Iran's New Parliament: Implications for US-Iran Relations

H.E. Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian
Ambassador and Permanent Representative
Of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations

Washington, DC
March 17, 2000

It is a distinct pleasure and an honor for me to be here today. I want to thank the Asia Society, the Middle East Institute, Georgetown University and the American Iranian Council for organizing this conference. I wish to specially thank Ambassador Platt, the President of the Asia Society for inviting me and for his kind introduction. I also want to congratulate you all not only for organizing this important meeting but also for your general effort aimed at public education and enhancing mutual understanding and respect for diversity at all levels.

These days are auspicious for many reasons. Yesterday was the most celebrated day of Muslim holidays, the day in which prophet Abraham (peace be upon him), the patriarch of all monotheistic religions, was relieved from going through with the offering of what was most dear to him to God only because of his submission. I wish to express my felicitation to all including American Muslims on the occasion if Eid-ul-Adha.

Another reason for the importance of these days is that we are approaching March 20th, the Iranian new year and the beginning of spring and reawakening of the nature. I see a lot of familiar faces of my compatriot who are an asset to both the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States and could each act as a good-will ambassador. Since most everybody who is present here is somewhat familiar with Iranian culture and heritage, I cannot but take this opportunity to express congratulations for the coming of Norooz, the Iranian new year and the beginning of spring. Norooz which literally means a new day is the jubilation of a nation and of the earth. It is a new beginning for both Norooz signifies a new experience of life for the Iranian people, a new experience of joy, happiness, growth and flourishing, a new day to celebrate friendship and reconciliation, a new day to cleanse the soul of old enmities, a new day to make peace with each other and with nature. I wish and pray to God to make the new year filled with success, health and peace for you and for the rest of humankind.

The announcement this morning by Madam Secretary Albright about the decision of the US government to case [sic] the ban on import to the United States of some Iranian goods (and other initiatives) makes(s) today an interesting one in US-Iran relations. It is positive in the sense that the administration has decided to ease part of the sanctions against Iran. Nevertheless, it is not yet certain in the minds of Iranians whether it will constitute a precedent to lift all sanctions that were placed against Iran primarily due to American domestic politics in the first place including ironically those renewed this past Monday by President Clinton.

Notwithstanding the fact that the statement this morning contained some of the old allegations against Iran-a factor which we recognize as the result of conflicting tendencies towards Iran among US policy makers-we are prepared, for our part, to welcome the lifting of US ban on import of some Iranian goods and other initiatives as a positive step which I am sure will be reciprocated by Iran with a positive and proportionate measure. The prospect of US-Iran relations are still heavily contingent on American willingness and ability to change its policies towards Iran. In this context, reassessment of American past policies towards Iran and acknowledgments of its shortcoming, would certainly contribute to lowering the wall of mistrust.

Allow me, now to turn to the developments in Iran. It is interesting to note that the feeling of happiness, hope and being alive that we always experience in Iran when the new year, the spring is approaching resonates the general mood in Iran as a result of the increasing momentum for change and reform. However, unlike the feelings induced by the new year which would begin to be subsumes by every day problems of life, the feelings of being hopeful and effective to chart new territories, and the demand for greater public participation, change, reform and greater freedom can only become stronger and stronger. These are among the very objectives of the Islamic revolution. The current trend for reform and change are the integral part of the continuing revolution in Iran. Many upheavals in the past years, like the imposed war by Iraq against us, and the undeclared US war against Iran and the declared sanctions to undermine its development had, to some extent, delayed the process of reform and openness in Iran.

In this context I wish to stress that our democracy is maturing and the sense of stability and confidence, among both the senior officials and the population, has reached a level that provides us the latitude to be self-critical, take more advantage of opportunities for improvement, practice the egalitarian principles of the Islamic revolution and our own style of democracy. We are still in a learning process, and in the process of forging national consensus on the pace of the change and reform in Iran.

The direction of these reforms and changes is determined by our citizens. The leader of the Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has repeatedly underlined the imperative of active participation of the people in shaping the future of Iran with their own hands. I wish to emphasize that this process is irreversible and it will be non-violent. It is irreversible because of the growing public participation stemming from demographic changes, increasing urbanization, a higher degree of literacy and education, a greater access to diverse media, and the expanding information and communication technology in Iran. The process of reform will be non-violent, since Iranian culture and civilization are foreign to the concept of violence.

The recent assassination attempt against Mr. Saeed Hajjarian, an adviser to President Khatami, sad and unacceptable as it is, like previous instances of political violence will be recorded as an aberration of the rich Iranian culture and a futile attempt that will have no effect on the process of change and reform. The Leader of the Islamic revolution and the president have condemned this assassination attempt in the strongest terms as a terrorist crime and have called on law enforcement officials to leave no stone unturned for a thorough investigation and prosecution of the criminals. More than twenty national elections and discourse rather than violence and force are the proven method of effective operation and the driving force of domestic change in Iran.

Much have been said and written about Iranian politics, particularly following the election of president Khatami three years ago, the election of local governing bodies and the recent parliamentary election in Iran. This issue and its ramification for domestic and foreign policy of Iran is the subject of the discussion in the two panels organized here. I am sure the significance of this election and the composition of the sixth Majlis as well as the public excitement it has created would be adequately addressed in the two panels. I also hope that the polar opposite views about the Majlis; one that holds that the new Majlis has no significant role in introducing reform and change in domestic and foreign policies, and the extreme opposite that expect the sixth Majlis change everything overnight, would be discussed and the realistic role and power of Majlis as one of the three branches of government on the basis of the constitution are highlighted. Therefore, I will not dwell on this issue at a great length.

President Khatami's landslide victory in the presidential election in May 1997 caught everyone by surprise. The winning of the majority in the recent Majlis by supporters of president Khatami was less surprising but likely to give rise to over-expectations both at home and abroad that analysts and policy makers should guard against. We should remind ourselves over and over again that change comes gradually. What is important is that the irreversible process of reform and serious consideration of domestic and foreign policy options have gained momentum and are publicly debated. Iran has been making steady progress in domestic issues of greater freedom and participation, tolerance, transparency, accountability and economic reforms. I believe this homegrown trend of reform in Iran will continue to influence Iran's foreign policy agenda as well.

There is a synergy between Iran's domestic agenda of reform and foreign policy of dialogue, detante and peaceful co-existence through acknowledgment of a balance of legitimate interests and on the basis of mutual respect and sovereign equality of states. Any progress of set back in one would directly affect the other. Iran under president Khatami has had remarkable success on both fronts in such a short span of time. The election of the sixth parliament is the latest confirmation of domestic successes of his administration.

Iran has also made considerable progress in carrying out its foreign policy decisions. It has improved its relations with all of its Arab neighbors and continues to engage them in confidence building measures. It has improved relations with all members of the European Union and, at the same time, is engaged with the European Union in dialogue over important issues of mutual concern. I suggest that some progress has also been made in the context of Iran-U.S. relations. The cultural exchange between the two nations has a significant potential to enhancing understanding and mutual concern. However, despite the expressed American support for people to people exchange, Iranians visiting the United States continue to be treated as common criminals at American airports by finger printing them and taking their pictures. This discriminating and degrading treatment is personally humiliating and, in the final analysis, it may prove to be a disservice to the objective of the people to people exchange.

Allow me to share with you some of our views on certain problems with the general approach of US policy towards Iran. Our contention is that despite the reiterated American position that it is ready for government-to-government talks, the US government seems to be no more ready than the Iranian government to hold such talks. Presently, the US offer of official talks is unrealistic and it stands to reason that the US officials should also recognize and concur with this assessment. I believe the problem with the proposed dialogue is at least twofold: first is the question of trust and credibility, and the second is the question of mutual respect and equality.

We have managed to conduct our domestic and foreign affairs in spite of US policy of animosity towards Iran in the last two decades. And we are doing relatively well by our regional standards. Some may argue that it has been costly to us. Although, the people of Iran and its leaderships are cost sensitive, but this does not mean that the American government would succeed to force Iran to comply with their demands by imposing sanctions and putting pressure on our country. For us to act independently may be costly, but being in the kind of alliance that Iran had with the United States under the Shah does also have its own cost.

The hawkish statements made in the congress as well as those by certain senior American officials coupled with mixed positions and messages by the United States fail to generate sufficient trust for Iran to become convinced that the benefits of the US proposed dialogue would outweigh its possible costs. It may also be noted that the current state of affairs has not been cost-free to American taxpayers and the business communities as well.

The credibility of US policy towards Iran on certain important issue areas is questionable and reinforces the existing mistrust in Iran. US selective approach to the Issue of non-proliferation in the Middle East and dual use technology, promoting the peace process by pledging to maintain Israel's military edge and overlooking its adverse impact on regional security, its persistence on misrepresenting Iran's nuclear energy program and other charges about Iran's alleged effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, rather than helping to strengthen the IAEA's safeguard and monitoring regime or other multilateral monitoring regimes like OPCW of the Chemical Weapons Convention which Iran does comply with, the rejection of CTBT by US congress and the promotion of national and theater missile defense policies are among the issues that make the credibility of US policy questionable in the eyes of the Iranians.

Certain measure including the listing of the MKO and the NCR as a terrorist organization, which is a positive, step, in and of itself, But allowing their members to maintain offices in several US cities, freely travel to and from the United States and raise fund and recruit new members to be dispatched to Iraq for training and cross-border sabotage and terrorist operations, on the other, raise doubt about the extent of American seriousness in countering international terrorism.

The second problem with the official dialogue is the question of mutual respect and equality. This, I believe, is among the most important structural barrier for preparing the grounds for addressing the contending issues. It is certainly not because Iran is not confident about the strength, and the logic of its stands on the three issues important to the United States. On the contrary, these issues are also among our concerns, however for reasons not necessarily like Washington's, Iran is engaged with many states including the EU in a constructive dialogue about the similar kinds of issues.

In Tehran's perception, one of the problems with the offer of dialogue is that the US has made it an insolent and domineering spirit and not in a real and practical spirit of mutual respect and equality. The problem is further compounded once the three issues are raised in a manner, which could create tensions in our foreign relations and undermine our national security.

Dialogue will be constructive and mutually beneficial when it is carried out under a normalized situation devoid of pressure, sanctions, allegations and grandstanding. The underlying theme of Iran's foreign policy is to reduce tension, promote friendship, international cooperation and peaceful coexistence, and in this context the United States is not an exception. Advocating the idea of an official dialogue, under the current situation, without paying adequate attention,

• To the existing mutual mistrust,
• To the prevailing perceptions in Iran about the credibility of the US government position on issues of concern, and,
• To the importance of abiding by the principle of respect and equality in words and actions, would sound simplistic and may carry inadvertent consequences for our nations and the international community.

I believe good words and deeds are both important and mutually reinforcing. Iran will seriously consider the steps announced this morning, and is prepared to adopt proportionate and positive measure in return. I wish to stress, however, that these steps, important and refreshing as they maybe, are insufficient to make a quick and drastic change in the state of affairs between the two countries. We are ready to reciprocate any and all-positive steps that the United States decide to adopt in the future as well. The statement on February 15th by president Clinton about the importance of having a constructive partnership with Iran was praiseworthy. We look forward, however, to the day that the US government adopts the changes in policy and attitude required for such a constructive partnership.