having no Persian-language skills, I could appreciate the general sweep and self-confident delivery of his rhetoric. And I thought on a few occasions there, as Khatami's answers ranged from Pericles to the concept of "the consent of the governed" to basic issues of how political accountability is indeed to be measured, that some other presidents in the world-- to name no names-- might indeed have a hard time keeping up with such a discussion...
These Iranian-Americans and others at the lunch who know a lot more about Iran than I do expressed the judgment that what Khatami said was, in Iranian terms, extremely daring and might indeed cause some trouble for him once he gets back home. I feel unqualified to make a judgment on that. But I did note that Khatami seemed very seriously to be putting out feelers for the establishment of some form of a continued, broad, popular dialogue between Iranians and Americans as well as, perhaps, of some form of more discreet, "track two" channel of communication with people close to the Bush administration itself.
If the latter is the case, then one would certainly want to know the degree to which "messages" about going ahead with this could be expected to get back to the one place in Teheran where, by all accounts, they would have the most effect, and that is with Iran's "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei. As alluded to below, Khatami had several non-trivial differences of opinion with Khamenei during his time as president, 1997-2005. But intriguingly, back in June Kamal Kharrazi, who had been Khatami's Foreign Minister, was appointed by Khamenei as head of a new body, reporting to him, called the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations...
So who knows where all this might lead? In the hope that it might lead somewhere constructive and-- certainly-- that it might help to dispel misinformation and de-escalate tensions, I am happy to provide below my best characterization of what was said during the scholars' luncheon. (Remember, though, that the discussion was all conducted through an interpreter... Also, I'd run three miles earlier in the morning and was incredibly hungry by lunch-time; so yes, I did try to gulp down some mouthfuls of chicken between the times I was taking notes... )
-
The first question, from Prof. Ruhi Ramazani, was one that-- drawing
on some of Pres. Khatami's own previous writing on the topic of liberalism--
asked how the rights of the individual should be balanced with those of the
state.
Ans.: I have stated many times that there is no way forward except the establishment of democracy everywhere. It is possible, certainly, to criticise democracy. But if you consider the alternatives, the evidence demonstrates that democracy is the only choice.
However, democracy exists in different forms... [He then gave a broad presentation of the history of democratic ideas from Pericles through Thomas Hobbes, etc.] Throughout this process, the "demos" has expanded to include previously excluded groups like women, slaves, and migrants. The concept of democracy has also expanded to include self-government and the idea that the legitimacy of governments stems from the consent of the governed; as, too, to the idea that power should be accountable to the people. Another development of the concept is the idea that people have the right to replace their government without recourse to violence-- and this requires freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. The 'nation' has the right to think for itself.
In Iran, we are faced with the question whether, given that the nation is religious, it can develop towards democracy? The answer to this depends on the nature of religion. If the religion says that people can develop their own fates, then this is compatible with democracy. But if the assumption of the religion is that it is the government that decides, then this is incompatible with democracy. In Islam, we have both these forms of religion. With a "progressive" reading [understanding] of religion, religion can develop toward democracy. With the alternative reading of the religion you would have the development of a government like that of the Taliban.
However, the march of history is towards democracy. It is the only form of government that will succeed.
In our Constitution, it says that rule belongs to God; and at that point there is no mention of men. But basically, for us, the right to rule one's own destiny is not only a natural right but also a divine right.
Ramazani then made a follow-up remark alluding to the role of Iran's "Supreme Leader" ( or "jurisconsult"-- in Persian, "faqih") which has frequently been seen as complicating Iran's claims to be truly democratic. Indeed, for Khatami himself, his ability to take Iran as far as he wanted towards democratic reform throughout his eight years in office, 1997-2005, was frequently seen as being stymied by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been Iran's Supreme Leader continuously since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1990. Though Ramazani's remark was not necessarily posed as a question, Khatami was evidently eager to continue his exploration of issues of basic political philosophy. He started out in this way:
If I say anything practical about the role of the jurisconsult [Supreme Leader] then problems would probably mushroom! But you should remember that we are an Islamic Republic, as was voted for by our people. Perhaps that could change through a vote of the people? What was voted on, too, was the role of the Supreme Leader. However, the Supreme Leader should operate only within the parameteres of the law. I've paid a price for the role I've taken in these discussions. But the role of the jurisconsult does stem from the Constitution.
But we should understand, too, that in many democracies the executive branch has some extraordinary powers. Look at the powers given to the Presidency in France, or even here. The question is whether this power is answerable to an elected body... In our system, parliament [as said by interpeter; but perhaps the Council of Experts?] does have the right to depose the jurisconsult, so there is a democracy there.
The next question, from Amb. Nathaniel Howell, was on religious freedom. Howell referred to Jefferson's pioneering work in crafting Virginia's Statute of Religious Freedom and asked his question in the form, "How can one have freedom to believe unless one also has freedom not to believe?"
Ans.: The freedom of conscience is essential. If liberalism were a religion, then not agreeing to liberalism would be an apostasy; and liberals wouldn't allow that freedom? If we accept that our society is Islamic, then that would be the basis for our politics. But in our Constitution no-one is allowed to force someone else to believe something, and there is freedom of religion.
Prof. William Quandt then asked Khatami how he thought the foundation for a better relationship could be built between the US and Iran.
Ans:. I tried during my presidency to improve relations; indeed, so did President Clinton. Those were very small steps, because there was such a big store of mistrust and ignorance on both sides, and also on both sides there were many people opposed to the process. But the atmosphere changed after Clinton left office and there have been problems on both sides.
In particular, the kind of discourse used by both sides has really degenerated. As a first requirement we should try to require both sides to change the kind of rhetoric they use; and references to the political differences between us should not be expressed in ways that denigrate and diminish the other side.
I recall a reporter who asked me if I thought the US was a "Great Satan". I said no. Also, Ayatollah Khomeini, when he said that, didn't use it to refer to the American people, but to the policies of the American government. And of course it made me angry when Iran was called the "Axis of Evil". [He had still been President at the time.] I will never forgive the people who called us that.
I regret that in the past months, these ways of addressing each other have degenerated again. I fear that the present policies are taking us in a direction that doesn't serve the interests of the US, Iran, or the global colmmunity. It is my hope that, given our common interests and common values, we can move towards less enmity and more peace.
"Former Iranian President Khatami said those who carried them out will never go to heaven."Former Iranian President Khatami said those who carried them out will never go to heaven.
"During the calamity of September 11, two crimes were committed: one was the killing of innocent people and the second was making this crime in the name of Islam,"
"said the former president, who is on a speaking tour of the United States."
I don't know if Khomeini he will be in Haven! or GWB also be in Hell!! Of himself if he will be in Hell because many killed tortured when he was president of Iran and under Islam law he is responsible for his nation in front of Allah in judgment day.
It looking to me Khatami doing same as Khomeini gave each Iran's solder during Iraq/Iran war 1980 a key for his Castle in haven as he tolled them and they hanged that key around their necks and the came in waves to die on the boarders of Iraq, poor guys... [edited]
I remember all the talk of Khatami being a great reformer. I have a lot of respect for him. What went wrong? Why wasn't Khatami as effective as he could've been, and why does Iran have Khamenei puppet Ahmedinajad instead. Hmm, Khamenei? Was Khamenei able to frustrate Khatami? Can anyone in Iran call the Supreme Leader system of government into question?
Excellent questions, Inkan. I hope someone coming here can help us all to answer them!
From the above article:
"The question is whether this power is answerable to an elected body... In our system, parliament [as said by interpeter; but perhaps the Council of Experts?] does have the right to depose the jurisconsult, so there is a democracy there."
Is that what you're looking for Inkan?
Salah, can you give a link to a site that shows these deaths that occured under Khatami? As for the Iran/Iraq war, were the iranians supposed to let the iraqis come in and take a big chunk of land and oil? Heaven or not, the iranians had and have the right to fight any army that tries to invade. I don't see how it's Khomeini's fault.
"I remember all the talk of Khatami being a great reformer. I have a lot of respect for him. What went wrong? Why wasn't Khatami as effective as he could've been, and why does Iran have Khamenei puppet Ahmedinajad instead. Hmm, Khamenei? Was Khamenei able to frustrate Khatami? Can anyone in Iran call the Supreme Leader system of government into question?"
I've just been looking at Ali Ansari's new book "Confronting Iran" and the second half of it addresses your questions.
The situation in Iran is very complex and not especially transparent, at least to me. Khatami and the reform movement only controlled the institutions of the presidency and the parliament. The problem is that these institutions do not have all that much power in the Islamic Republic. It seems real power resides more in the vali-e faqih (religious guardian--Khomeini and then Khamenei), the Guardian Council, the judiciary and the Revolutionary Guards.
Khatami and the reform movement came in on a wave of popular enthusiasm, but then couldn't deliver results. Ansari seems to suggest that if the US and Europe had been more positively engaged and supportive and if the reformers had invoked more popular pressure things might have evolved in a more positive direction. As it was, the reform movement was blocked, popular enthusiasm quenched and conservatives manipulated the system largely to exclude the reformers from their positions of influence.
Regarding the final question, calling the structure of the Islamic Republic into question isn't, I gather, permitted. The people, however, are not exactly in the mood for another revolution. The challenge for the moment is to somehow evolve the thing in a more benign direction.
Helena,
And of course it made me angry when Iran was called the "Axis of Evil".
What about Iraq? Did make you angry?
The answer to this depends on the nature of religion
I think its clear from our history of Islamic religion and Islamic Law democracy existed before 1400 year s go...
" The Esposito/Feldman idea goes like this: Islamists are really no worry at all. In fact, they are actually the best hope for democracy in the Middle East. Leading Islamist thinkers want democracy, and if Islamist parties were allowed to take power—which they certainly would do in free elections—it would be an improvement over the situation today. Even if Islamists declared "Islamic" states on assuming power, these regimes would probably be more or less democratic, provided you don't insist on a narrow, culture-bound definition of democracy. The United States is making a big mistake by allying itself with autocratic rulers in the region, and it's betraying its values too. It should encourage inevitable change in the Islamists' favor, which is really in the U.S. interest."
Noah Feldman
khomsta,
Salah, can you give a link:
Khatami held office as president from 1997 to 2005 while religious minorities -- including Jews, Christians, Sunni and Sufi Muslims, Bahais, dissident Shiite Muslims and Zoroastrians -- faced systematic harassment,
In 2004 the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression concluded that charges against those detained for criticism of the government "lack any objective criteria" and are open to arbitrary interpretation by the judiciary. Women of all faiths have also suffered discrimination and repression.
More on this this report
Religious Minorities in Iran, by Eliz Sanasarian
Review
were the Iranians supposed to let the iraqis come in and take a big chunk of land and oil?
I don’t know what you talking about this land and Oil? Can you be very specific which oil fields you talking about?
The Iranians had and have the right to fight any army that tries to invade. I don't see how it's Khomeini's fault.
I respect your love for your country and defending it, but in same time can I put the following points of my view and what Khomeini Regime did to the region.
1- Khomeini's ambitious but unsuccessful campaign to export his version of Islamic revolution to the rest of the Muslim world. To be very prices in this Iran ambitious to dominating the region from Iraq and gulf and may Saudi
2- During Khomeini regime Al-Da'awa Party launched many bombs and dirty works in Iraq one of them I witnessed it was the trial of killing the Vice Chancellor of the University Of Technology which caused death of one and injured three people one of them woman sent to Swiss to be treated from bad injuries in here back caused by those criminal who supported by Khomeini regime.
I am not going more than that here but to me as I love my home country and my land my Iraqi people all its our right to defend our country and fight those who tried to interfere and destabilised our country hope this will show you " I don't see how it's Khomeini's fault"
Just look right now if you can tell us what we got by those parties and criminals Mullah midwife by Iran and sent to Iraq after US invasion.
Inkan1969,
Can anyone in Iran call the Supreme Leader system of government into question?
''This is not an ordinary government,'' he declared. Rather, it would be ''God's government.'' That meant, he added, that opposition to the government was opposition to God -- in other words, ''blasphemy.''
The People's Shah
Sadly under Islamic law, "There is no POP in Islam" but what we see in Iran and some how in other parts that those Mullah introduced their colony exactly as POP structure which not allowed under Islamic Law...
Salah, here's your link: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640/Iran-Iraq_War.html
Just scroll down to part 4.
You're changing subjects though. At first you claim that all the deaths in the iran/iraq war are Khomeini's fault. I was suggesting they were not. Changing gears by blaming Khomeini for other stuff doesn't really help.
I'd also like some reference to learn about the political ties Khomeini/Iran held with violent iraqi parties.
I'm assuming you also say that Iran sent criminals and parties to Iraq? As far as I know, it's the Iraqis who are committing the violence, not the Iranians. And the ones who come from Iran are Sunni, not Shia. And we all know that for a few years the Shia stayed quite calm under Sistani's suggestions.
Whether Iran is messing around or not, though, requires that we understand Iran even more, through dialogue and negotiations. That is not happening. Some want to just ruin the government, whether by bombing or otherwise. I personally thing that's the wrong path. The Iranians aren't unreasonble people, and neither is their government. Painting them with one brush doesn't help matters one bit.
As for the executions, that link gives no statistics. However, I'm quite sure Khatami has no power over the police, army and other armed groups. Politically speaking, I don't think he could say much against it. I'm just making assumptions here though.
You're arguments saying that Khomeini is responsible for the deaths during the war and that Khatami is responsible for the deaths during his presidency are lacking. I'm not trying to lose focus of other topics you brought up, it's just that you changed the topic, and I don't want that.
Also, I'm not Iranian, but yes, I do love it there. I try to be objective.
Also, I'm not Iranian, but yes, I do love it there. I try to be objective.
Its really strike me your words and your anger for some thing all the world from 1979 till now talking about "Your Khomeini lover" and his revelation.
" And the ones who come from Iran are Sunni, not Shia"
Give me a break!! Can any one believe in this? I don’t think so
It's very funny to me, if talking to Muslims all around they will laugh for what you put that " And the ones who come from Iran are Sunni, not Shia" this fails what prove you have? Presented here please.
We all know Sunni are not welcomed in Iran more over our Iraqi POW tells horror stores about what they had when they are in Iran, Christians enforced to be Muslims and Sunni tortured its long story.
Its just the denial not can fix the truth to help Iran or any thing just look to Saddam what he did with his stupidly and what happened with Iraq, I hope "your leader" understand that experiment before will goes same path..
If you don't mind tell us why on earth you defending Khomeini!!! While you're as you said "I'm not Iranian" are you shy to tell us the truth about you home country?
BTW, when I speak here its my life experiences from some one he was inside Iraq born and live for 40 years their, I was in services 4 years when Iraq/Iran breaks and I know well what that war all about, I can't believe some one he is not Iranian or outside Iran trying to denying UN reports, all the news that the world concerned of Iran/Khomeini revaluation behaviour inside Iran and around the region.
Go and read more about your lovers and the denial not the answer for all things
Sorry, that was a typo. I know the ones that come from Iran are Shia, not Sunni. Honest mistake. I don't think even Bush could believe that Sunnis come from Iran.
It's true I'm a Khomeini-lover, but what I've been typing so far has been objective. I've been arguing on two topics, which you have failed to address, that being the fault of Khatami and Khomeini for persecutions and the deaths during the war, respectively.
I'm not shy as to say where I'm from. I just didn't think it was relevant. Do you? I was born in the US to Lebanese parents. I lived in Iran for 6 years. Do you want to know more?
I don't know what UN reports I'm denying. Links would be nice. As to what I can answer for, I simply can't argue on the behalf of the Iranian government when I haven't heard their side of the story, along with any evidence they provide. I won't say their government is perfect, far from it. Nor will I say it's 100% Islamic, some people throw out a number like 60% (how do you calculate something like that?).
Whatever I've talked about so far has only been the obvious, things that can easily be found, like who has power in Iran, and who started the Iran/Iraq war. Did I do something wrong? Is there something wrong with defending Khomeini on a single matter? I am not stating that Khomeini has not done any of the things you claim he has. I've only responded to a couple of topics, and you haven't countered. That's all.
"We all know Sunni are not welcomed in Iran"
Well golly, Salah, don't you know that there are over 6 million Sunnis living peacefully in Iran, and that they're even represented in parliament! And unlike the Jews, they're allowed to serve in the judiciary and security services.
So there's no need to peddle anti-Iranian propaganda here. It's hateful xenophobia.
So there's no need to peddle anti-Iranian propaganda here
vadim ,Teach yourself first before talking to others..
Just go back read all your comments to feel what "It's hateful xenophobia" and who is doing it here.
Just go back read all your comments to feel what "It's hateful xenophobia" and who is doing it here.
Mind explaining what you're talking about? And have you ever set foot in Israel or Iran (other than as an invader of course?) Or the United States?