Columbia International Affairs Online
CIAO DATE: 9/5/2007
Ambassador Sadegh Kharazi on US-Iran Relations and Iraq
June 2007
Ambassador Sadegh Kharazi has served twice as Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister. He was Iran's ambassador to the UN from 1989 to 1995, and to France from 2002 to 2005. Ambassador Kharazi has also worked as senior assistant to Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, as well as to President Mohammad Khatami, who served from 1997-2005 as Iran's reformist leader (his successor is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). In addition Ambassador Kharazi has served as chairman of the OIC Summit in Iran.
He is a member of the board of several Iranian cultural, educational and research centers: Tehran University, the Iranian Heritage Organization, the Iranian National Library, among many others.
Ambassador Kharazi spoke to Nermeen Shaikh on April 20th in Almaty, Kazakhstan, at the Eurasian Media Forum, which he attended as part of the delegation accompanying President Khatami. In the interview, Ambassador Kharazi speaks about US-Iran relations, the shared interest of both the US and Iran in a stable Iraq, and the importance of track two diplomacy between the countries.
How would you characterize the present state of US-Iran relations?
The present situation? The present state of the relationship between Iran and the United States is really terrible. It is a dangerous situation. There are two choices in front of us: confrontation or normalization. I think neither side wants confrontation. Both sides want to establish good channels for dialogue. But the big misperceptions on both sides do not allow an opportunity to start a dialogue for resolving or for reducing tensions between the two countries.
What do you see as the prospects for any kind of engagement between Iran and the US now?
Now? Actually, we have a lot of common interests in the Middle East: stability and continuity in Iraq, supporting democratic processes in Afghanistan and Iraq, these are in the national interest of both Iran and the US. One of the most important aspects of US policy is democratization of the Middle East. How can America democratize the Middle East? The Middle East has its own culture, own interests, and differences of many kinds. The only country in the Middle East that has its own democracy is Iran. Iran can help to establish a real democracy based on the reality of the cultures, religions, and contexts in our region.
But many Americans are of the view that Iran is not a democracy.
The Americans always criticize! Americans look at day and say that now it is night. Everybody says, "No, it is not night." But the Americans think what they think. If you come and see, sit in Iran, see the situation, see the democratic process at work, then you will accept that Iran is a democracy. During the last 27 years we have held elections 30 times: parliamentary elections, constitutional elections, presidential elections, municipal elections, elections for-
But elections are not the only barometer of democracy. They aren't the only measure.
No. Actually, it's not just elections that that make up a democracy. Freedom of speech, an open society, freedom of the role of women in different aspects of society, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity -- all this means a democracy.
And all of these things exist in Iran?
All of these, yes. Iran is the only country that is also a nation-state, historically. Look at the history of all the nations in the region. But the only country that has the roots for a nation-state is Iran.
Why do you say that?
History, civilizations. Our civilization is thousands of years old. When you're talking about Pakistan, for example, Pakistan is a new country, only 55-60 years old. Some democracies now in the Middle East are artificial. Look at the situation in Egypt. Is it true that Egypt has a democracy? That's a joke! Before the elections everybody knows the conclusions and results!
Going back to Iraq, as you know, many in the US think that Iran has been playing a very destabilizing role in Iraq by arming Shi'a militants. Could you comment on that?
Yes, I can. Americans one day appreciate the role of Iranians and the next day criticize the Iranians. They do not know what they want. Iran was the only country in our region supporting the democratization process in Iraq. Iran was supporting the Shi'ite, Kurdish and Sunni communities to help stabilize Iraq. Instability in Iraq means instability for Iran. Why would Iran want to destabilize Iraq? If Americans criticize Iran, Americans do not understand the reality. I criticize the American Ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad. He's an Afghani. He looks at Iraq with an Afghanistan mentality. He has a lot of access to the Iraqi bases and so on.
We criticize the US in Iraq because when the Americans arrived in Iraq, 85 per cent, almost 90 per cent of Iraqis welcomed them. Then what happened? Now the Americans have less than 10 per cent popularity in Iraq. These are good examples because America's behavior, its paradoxical position in Iraq, created a catastrophe for them.
We criticize America in Afghanistan. Why, on the one hand, is the US supporting the government and on the other hand, also has a secret relationship with Taliban and some jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq? Our problem with America is this.
But we have a national interest, a common interest in Iraq, which includes respecting the territory of Iraqis first. Second, stability in Iraq. Third, the development of Iraq. Fourth, democratization of Iraq. Fifth, Iraq as one Arab Muslim country that can manage successfully its ethnic diversity and serve as an example for other countries in the region. But, unfortunately, America could not understand this. We have an outstanding economic relationship with the Iraqis now. Which country in this region can now invest in Iraq?
So is it in the interest of Iran for the US to withdraw its military presence from Iraq immediately?
I don't know about official policy. As far as my beliefs are concerned, I believe that if American troops withdraw now, it is dangerous for the stability of Iraq. To withdraw, Americans need a longer time frame.
How long?
I don't know. We must sit at the table and talk about that. If America leaves Iraq now, I believe Iraq will descend into civil war.
It is already a civil war, according to some.
Not a real civil war. Actually, more than 16,000 volunteers from different Arab countries are now in Iraq fighting Americans as a sacred or holy war.
How do you know that? From where did you get that number of 16,000 foreigners?
We have a lot of information from Iraq.
From whom?
Actually, we have some information. Americans have the information also; enough information. The situation in Iraq for Americans is exactly the situation of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. A lot of Arab Muslims volunteered, came to Afghanistan and volunteered for holy war against the Soviet Union. And the situation at the moment is completely the same in Iraq. There are so many volunteers from different Muslim, Arab countries - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, all supporting the Iraqis.
All Sunnis? Are they Sunni Muslims or Shi'a or both?
Sunnis. I don't criticize Sunnis, but at the moment this is the school of thought of the hardliners. The roots lie in Egypt and elsewhere, in the teachings of the school of Sayyid Abu Qutb, and in Pakistan with the Maududi school of thought. You know Sayyid Abul Ala al-Maududi? And Maududi's school of thought criticizes the West, and now so many people, unfortunately, on the basis of this school of thought, fight against people from the West.
Can you tell me a little bit about your trip here to Almaty? You are here with President Khatami. In what capacity is he here?
President Khatami is one of the most important and outstanding personalities in the Muslim world. He is another voice. He is not a voice of threat. He is a voice of understanding and dialogue. And the world has invited him a lot. He is promoting a school of thought. President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, and his daughter, Dariga Nazarbayeva, invited him to participate in this conference. We have also recently been to Egypt and India, and soon we will go to Italy.
President Khatami wants to show that Islam is not conservatism. Islam -- or Muslims -- is not bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Islam is not hardline. In my country and in some other countries, too, Islam has different voices. There is no problem between monotheistic religions. All monotheistic religions talk about understanding and dialogues. All of them can work with each other for the unity of God. This is his school of thought.
At what level does President Khatami engage in this dialogue of civilizations? Does he meet only heads of state or official figures? Or does he meet people from the non-governmental sector as well?
All of them. But he prefers to work with intellectuals and professors. The role of intellectuals is more important than the role of politicians. When we're talking with politicians about the dialogue among civilizations, there is no understanding between them. Now he prefers to work with intellectuals. In talking with intellectuals, there are many different ideas and plans that emerge.
We were recently in Egypt, for example. He gave a speech to over a thousand intellectuals in the Library of Alexandria. He was also in Al-Azhar University. Al-Azhar University, as you know, was one of the most famous seminaries and universities in Islamic history. There were more than four thousand people to hear his speech, talking very openly. We also went to the house of Hassanein Heikal, one of the most famous journalists and intellectuals in Egypt. A large number of Egyptian intellectuals were at his house. There were six hours of direct negotiation, discussion and debates with Khatami about everything -- about Shi'a and Sunni, about the West and Islam, about liberalization, about modernity and tradition, about the role of culture and civilization, and so on. We have completely open discussions with them. In India a few weeks ago it was the same thing.
At what level, if any, of track two diplomacy can the US and Iran engage now? I should add: has President Khatami himself expressed an interest in this?
Yes, we took part in track two diplomacy dialogues last September. Khatami was in the US. He went to different universities and research centers. He spoke directly with American intellectuals, philosophers and professors. He was also promoting his school of thought about dialogue between civilizations. After this trip, many Americans told us about what a difference it made to have Khatami talk to them directly, how much influence it had. This is a reality of America, it's just one of the examples.
We believe in track two diplomacy with Americans through institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations, like Asia Society. We believe in the role of the university, the role of non-profit organizations in the political system of the US. And we must change the negative ideas about Iran that exist in America. We must show a positive image. We must talk and talk about our beliefs, and share our ideas. How can we co-exist with each other? It is important to try to talk through all different channels. This is our belief.
What do you think the resolution will be to the present impasse on the nuclear question in Iran?
The nuclear issue in Iran is a very interesting and very long story. It needs more explanation regarding the past, present and future of nuclear activity in Iran. Nuclear activity in Iran is peaceful and is a national success for Iranians -- no countries helped us. This is a source of pride for Iranians. We are a member of the NPT. All members of the NPT have this right. We believe that at the moment the US and some Europeans want to put a lot of pressure on Iranians. The Iranians have cooperated very well with the IAEA. The pressure is only political, and it is illegal, and it is coming from the US.
Peaceful energy technology is most important for the country. Why? Because fissile energy will be finished and we need clean energy. The majority of the countries in the West now have clean energy. We need to work for this generation and the next generations. We have responsibility for the next generations. We won't have technology like this. But if they are afraid of us, we are ready to talk and engage in confidence-building measures. We are ready to talk about objective guarantees. We do not accept any precondition for negotiations. Negotiations need good intentions. Without good intentions, we believe negotiations, unfortunately, do not have any good results.
But I am optimistic about finding a solution for this crisis. I believe we can actually talk with Americans about different issues including the nuclear issue. We believe in the disarmament of the Middle East. Disarmament in the Middle East is extremely important. If any country in the Middle East had a plan for disarmament, we would support it 100 per cent.
Nuclear disarmament?
Yes, nuclear disarmament.
Which countries do you have in mind?
Pakistan, India and Israel.
At the level of civil society, you mentioned in the case of Iraq, for example, that 85-90 per cent of the people were very happy to see the Americans come in 2003, and now their popularity is at 10 per cent. In Iran, how would you characterize the willingness on the part of the people to engage with Americans? Again to clarify: Not of the state with the state, but of the people with the people.
Actually, the Iranian people love Americans. Really, this is the reality. Before the revolution, Iranians had a very good relationship with Americans. Now, more than 2 million Iranians live in the United States. They have family also in Iran, and they are very close with each other.
Americans are a very pragmatist nation. The Americans are completely different from other nations: very pragmatic, friendly, and open. We only have some difficulties with American hegemony. American hegemony is different from the American people. The American nation is a very good nation. America created a new civilization in the world, huge education centers as well. The role of Americans in the growth of technology, in the high-tech industry, is unforgettable. Actually, we believe the US has influenced in so many ways the history of humankind. The US has a very important role in improving the quality of life of humankind.
But our problem is with the policy of the US toward Iran before the revolution and after the revolution. I believe both sides made a mistake. I don't want to say that only the Americans made a mistake. But we now need a new movement for understanding each other. Unfortunately, both sides have misperceptions and a lack of knowledge. We must reduce tension, we must reduce this lack of knowledge, and increase understanding. This is very important. Iran does not have any problem in its relationship with America, but the relationship must be based on honesty and mutual respect.
