***The text of Akbar Ganji s speech on the occasion of receiving the Milton Friedman Award for Advancing Liberty by the CATO Institute (13 May 2010)

Transcription

1 ***The text of Akbar Ganji s speech on the occasion of receiving the Milton Friedman Award for Advancing Liberty by the CATO Institute (13 May 2010) Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking the CATO Institute for awarding me this prize, which I accept as a moral and ethical endorsement of the Iran s Green Movement. I very much hope that this award will facilitate our struggle for advancing democracy and human rights in Iran. Ladies and Gentlemen, Human history has been interpreted in many ways. I read this history as a sustained course of struggle for liberty the struggle of slaves, women, people of color, the poor, the disenfranchised, of religious minorities and dissidents, to rid themselves of the tyranny they have endured. The history of emancipation movements in the United States is in fact a perfect example of such endeavors for liberty: the struggle against foreign domination, the revolt against slavery, the women s rights movements, and the Civil Rights Movement, are all 1

2 prime examples of human struggle, which have in turn become inspirational for similar movements around the globe. The American tradition of struggling for freedom has been instrumental in spreading the culture of liberty and democracy throughout the world. Today the American people and their social institutions continue to help disseminating the same humane principles that inspired their own founding fathers. Today one can see many societies that are reaping the benefits of these sustained struggles for liberty. There is no doubt that the relative freedom in these countries is the result of the institutionalization of democracy; and needless to say, democracy is the result of a powerful civil society, that is in turn contingent on the freedom to elect a representative government, which is itself predicated on freedom of expression, action, and organization. Good or bad, the fate of a people, however, is not entirely in their own hands. Appropriate international circumstances are also necessary preconditions for the empowerment of 2

3 civil societies and a transition to a democratic system that is committed to popular sovereignty and human rights. The misfortune of the people who live in the Middle East, the region from which I come, is that these necessary international conditions have never been conducive to achieving democracy. Quite to the contrary, these conditions have always been to the benefit of the enemies of freedom. When we look at the history of the last century, we see that Western countries, led by the United States, have brought dictatorial regimes to power and have consistently supported them. What is noteworthy is that defending these dictatorial regimes, which has always been done under the assumption of protecting the security and the interests of the West, has never achieved its stated goals. In his famous speech in November 2003, President Bush said [quote], Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. [end quote] 3

4 Whatever the cause of such policies, its result was walking shoulder to shoulder with diabolical enemies of freedom, a policy that of course was not limited to the Middle East. In 1942, President Roosevelt, quoting a Balkan proverb, famously told Prime Minister Churchill, apropos their meeting with Stalin in Yalta,[quote] It is permitted in time of grave danger to walk with the devil until you have crossed the bridge. [end quote] The inevitable result of walking with the devil has been the ascendency of mostly military dictators around the globe. People of the Middle East had been living under the tyranny of secular and corrupt governments for a long time, which were all supported by the United States and other Western countries. This context left them recourse to only one political alternative: religious fundamentalism. The United States and the Western world reaped the first fruit of their own deeds with the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and today they face fully grown and powerful trees of violent fundamentalism, and of course they must remember their own share in planting these trees with shame. The result of these prolonged policies 4

5 endanger the possibility of democracy, because if in countries like Egypt or Saudi Arabia free elections were to be held today, fundamentalist parties will most probably win. Iran is the only country in the region that if fair, free, and competitive elections were held today, democratic forces that believe in the separation of religion from the state would be victorious. This is because for 31 years Iranians have experienced extremist Islamic fundamentalism. The United States and the Western world must cease supporting secular dictators or following policies that will inadvertently keep religious dictatorships in power, instead they should, for reasons of self-interest, support democracy and human rights as principal pillars of their foreign policies. Be that as it may, the foolish policy of supporting dictators was soon replaced with another misguided policy. Entirely oblivious of the complications of Middle Eastern politics, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were under the impression that by invading a country and occupying it they could bring democracy to it. In Afghanistan and Iraq all such delusions went up in flames and burnt out 5

6 in smoke. Even President Bush himself, during the last year of his presidency, kept repeating that the United States cannot be allowed to be defeated in Iraq. Today, which American politician can guarantee a clear vision for the future of Afghanistan and Iraq after foreign forces leave? Even President Obama, who came to office promising to withdraw from Iraq, is today entangled in the messy aftermath of the US invasion of that country and cannot easily deliver on his promise. And yet, unfortunately, it seems that attacking Iran still seems to be an option that this administration is taking under consideration. The fact that people in the Middle East feel threatened by the United States and the West, and are thus inclined towards their enemy, namely the fundamentalists, is not entirely because of this history of US support for secular tyrannies or merely in reaction to the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The one-sided support of the United States for Israel has exacerbated this situation. The gushing wound of Palestine is the most appropriate site for the worsening of the infection of fundamentalism. A just solution to the Palestinian problem, and the 6

7 formation of an independent Palestinian state, next to Israel, is essential to reconstructing the image of the United States in the Muslim world. Moreover, a resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict will transform the region and move it away from the destabilizing decades of the past and toward the development of democracy in the future. Ladies and Gentlemen, Please allow me now to turn to another American policy in the region, that pertains to nuclear proliferation and which has been equally conducive to the growth of fundamentalism. American policies on this issue are predicated on double standards. Completely ignoring Israel s massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, the United States is singlemindedly fixated on the Islamic Republic in preventing it from becoming a nuclear power. There is no doubt that the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear power while ruled by a religious-military dictatorship is not only detrimental to a better life for the people of Iran and possibly may even delay the transition to democracy, but it will also 7

8 pose a grave danger to the world at large. But the double standard evident in American behavior, in not adopting the principle of a complete regional disarmament for all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, will only exacerbate the cause of fundamentalism and strengthen regimes such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. The point here is not merely that Iran should not be attacked militarily. The point is that even entertaining the possibility of a military strike, especially when predicated on the nuclear issue, is beneficial to the fundamentalists who rule Iran and as such, detrimental to the democratic movement in my country. Moreover, it is especially beneficial to those fundamentalist forces who thrive on the persistence of such double standards. Of course, this is not to blame the American militaristic policies or double standards for every problem in Iran or the Middle East. I simply wish to insist on the following point: The Iranian regime will abuse the current emergency conditions brought on by the threat of a military strike to push the democratic Green Movement away from the center of world attention. The Green 8

9 Movement in Iran is the sign of the deep dissatisfaction of Iranians against those who rule over them. This is a pluralist movement and pursues its objectives through non-violent means. The Iranian people, women and the youth in particular, are struggling for liberty the freedom to choose the kind of life they want to lead, freedom to form voluntary associations, freedom for peaceful assembly to express their concerns, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, of religion, of behavior, and above all freedom to choose a life worthy of their dignified humanity. But those who rule Iran have not only refused to grant these liberties, but in fact with their severe and brutal crackdown, they have responded in a brutal way. At this very moment, scores of those struggling for liberty and human rights are suffering under unbearable conditions in Iranian prisons. Those who have name recognition are treated comparatively better than others though still under inhumane and despicable conditions. Scores of ordinary people, meanwhile, are suffering in these prisons under intolerable conditions. Because they are unknown and 9

10 invisible, the regime has an open-ended license to do with them as it pleases. During the post-electoral crisis in Iran, the Iranian security forces opened fire on ordinary people in the streets, killing many and arresting thousands more. As admitted by the officials of the Islamic Republic themselves, at least four people have been killed under torture. The death of these four people alone is a telling example of the condition in Iranian prisons, and how the Islamic Republic treats their own citizens. At the same time, the bodies of some other prisoners have been given to their relatives, and they have been told that their loved ones have committed suicide or else suffered a heart attack. It is the bitter truth that the Iranian regime has just resumed a new wave of political executions in order to convey to its opponents that it will tolerate no opposition. The most recent example of these violent behaviors is the executions of five Kurdish Iranians early in the morning on May 9th of this year. The charges against of these five political prisoners, as the Islamic Republic has said, is membership in political parties that the government considers illegal. Without due process of law these 10

11 prisoners have been executed so that an example can be made of them for other opponents of the state. Iranians who care for democracy in their homeland will support prosecuting those who rule over Iran. They believe that these ruthless leaders ought to be tried in international criminal courts and charged with crimes against humanity. They wish those who have ordered or executed the suppressing of the Iranian people be arrested the instant they leave the country. In this context, the Iranian people wish to prevent the sale of technologies of suppression to the ruling regime in Iran. For example, the Islamic Republic is denying people the right to learn the truth from autonomous media sources on the Internet, and from satellites. If the people of Iran are not allowed to have access to satellite television, why should the tyrannical regime of the Islamic Republic be able to use the facilities of the international satellite system? When in Iran the formation of independent labor unions, in the private or public sector, is disallowed, why is it that the international community does not make doing business with Iran contingent on the formation of such 11

12 independent unions? Why is it that foreign investments in the Iranian economy, especially in the oil industry or the selling of technology, cannot be made contingent on respecting human rights? Why is it that the United Nations, through such UN organizations as the International Labor Organization and The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development does not exercise oversight over the process of signing economic contracts between Iran and foreign companies, to ascertain that these contracts are awarded legally and through a transparent bidding processes? Today, again there is much talk of economic sanctions against Iran. But we should not forget that unintelligent broad sanctions would weaken Iranian civil society and strengthen the power of state repression. In fact, the intensification of economic sanctions will not dismantle this regime. It will, ipso facto, add to the pain and suffering of the working and middle class; and as such it will not only deprive the Green Movement of its strongest supporters but will in fact alter the 12

13 political agenda of people altogether, as the struggle for daily sustenance, and to make ends meet, will replace the struggle for liberty. The intensification of economic sanctions will also make the Iranian state-run economy even more contingent on the state and as a result will make the current conditions even more corrupt and repressive. Those who believe that the free market economy is the mother of democracy should oppose economic sanctions at least from this perspective. When we talk about democratization of Iran and a transition to democracy, we will have to pay attention to the historical processes that have resulted in democratic systems and their relationship to the free market. Historically, liberalism preceded democracy. In other words, democracy was a suit tailored to liberal societies. The economy of all the existing democracies has been a free market economy. Although the shortcomings of the free market cannot be ignored, it is the best recognized system for the appropriation of resources, and politically will result in non-governmental centers of power that can thus pave the way towards democracy. And the reverse 13

14 is also true. Careless sanctions will not only fail to alter the behavior of the Iranian government or its regime but will in fact weaken the groundwork for democracy by strengthening the state. Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you again for this award and for your patience tonight. Akbar Ganji May 13,