Washington Post:What the West Owes the Iranian People

By Elahé Sharifpour-Hicks

Saturday, April 16, 2005;


Think back seven years to 1998, when the main hope for political reform in
the broader Middle East was in Iran. A reform-minded cleric had swept aside
the establishment's candidate in presidential elections, and his allies were
about to make a similarly impressive showing in parliamentary elections.
Independent newspapers and magazines were springing up, and the rigidities
of authoritarian clerical rule were under attack by those espousing a
liberal form of Islamic democracy.

Elsewhere in the region, prospects for reform seemed distinctly less
promising. Turkey's military appeared to be intent on ensuring that a
democratic Islamic party would never hold power in that secular republic,
and the former mayor of Istanbul, said to be the most popular politician in
the country, was in jail, his chances of high office apparently ended.
Throughout the Arab world the rogues' gallery of dictatorial and
authoritarian kings and presidents seemed secure.

Things have changed. Prospects for reform throughout the broader Middle East
seem much brighter virtually everywhere except in Iran. Not only have we
seen impressive elections in Palestine and Iraq, but political reform is
inching forward from Morocco to Saudi Arabia. In Turkey, that once-jailed
politician, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is now prime minister and is presiding
over wide-ranging constitutional reforms designed to ease that country's
accession to the European Union.

Meanwhile, in Iran, President Mohammad Khatami's second and final term is
petering out in failure and disillusionment. The reformist parliament
elected with such hope in 1999 was voted out in 2004 on a wave of apathy.
Stagnation, repression and government by lawless, unaccountable elites
remain entrenched.

The reasons for the failure of Iran's reform movement will be debated by
historians, but what is remarkable is the extent to which the West, the
rhetoric of the Bush administration notwithstanding, appears prepared to
acquiesce in Iran's slide into immovable authoritarianism, precisely the
form of governance that Western leaders, led by the Bush administration,
have identified as being conducive to the growth of terrorism elsewhere in
the region.

Western leaders are not alone in having made this amoral choice. Leaders
associated with the reform movement are on record as opposing U.S. criticism
of the Iranian government's human rights practices, even as their own
movement has perished from sustained repression.

More surprising is the stance of Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, who wrote in
the New York Times in February opposing U.S. pressure and speaking of the
"framework of civil society" as the route to change in Iran. The problem
with this approach is twofold. First, civil society in a vacuum cannot bring
about political change. Without freely contested elections, a free press or
an independent judiciary, the civil society movement, however strong its
backers claim it to be, can have only marginal impact on political
conditions. Second, civil society is simply not strong. It has no legal
protection, and activists can be imprisoned at the whim of the authorities.
Those who cross red lines by addressing taboo subjects are still treated
arbitrarily and brutally by the authorities.

A call for an end to U.S. pressure means acquiescing to the status quo. The
broader Middle East is showing ample evidence of the power of clear U.S.
rhetoric in favor of freedom and democracy to bring about change. Even
long-term strategic partners of the United States, such as Egypt, have felt
the pressure and deemed it politic to respond. It seems odd that anyone in
Iran who desires change would want this kind of pressure to stop. Apologists
for the status quo are not representative of Iranians, who may have become
disillusioned with powerless elected leaders, but who still yearn for
democratic government.

The United States should make clear that it is ready to resume dialogue with
the Iranian government on the full range of concerns between the two
countries as soon as a government that is representative of the wishes of
the Iranian people, freely expressed, is in power in Tehran. That does not
include a retread version of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani,
or any of his bloodstained acolytes, who seem likely to come to power after
the presidential elections next month.

In the meantime the United States would do well to maintain its efforts to
reach out to the Iranian people over the heads of their government. These
efforts should include firm statements from President Bush and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice, when appropriate, and a sustained commitment to
broadcasting in Farsi about the obstacles to reform in the Islamic Republic
and the progress being made by Iran's neighbors. Such a message will find an
audience in Iran, and this time the hope for reform will not be stillborn.

The writer, who has worked with a number of human rights organizations, was
a member of a 2004 Council on Foreign Relations task force on U.S.-Iran
relations.



© 2005 The Washington Post Company