[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Excellent Inteview With Ambassador Mark Palmer.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dIvInItY



Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:56 am    Post subject: Excellent Inteview With Ambassador Mark Palmer. Reply with quote

Choice
http://www.iraninstitutefordemocracy.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8
December 09, 2003
Iran Institute for Democracy
IIFD

Ambassador Mark Palmer in an interview with Ramin Parham, Washington, DC November 13, 2003

RP: the Iraqi situation is quite telling in what's basically wrong in our world. Rug regimes, terror networks, and criminals, in pursuit of common tactical and maybe strategic goals, are closely and effectively cooperating. Meanwhile, democracies are either fighting or neutralizing each other with crippling regulations and media friendly fire. Will democracies be hanged with their own rope, cutters and plane tickets?

MP: well, I think the American democracy will proceed, with a few others, the Italians, the Poles, the Spanish, with the vast majority of the Iraqi people and those who represent them to bring about success in Iraq. We have enough determination, President Bush has made this his highest priority, he gave this magnificent speech last Thursday [November 6th, 2003] in which he sketched out not just Iraq's, but the region's and in fact the whole world's future in terms of empowering people. So, I have no doubt that he is deeply committed. I have many Democrat friends in the Congress who are also committed. We will get through this. It is regrettable that a significant number of democracies are not with us. As we proceed in our discussion, I would be interested in explaining how this might change as we look to the future, how we could avoid this situation we are in now. You are absolutely right, there is a sharp divide and the democracies are not using their full power and influence in this situation.

RP: so, the approach towards democracy and the will to expand democracy throughout the Middle East, as far as the American side is concerned, is a bi-partisan issue. But the Atlantic divide is there, right?

MP: yes. There are some in Western Europe, the French for instance, some Germans too and others, who are skeptical that Arabs and Muslims are ready for democracy. Perhaps, they have the cynicism of maturity, so much experience that makes it impossible for them to have any vision. There is this trans-Atlantic divide. Maybe it takes a somewhat 'naïve' culture to attempt working, particularly with young people in the region, towards something that is truly radical and revolutionary. And we are attempting! I think there will be increased sympathy for that in Europe once we have more success.

RP: our enemies are revolutionary, so why shouldn't we? I lived and worked in France and Western Europe for a long time. In my belief, when analyzing Western European attitudes on these issues, one should not underestimate the fact that there is an estimated 10 to 12 million Muslims living there, the vast majority of them far from being fully 'integrated' into the social, economic, and political decision making spheres of these societies. Although believed to be 'moderate', no one has ever seen in any of the demonstration prone European cities, any fraction of this population taking into the streets and condemning the September 11th atrocities. Major European cities are in fact surrounded by this time bomb and internal threat. And I think that even in this regard, Iran could be a turning point. By helping the Iranian people to democratize their country, a free and democratic Iran with its huge cultural and Islamic heritage could show that militant Islam doesn't work. This will impact Muslims not just in the region but throughout the Western sphere.

MP: that's right. My French friends, including those who work in the Quai d'Orsay and business friends in the OECD and others are very preoccupied with what they see as encirclement by Arabs living around Paris. They are to some extent almost panicked by the security threat that they think exist within their own country. They have not quite figured out what to do about it. Therefore there is in a way an opening. If Iran, in the near term, which I believe is entirely possible, could throw off the Guardian Council and Khamenei and allow a real electoral process and demonstrate the ability of an Islamic country to have a normal democratic life and a successful economy, that would indeed change the minds of many Europeans. They would say that this is entirely a manageable and civilized kind of development, something that not just Iran but the rest of the region could enjoy as well, and that French and other European foreign policies should change and become democracy-centered, which is definitely not the case today. Instead, [these policies] are security and commercially centered in a very narrow fashion. Their definition of security is completely wrong headed. It is basically to pay blackmail to terrorists in one form or another. Iran is very much at the center of the future of the region and the larger region, including Europe. Iraq and Iran together could change the whole of the Middle East, transform this area and the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and transform, in a good sense, Islam itself, through a process of modernization of the faith itself, which all faiths need periodically.

RP: shouldn't a "New Architecture for International Power" be built on an 'environment of trust' based on Generally Accepted Governance Principles?

MP: that was of course the great hope after the second WW with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The great hope was that all governments would be democratic respect women's rights and allow a free press...In the immediate aftermath of WW II there were a maximum of two dozen democratic states. In the past twenty five years there has been a tremendous growth of democracy on every continent and region except the Middle East. This explosion of human liberties is unique with regard to any given period in human history. There are now roughly 120 governments that fit a broad definition of democracy. We are a majority in the United Nations but we don't work together. So, the new architecture that I believe could complete the democratic revolution and bring about a democratic world would organize those 120 governments within what a call the "Community of Democracies" which had its first meeting in Warsaw, a young democracy, in 2000, its second one in Seoul and will meet again in Chili next year. Its founding principle is both to guard democracy where it already exists and spread it. The organization is still in its early stages and has not yet achieved any of its promises but it could do some wonderful things. For instance, democratic states could act in a 'democratic caucus' within the UN organization to insure that the Human Rights Commission did what it should. Today, chaired by Libya, the Commission, with half its members being dictatorial states, does not fulfill its obligations. The dictators understand the importance of such a Commission therefore they fight to become members and are actively involved in insuring that it does not carry out its work. So, I my opinion, part of this new architecture should be a much stronger and bolder 'Community of Democracies'. I have also proposed some other ideas in this line. For instance, major multinational corporations should come together in a 'Business Community for Democracy". This would allow the US, EU, and Japanese corporations to do what they are presently reluctant to do directly. It is hard for a corporation like Exxon and others in Saudi Arabia for instance to ask Abdullah to allow demonstrations like those that took place in Riyadh three weeks ago. What would be much less difficult for such corporations to understand is that the rule of law in these countries would allow less corruption, a very detrimental factor for business, and better contracts in a much more predictable business environment. So, by coming up together as a group and putting up the funds for up to 100 billion dollars, these companies could promote democracies without being directly involved. We saw in South Africa how important this could be when businesses come together and work hard to get rid of apartheid, in that case, very effectively. In yet another example, if major multinationals work together in China, they will have a huge leverage. All the investment is basically foreign! And China's double digit growth rate is due to foreign money! The same thing is potentially true about Iran. Presently there isn't much foreign investment in Iran, but if it began to open up, businesses could have a strong role in promoting democracy.

RP: I personally, learned the importance of 'trusted parties' in my professional business experience, particularly in a growing 'click economy' where physical interlocutors are dis-intermediated through information networks. I can not imagine global peace being achieved without a 'trust environment' on the basis of commonly accepted principles.

MP: yes! If you look at the global economy, over 90% of the globe's economic product is produced by 80 democratic nations. This is not a coincidence [insert Tocqueville]. This is a direct result of the fact that in democracies you have 'rule of law', 'rule of contract', 'property rights' that are respected, and you are able to trust. You know and your partner knows that if he violates that trust he will go to court and will loose! I went through this in the Check Republic myself, for I am a businessman and have done over a billion dollar investment in Central and Eastern Europe including the creation of all the major TV stations in the region. It happened that my Check partner cheated me. So we took him to court and we won a settlement of 380 million dollars through international arbitration. If we had not won, people would not have invested in the Check Republic. This was a test case, and as a matter of fact, the largest such case in the post-communist era, where courts upheld the sanctity of a contract. In the future, Check business people will be a bit more careful in cheating their foreign partners! This is what is needed in the Middle East. I spent three years trying to set up a TV network in the Middle East following our work in Eastern Europe. It was an extremely frustrating experience for it was clear that all these government people had their hand out for bribes and would not allow us and our local partners to run a news department without government interference. So we ended up investing heavily in Eastern Europe and not putting a penny in the Middle East. Not because of a lack of economic opportunities but because of the political barriers. There is a huge economic opportunity there.

RP: Ambassador Max Kampelman[1] and you have been working towards a Helsinki-like process for the Middle East. In yet another such proposal, you speak of "Monarchs for Democracy". Could you elaborate on these initiatives?

MP: one of the great successes of the last 25 years was the Helsinki process in Europe. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, wanted non-aggression security insurances, trade and investment. President Nixon responded to that asking for an [additional] agreement on a third basket, namely human rights, freedom of travel, youth exchanges...so, in 1972 we started that process and I was personally present in Helsinki at that time. In 1975 we completed what was called the 'Helsinki Final Act' and I was there again with President Ford. That unleashed a very important dynamic in Europe. On the civil society side, in the Check Republic with Havel, in Moscow with the Helsinki monitors, it allowed civil society to say that now that the leader have agreed to certain principles, we will monitor their adherence to human rights and other principles. It was one of the main reasons, according to most democrats in these countries that ultimately democracy was achieved and the communist had to retreat from power. This combination of the government and non-governmental operations was of immense importance in bringing democracy to the region. What Max Kampelman and I are proposing today is to take the existing Helsinki structure, both the documents and the organization, and extend an invitation to the countries of the Middle East to join the process and the OECD and to commit to the same principles. In 1975, six of these countries actually adhered to the Helsinki principles. We need to go beyond those initial statements. This would mean that the OECD which now has 55 member states would go up to 80, if all the countries in the region joined the process, the geographic area, presently extended to Central Asia, would broaden to the South to include Iran, Iraq, and all the Mediterranean Arab states. Most importantly, it would initiate a dialogue between civil societies within each of these countries and the governments on how to move ahead from the current, unsatisfactory 'is' to the 'ought' which is set forth in these documents to bring these countries to adhere to modern standards in all areas, security, economics, and human rights and democracy. We have found strong support in Europe for this idea, from the Danish to Italians and others. We are hoping that the Europeans will take the lead in this.

"Monarch for democracy" is one of my personal favorites! If you look around the world, it's striking how many far sighted and democratic kings there are. Juan Carlos of Spain is probably the best example, but the King of Thailand[2] is also a really wonderful man. He almost single handedly guaranteed and assured that democracy would take root in Thailand. Just like Juan Carlos did in Spain, he has fought both business people and the military who have wanted to stop democracy in Thailand. So my idea, sketched out in the book, is that the constitutional Monarchs of the world, and there are many in Europe and many in Asia actually, would come together and invite the Royal families of the Gulf, the Sheiks, the Kings of Jordan, Brunei, Swaziland, all of the absolute monarchs, there are 8 absolute monarchs in the world today, and also those who are not absolute but in the 'grey' area, and invite them to a discrete discussion on how one can transition from absolute to constitutional Monarchy and why it is in the interest of the Royal family. The Monarch would pull back and take on a 'constitutional guarantying' role as opposed to that of actively running the country. That's the key distinction in my mind. Abdullah and the royal family in Saudi Arabia need to get out of politics but they could be very important as guarantors of the constitution. This is what Ataturk and the military did in Turkey by guarantying that the constitution would be respected and transition be made to democracy. Monarchs in the Middle East could be very important in a positive sense, whereas in my opinion, most of the non-monarch dictators, Mubarak of Egypt or Assad, will have to go. I don't see a dignifying continuing role for them. They will have to retire or be put in jail.

RP: you speak of Slobodan Milosevic as "very skillful in dividing the West...exploiting existing divisions...to insulate his regime truly decisive pressure..." He did this while he was quite obviously behind most of the atrocities in the Balkans. The Islamic Republic seems to have learned a lot from him, isn't it?

MP: absolutely! That's why President Bush's speech was so important. He clearly said that 60 years of practice of tolerating regimes which oppress their people has not enhanced the security and the well fare of the people in the Middle East or America's security. It has just been a disaster. But these dictators and as you correctly said Milosevic had convinced the American leaders that the alternative to them was the deluge, the disaster, the Islamic fundamentalism. The alternative to Mubarak in Egypt is not Islamic fundamentalism, but respect for the Egyptian people who are perfectly capable of taking care of their own affairs. Some people say that Saudis have no desire for democracy. Well, 300 000 Saudis have studied in western universities. Even if they hadn't, Saudis are not so backward that they don't understand that their royal family is corrupt. Bin Laden sees it too. Even illiterate people understand it. The fact that there have recently been demonstrations there in favor of democracy; the fact that there have been this year 3 or 4 separate petitions from leading business and intellectual figures appealing to the royal family to bring about extensive reforms, show that even in a country like Saudi Arabia there is basic push [for democracy].

RP: the stakes in opening up Iran and assisting it through to democracy are immense. To make this a success, you have proposed a "coherent strategy" as a code of conduct for the "Community of Democracies". Could you elaborate as extensively as possible on this?

MP: I would like to see President Bush in a major address again talk to the Iranian people and specifically propose a "Contract between America and the Iranian People". If we could persuade Prime Minister Blair, President Chirac, and Prime Minister Berlusconi to join in the contract, it would make it much more powerful. We should make clear that we want a good future for the Iranian people and certain things that we want to be able to do. If democracy comes and Iranians have a sovereign government with which we can deal, we will commit in advance to a major aid program to help the economy of Iran. We would specifically commit in the contract to major effort to help develop the oil industry, which is far from achieving its full potential; we would commit to major effort to track the assets that were stolen from the Iranian people, to return frozen assets and trace ill gotten gains, both earlier such gains that are outside Iran and new ones by the Guardian Council and other corrupt figures. I would also see us committing to an absolutely full and normal relationship including cultural and student exchanges. It is important to say that if the people of Iran are able to control their own affairs we are prepared to come in and help in a major way.

RP: would that be somehow translated into legislation, which, as you have proposed could be an "Iran Democracy Act"?

MP: yes, it is important to have the legal standing of an active Congress which commits us in writing to more than just a declaration of policy by the President. There are also some steps that we could take even before full democracy has been achieved in Iran. For example, the United States should be willing to open an embassy again in Tehran if, of course, Khatami is able himself to move in that direction. I strongly favor our presence and the removal of all trade restrictions in a measured fashion as part of a process of encouraging the emergence of a democracy.

RP: all this will depend to a human right chapter and the right of the people to choose...

MP: right. Equally important is a strong support for those Iranians who have the courage to work for democracy. It is terribly important for us to build our links with them. This could be in various forms. I have strongly endorsed in my book supporting satellite TV and radio channels that are located outside Iran broadcasting into Iran. Unfortunately, they don't have enough money to have strong enough satellite transponder signals to get to their audience. It is really a disgrace that these terrific stations in California are underpowered. I have been arguing on the Hill recently that we should be supportive in establishing in Iraq stations beaming into Iran. The Iranian regime has thought it perfectly appropriate to have channels in Iran broadcasting into Iraq in Arabic which is not the language of Iran. These are stations directed to the Iraqi people with strong political messages. It would be perfectly appropriate to do the same thing in Farsi. These channels would be run by Iranians. We should help financially but Iranians themselves can perfectly run the channels.

RP: imagine the day, hopefully not too far, where you have, not a jammed short wave radio but a medium MW wave station with strong signals beaming into Iran so people could listen to it in taxis, lines, houses, everywhere. This will have a tremendous impact.

MP: that's what you need. I also believe we should help train anybody willing to be trained in the lessons learned in Serbia by the student groups, in Chili, Argentina, Indonesia, Poland...civil society, both underground and above ground when possible, should organize and insist upon full democracy. If President Khatami is ultimately unwilling to insist upon his right as the only elected president of the country to put legislations get through and to function as a president, if he is unwilling to do that, and I hope that at some point he is going to say that enough is enough, then the West and the American should join with Iranians, particularly young Iranians, and say either you join us and call us into the streets and push out the Guardian Council or we are going to do it on our own. This has been done successfully in many countries, in at least forty or fifty countries in the past few years. In almost all of the cases without a single hot being fired. It has everything to do with understanding how to do it and getting organized. Once you have got that critical mass, nothing can stop it. The security forces can be persuaded that you are on their side and get to the point where they are unwilling to open fire. At that point, the game is basically over.

RP: the 'pasdarans' are from people. The highly trained, highly paid security forces ready to kill the people, in my opinion, are far from being the majority component. The majority are just waiting for that critical moment to come.

MP: exactly. In every situation that I know, this is what happened. In China, in 1989, Deng Xiaoping believed that the security forces would not open fire on the students and he was right. So he had to keep changing the units until they could find some units that would be willing to do that. But the majority of the Chinese security forces were not willing. Tiananmen Square, in the very heart of Beijing, was thus occupied for months and months. They couldn't even bring Gorbachev to the square! It was going on in 152 other cities in all 60 provinces, as a massive nation wide movement. What's needed in Tehran, Esphahan, Shiraz and other cities is that same kind of masse movement. In Belgrade, once it got to the point that there were 500 000 students and miners and others in the streets, it was over. In Hong Kong just recently, they had half a million people in the streets forcing the communist appointed mayor to retreat and rescind the security legislation.

RP: our major concern is how to get to that critical mass in the streets without igniting violence...

MP: that's the key point. People need to be trained on how not to react with violence. I was a student leader in the civil right movement here in the US and we trained each other not to react to violence. Non-violence has a power of its own and if you cross the line into violence you loose that power; you loose the ability to have older people and women and the masses join you; you loose your moral authority. What Gandhi understood well was that dictatorial and colonial regimes exist if the people continue to cooperate, either actively or passively. If that cooperation is withdrawn, in the form of general strike, traffic jams...they will fall. There are 198 non-violent civil disobedience techniques which can be used. The key is to avoid violence. In Iran, this movement has been going on for years now and although it is not easy to organize a non-violent revolution, in the end, it is the best strategy; the most durable, the most democratic, the most moral, the most legitimate strategy. And in many cases, it is the only strategy. I would also like to add that I have huge admiration for young Iranians, students, intellectuals, journalists...it is immensely impressive to see what is going on there. Iranians definitely know how to do this. They have the courage and the vision. They just haven't come together yet. But they will. We could help with some training and sharing of experience, not designing the strategy.

RP: one of these experiences is the Yugoslavia's model with support for "general strike". Support for a 'free and fair referendum' could also be turned into a powerful leverage...

MP: unfortunately the West in general has been very reluctant to do this. What we did in Serbia in helping the student movement there was very unusual. The US government spent some 30 million dollars to help them with posters and radio stations...we were very involved. From Hungary across the border, we sent in money, trained people and used all sort of means to support the Yugoslav movement. That is unusual as I said with very few cases in the past 25 years. But I really think that we should do that with those Iranians who want us to do that. We should also be willing to call on Khamenei and be very clear in asking him to leave power. I have also proposed that dictators be indicted for injustice and violation of international law and crimes against humanity. Khamenei is clearly guilty of massive crimes against humanity. As there is now a process in Sierra Leon against Charles Taylor, and one against Milosevic in Hague, there should be one against Khamenei and the world should join and say "you either leave power or you are going to jail". This needs to be put in sharp and clear contrast. There is nothing wrong with the elected Parliament. The problem is the unelected few.

RP: another one of your proposals is the continuation of a "quite dialogue" with Khamenei through the British embassy. Why the British and what the message should be?

MP: this kind of dialogue with dictators has been done before. I watched Ronald Reagan do it, and very successfully so, with Gorbachev. The elements of the dialogue would be the same as with Khamenei, that is "you have to worry about your personal future and that of those around you. You need to make some choices. The choices are, you either cooperate with the transition process to democracy, in which case, as with Gorbachev, you can even have a good life, be honored and given safe heaven in Geneva or anywhere of his choosing. If you don't cooperate you should reflect on the fate of those leaders who chose not to cooperate. They were either assassinated or ended up in jail. Their families and friends will also have a very unattractive future. This will be a message not of threat but of establishing a personal relationship. I did this when I was the last American ambassador in communist Hungary. I managed very close relations with the country's last communist dictator, traveled with him, drank with him!...and I talked to him about his future in very graphic terms. Most dictators are paranoid and he was very worried about his future. They don't trust anyone and sometimes foreigners can be more trusted by them than their own people. It can be either the British ambassador or someone from a Muslim country or anyone who can establish a dialogue and an ongoing working relationship with Khamenei.

RP: you witnessed and played an important role in the collapse of the evil empire. Was there any 'exit strategy' for the countless members of the nomenclatura who for decades had suppressed their own people?

MP: yes there was an exist strategy although it wasn't super-organized. It is important to talk about it so that the people in the nomenclatura in Iran realize that they should not fight and die against the change. It is important that they feel they can have a decent future. I just give you one example of that. 6 months before the end of communism in Hungary, the head of the ideological committee of the party asked to have lunch with me and I knew him quite well. He was worried about his own future and asked for advice. We reflected on his skills and how they could be applied in a post-communist ear...being a propagandist he actually quit his job and ended up setting up his own marketing company! In former communist countries thousands of these ex-apparatchiks have done very well. It is important not to demonize them, not to put their back against the wall with no hope. If possible, it is good to have a peaceful transition.

RP: what does a nuclear armed theocracy presage for the coming century?

MP: very very scary! An alarming prospect. France and Britain have nuclear weapons and we are not worried at all. Because we know that they are democracies. A theocracy or any dictatorship, including China, North Korea, and Pakistan, with nuclear weapons are unpredictable by nature because ultimately decisions are made by one or a handful of people. History is full of dictators and leaders gone crazy who have started wars to stay in power.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] "one of the fathers of the Helsinki process", item. Page 46.

[2] King PHUMIPHON Adunyadet (since 9 June 1946); new constitution signed by King PHUMIPHON on 11 October 1997. Thai political parties include the Democratic Party or DP (Prachathipat Party) [CHUAN Likphai]; Mass Party or MP [CHALERM Yoobamrung, SOPHON Petchsavang]; National Development Party or NDP (Chat Phattana) [KORN Dabbaransi]; Phalang Dharma Party or PDP (Phalang Tham) [CHAIWAT Sinsuwong]; Solidarity Party or SP (Ekkaphap Party) [CHAIYOT Sasomsap]; Thai Citizen's Party or TCP (Prachakon Thai) [SAMAK Sunthonwet]; Thai Nation Party or TNP (Chat Thai Party) [BANHAN Sinlapa-acha]; Thai Rak Thai Party or TRT [THAKSIN Chinnawat]
_________________
-- DiViNiTy Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group