Friday
Dec112009
Iran: A Renewed Washington Love Affair With The Green Movement?
Friday, December 11, 2009 at 10:46 
It is striking that, after six weeks in the high-profile US media of scepticism and even hostility towards the Iranian opposition, there appears to be another honeymoon of American sentiment for the Green Wave(s). While the protests of 13 Aban (4 November) were largely put aside by the US press, the smaller demonstrations of 16 Azar have been embraced as the valiant defiance of Government oppression.The Christian Science Monitor saw the resurrection of "the country's Green Movement , [which] has found new ways of organizing and keeping its message alive", and Los Angeles Times published a lengthy editorial, "Help Iran's Student Protestors":
The students, for their part, seem to be girding for a long fight, and the West should follow their lead. Western governments should offer the reform movement moral support, as President Obama did in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, promising to be a voice for the aspirations of reformers such as the "hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran." But the West also must be careful not to undermine the reformists with too close an embrace. This is a national movement, and the Iranians who are questioning the legitimacy of their own government are diligent students of their revolutionary forefathers.
The Latest from Iran (11 December): Ripples and then Ruptures?
Meanwhile, CNN has converted a general statement from Assistant Secretary of State John Limbert, ""We believe as we have always believed that the Iranian people deserve decent treatment from their government," into a portrayal of Washington's renewed backing of the opposition with the headline, "Official: U.S. Will Not Ignore Iran Protests".
President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech offered a high-profile stage for a display of Washington's sentiments. Masoud at The Newest Deal came away with hope:
One of the two times Obama explicitly singled out Iran was on the nuclear issue, if only to stress the importance of countries to not only follow international law – in this instance, the Non-Proliferation Treaty – but to also ensure that such international agreements are followed and respected by all nations. Obama continued:
"The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression."
What is interesting to note is that while Obama did not mention Iran in his litany of countries that “brutalize their own people,” he used the word "engagement" in his very next sentence. The term “engagement,” of course, has been used almost exclusively vis-à-vis Iranian diplomacy during the first eleven months of the Obama administration. It appears that this was subtle (if not coy) way of putting the Iranian regime on notice.
On closer examination, however, it appears that the Obama Administration is still driven by a nuclear-first attitude on Iran. The substantial statements on Thursday and today have all been about sanctions on Tehran: US, British, and French ambassadors at the United Nations warned of Iran's violations of arms embargoes. The French ambassador asserted:
If Iran continues to do everything it can to violate five Security Council resolutions, if it continues to refuse the slightest confidence measures, to refuse dialogue, transparency after the major revelations that have just been made, we must draw all of the necessary conclusions and that means we must move on to a new resolution involving sanctions.
US Ambassador Susan Rice echoed, "Should Iran continue to fail to meet its obligations, the international community will have to consider further actions," and this morning Secretary of Defense Robert Gates piled on the rhetorical pressure, "I think you're going to see some significant additional sanctions imposed by the international community, assuming that the Iranians don't change course and agree to do the things they signed up to do at the beginning of October."
So, however warm the renewed affection for the Iranian opposition, it stills appears that "plucky student protestors" translates into no more than pawns in the Obama Administration's nuclear chess match with Tehran.
Reader Comments (21)
Not all US media are ignoring the Green movement. I highly recommend Georgie Anne Geyer's intriguing article, asking whether a new revolution is underway, which would be the beginning of a real turnaround in the Middle East:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20091211/cm_ucgg/isthereanewrevolutionunderwayiniran
She is the first Western journalist realizing that an eventual paradigm shift is taking place.
Yes, agreed. Very good article.
Arshama,
Much appreciated. Will have a read.
S.
[...] See the original post here: Iran: A Renewed Washington Love Affair With The Green Movement … [...]
I really don't understand why people want the U.S. to be more involved with the green movement. I'd like to see a free Iran co-operating with other countries, including the United States, on international issues. But, when it comes to domestic issues, no Iranian can forget what they did to our country in 1953. As far as I'm concerned, the green movement doesn't need Obama and can and must succeed independently.
Somebody
Off course the green movement has fight independently so far and people of Iran didn't need americans and Obama to show their disgust but american administration acted as if they were the unimportant" insects " falling in the streets !! now they are some recognition and it's very important psycologically !! in short, they exist !
THe media were skeptical of the Green Movement because the same demonstrators in Iran support their country's nuclear rights. However they now think they can coopt the dmonstrators. Remains to be seen. Fact it, Iran has not violated the NPT and the IAEA says there's zero evidence to a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Iran is under no legal obligation give up enrichment. Such demands on Iran are themselves violations of international law.
hass, I totally agree with you on principle. I also don't think the green movement can be co-opted. However, I would like to point out that in international law, security council resolutions are binding. My understanding is that Iran has refused to comply with resolutions mandating a stop to Iran's enrichment activities.
Sure, there's nothing in the NPT that says Iran has to stop enriching uranium and the security council is an undemocratic institution that unjustifiably gives veto power and permanent status to five of its member nations but that's international law for you and Iran is in violation.
Personally, if I thought Iran's long-term interests weren't being risked, I would make the same choice to refuse an unjust security council resolution. I'm not sure how other Iranians would feel about that but I don't think I'm alone in my feelings about the security council.
Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to Iranians, who are much more interested in pursuing freedom, democracy and independence. The nuclear issue only interests me in that its resolution may bring about better political and economic ties between Iran and the international community, because given the evidence, when it comes to nuclear weapons, I fear Israel, Pakistan and India much more than I do Iran.
I've also been surprised this week to see the turnabout in the extent and tone of MSM coverage of the Greens. I was almost shocked that someone in the US media, i.e., Geyer, seems to understand the paradigm shift in the politics of the ME that the ascendancy of the Greens has the potential to create.
I don't see what's happening this week as a "renewed love affair." I think the Administration has been consistently stating it's disgust (in diplomatic-speak) at the Regime's human rights abuses and admiration for the courage and persistence of the Greens -- but, brother, it's required a real hunt to find those statements!! They've been buried in State Dept testimony to Congress, only occasionally covered by VOA, and I only learned of the strongest St Dept statements yet earlier this week via an article published in Russia (tx to @JoanneMichele for digging it up and tweeting it)!
As previously discussed here, I think this Administration has been trying to walk a very fine line between supporting the Greens while trying to ensure that anything US officials say does not endanger them further or add legitimacy to the idiotic claims of the Regime that the US is "pulling the strings" of the Green Movement. But also remember the storm of Green outrage last summer when Hillary mentioned US support from "behind the scenes," such as asking twitter to delay their planned maintenance downtime. I've felt the St Dept learned that lesson only too well -- and have hardly dared to comment above a whisper since then, because they not only don't want to add fuel to the fire of the Regime's lies, but also have NOT wanted a Green backlash for US interference (again) in the country's internal efforts to achieve democracy.
Unlike the last Administration, I think there are people in this Administration who appear to be knowledgeable of the US' past, egregious failures in its relationship with Iran and don't want to repeat them; and who have the ability to think, analyze, hold more than 2 thoughts in mind at the same time, and the personal maturity to not allow emotions or their "gut" to rule their actions. Being less mature, I've been a bit frantically frustrated by the Administration's unwillingness to push on human rights issues at the same time they've been pursuing engagement on the nuke issue.
However, as difficult as it has been as a US citizen to watch the horrors the Regime is visiting on the people of Iran without hearing more than an occasional peep from my govt, it may have been a good strategy. (My stomach is churning at saying that.) Even the Regime liars have been letting it slip more often in their various public statements that they, too, know the Green Movement has arisen from the Iranian people. And, with the US appearing to be solely focused on the nuke issue, continuing to hold open diplomatic engagement with AN, and avoiding sabre-rattling, the Regime has had no opportunity to undermine the Greens by rallying anyone against "foreign threats" who might still be dumb enough to believe anything they say. The US' non-aggressive stance in the nuke negotiations, along with only whispering about the human rights abuses, has given the Regime enough rope to hang itself by so clearly behaving in bad faith internationally as well as internally. Because of the courage, brilliance and persistence of the Greens, and just possibly because the US has kept its mouth shut & avoided allowing itself to be used as the Great Satan, there is no player left on the world stage that can justify continued overt support for this Regime on any level.
I've felt that my govt's strategy of only whispering condemnation of the human rights abuses in Iran and failure to speak out loudly and frequently enough (from my perspective) in admiration of the historic courage of the Greens, particularly the students, has been unnecessary for several months now -- the Greens have more than proven they represent themselves and the people of Iran only. But, I'm not a diplomat or an historian and my views are based only on what I read here, in blogs and on twitter/fb. My guess, however, is that, with regard to the Greens, this Admin has been experiencing what Obama described in his Nobel speech when he said "inaction tears at our conscience." More accurately, I suspect that the St Dept's quiet "whispering" has been tearing at their conscience(s).
I thought that much of Obama's Nobel speech was a direct response to the Greens in Iran. I don't believe that his departure from the pre-release transcript of his speech was a slip or mistake at all when he said "...it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side." I'm just sorry it has taken him so long to state it so clearly.
Apologies for my long-windedness here. I shouldn't be trying to explain what my govt is doing, given that I really have no clue. However, I disagree this is a "renewed love affair." No decent people of any nation can have felt anything but in love with the Greens since June, and I think there are quite a few decent people in this Administration...
Uhh sorry Somebody but UNSC resolultions that are ultrvires are NOT binding. I suggest you read up on this point at IranAffairs.com
Somebody,
Give me until tomorrow to sift through this.
S.
THere's more. For example the UNSC's demand that Iran sign the Additional Protocol is also illegal and a violation of the most basic norms of international treaty law -- voluntariness. Suppose the UNSC demanded that the US sign the International Criminal Court treaty -- what would the US response be?
(Note however that Iran had nevertheless already implemented the Additional Protocol for 2.5 years, and has offered to permanently ratify it if its right to enrich uranium is also recognized. Other nations -- Egypt, Argentina, Brazil -- have not even agreed to this though they too have suspicious nuclear programs. Double standard.)
"Suppose the UNSC demanded that the US sign the International Criminal Court treaty — what would the US response be?"
Veto?
In all seriousness though you raise very interesting points and I'm looking forward to hear Scott's take.
One thing that came to mind reading those Iran Affairs articles was that using the same reasoning brings into question the practice of having the security council authorise military actions. Given that the inviolability of borders is also a jus cogens (right?), then if it's ultra vires for the security council to make resolutions that go against jus cogens, how then can it authorise military actions? And why in the run up to all these recent (imperialist) American wars does the media always focus on whether or whether not the security council has authorised the war?
Follow the money!! Follow the money!! Money greases the wheels of everything. Stopping the flow of money brings everything to a halt. That's the way to future success!
Interesting article here re coming sanctions - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126057864707988237.html
"The new penalties seek to hobble Tehran's oil and gas industry by blacklisting Iranian ENERGY, INSURANCE and SHIPPING firms. The U.S. strategy also seeks to target the ECONOMIC ASSETS of Iran's elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guards Corps"
Barry
Somebody,
As your finding out the UN is not about what is fair. The UN security council wields immense power but is only represented 5 permanent members and 10 rotating ones. The UNHRC(Human rights council) rules by majority and its membership is one per state giving the OIC a defacto majority. In both cases we don't always see the results the way one would would expect. We don't because the UN is largely toothless. In my mind it is one of the reasons it is so inadequate dealing with the worlds issues. How on the earth could the UN allow the second war in Iraq happen? How could the UN have let the Rawanda massacre go on with no intervention? How on the earth could the reformed UNHRC allow 13 of its first 18 resolutions target israel with no mention of Darfur or the plight of the Somalis. How could the precursor to the UNHRC pass 65 resolutions against Israel from 1952 to 1992 yet not one against the Palestinians? How could the UNHRC let the OIC states pass a Defamation of Religions clause when the majority of the leading human and religious rights abusers are OIC states. How can the UNHRC and UN ignore Darfur were over 2 million have died since the early 90's yet fixate on the Israeli Arab conflict which has claimed 50,000 lives since 1948?
Message loud and clear--the UN is essentially in a state of paralysis because of its own makeup. Geopolitical and economic concerns rule the day in the UN not the concern for the everday person you and me. The UN security is controlled by the West and the UNHRC is controlled by the OIC and to some extent the Non-aligned states. When you look at the ruilings coming out of both it is clear who is making the decisions for either group. I don't have the answers but the UN just leaves me frustrated especially considering we can hear a pin drop when Darfur is brought up(i worked with a relief agency for Darfur.)
The issue in Iran is all about geopolitical and security concerns. The reality is those who control the security council perceive Iran as a threat. While the Arab street might not view it this way you would be surprised how many Arab governments back it. I agree with Iran's right to nuclear technology but I do have concerns. These concerns are: they are using the same technology MA Khan stole for pakistan(we now what that led to in Pakistan), MA Khan was the architect of the worlds largest nuclear weapons black market, they have been caught numerous times trying to buy banned or dual purpose equipment, they have never allowed certain key scientists to be interviewed, they blocked or severely restricted access to numerous sites in Iran, and most importantly they have been caught numerous times not telling the whole truth. You have to ask yourself considering the lies during the election would you trust this regime? I wouldn't and that is Iran's problem with the West. It is not so much about the "truth" but the perception. The greatest irony is the fact many experts on the issue, such as Mark Hibbs, actually doubt Iran has the economic and technological resources to produce a bomb anymore! This whole charade is so frustrating because it is blinding the world to the plight of everyday Iranian. Aggh I need to punch something right now--I guess I will have to settle with throwing some darts at Ahmadinejad's picture on the wall!!!
Thx
Bill
Bill, thanks for your lengthy and informative post. It's hard not to get frustrated reading about the state of international affairs, where might is still right and the plight of people suffering under war and oppression goes unheeded (except if there is political gain to be had in the heeding). I just hope it doesn't take another world war to see an improvement in how things are run at the UN...
Bills rant against the UN is nonsense typical of the far right. If the UN is unfair it is unfair in FAVOR of the US. Of those resolutions passed against Israel, how many of them were simply vetoed by the US? How often has the US simply ignored its own obligations under international law? You want an example of war and suffering going unheeded? Here: During the Iran-IRaq war, the Iraqis developed and used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. The Iranians repeatedly raised this issue at the UN, only to be blocked by the US. At the time, the US was complict in Iraq's chemical weapons used, Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hands, Reagan had removed IRaq from the State Department list of terror nations so as to easy the transfer of weapons technology to Iraq, and the US State Department was trying hard to shift the blame for Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in Halabja onto Iran. It took years before the UN reacted to Saddam's chemical weapons use, thanks to the US support for Iraq in the UN.
READ MORE : http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169/36403.html
Incidentally, you may be interested in reading why Iran's nuclear program was not really a "secret" at all
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/12/irans-not-so-hi.html
Somebody,
Yeah it does suck when politics trump the concerns of everday citizens like those in Iran. Politics always seem to obscure the true plight of all of us around the globe. To much power is condensed into to few hands. The reality is that decisions more often than not who has the most money and military clout behind them. Not much thought it given to was is universally right but only to what is right for that group pushing their agenda.
Thx
Bill
hass,
I see your point and when one reads my post it is easy to come away with that thought. I do realize the duplicity and hypocrisy when it comes to the US. The US wields way to much power and we have to stop always thinking about ourselves first. Our support of Iraq was wrong but at the time you have to take into consideration the whole deal with Iran. If it had been any other state with interests in the area who had hostages taken they would have also been helping Iraq. Does not make it right but just a reality of geopolitics. I am also deeply concerned with the our blind support for Israel. While I understand Israel's stance it gets me incensed that they continue to build settlements. It seems to me Israel is not interested in peace and the US as usual issues a condemnation then does nothing. As I stated in my post to Somebody my frustration is the groups who unilaterally often pursue their own agenda regardless of the other's concern. They do so knowing the rest have to go along because they own the trump cards. For the US it is economic and military power and the knowledge the can force the security council to do what it wants. In the UNHRC it is the OIC states who control via a majority(have a state you get a seat) and force their resolutions down the throats of everyone else. The UN is broke and you and I are paying for it each day. The UN needs to go with a more represenative plan. The plan should not be based soley on economics/military power but tempered with represenation more based on population. Simply put the UN is not democratic and that is the root of the issue.
Thx
Bill
Hass,
Read your article. An interesting side bar on the Iranian nuke issue is the fact the US knew about Pakistans efforts yet did nothing. At the time India was in bed with Russia and again it was geopolitics deciding what happened. Now we have nuclear armed state overun by fanatics who would use a nuke if they had. God if only people thought more long term! One day our children would look back on this and be absolutely perplexed wonder how in the world did think that was a good move!!!
Thx
Bill