Iran’s Escape Forward
Interview with Jalal Sadatian, on Iran’s threat to reconsider relations with Western countries.
Iran is pondering expulsion of a number of European ambassadors as media have reported. It seems that recent domestic developments are gradually infecting Iran’s foreign relations. Iranian Diplomacy has interviewed Jalal Sadatian, international affairs expert on global reactions to Iran’s post-election developments and Iran’s response:
Let’s talk about the impact of post-election developments on Iran’s foreign relations. What will happen to our national interests and international ties?
There is no doubt that in today’s world, domestic developments and foreign affairs are closely connected. Countries who follow Iron curtain and isolation policies are near-extinct in today’s world. Communication tools have made the world a smaller place, apparent from the term ’global village’. The physical distance between people, between social spheres, is not an issue anymore. International laws and increasing power of international organizations also restrict the sovereignty of states to some level.
Countries which voluntarily join international organizations and treaties take on commitments which put limitations on them in the domestic scene. In fact, they relinquish some of their sovereignty rights in favor of regional and international cooperation. Human rights protocols, regional cooperation treaties etc. are some instances of these binding contracts. So, international treaties and mass media limit domestic sovereignty of states to some extent. Media make the public opinion aware of what is going on and with this awareness the public opinion –having the right to intervene in state affairs- pressurizes their states to defend their values.
Both of the factors I mentioned have been influential in Iran’s recent developments. Iranians around the world, and countries with which Iran has signed treaties, reflected the course of events inside Iran. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the trend and Iran’s violation of some of the commitments; and tried to pressure Iran through diplomatic tools such as bringing down the level of relations, recalling ambassadors or public diplomacy (such as using mass media to express their opinion).
How do you analyze the reactions by different countries and international organizations such as the United Nations to Iran’s developments after the presidential elections?
Well, UN Secretary General has expressed his concern. European leaders have mostly taken up a critical stance. The U.S. president has been urged by the Congress and Senate to adopt a tougher stance against the Iranian government’s behavior. But unlike West, Eastern countries have either remained silent or showed support for Iran in ways such as sending letter of congratulation.
Is there a possibility that Western countries break ties with Tehran?
In today’s world, relations with other countries are tuned according to the legitimacy and international prestige that can be achieved. A country enjoying strong national support will have a better international face. This is a country which many prefer to have constructive ties with. If the opposite case was true, the international community would hesitate in upgrading ties. In fact, they would be facing a dilemma between their interests and their values.
For example, Saudi Arabia is a country which tries to show West it is carrying out reforms. Violation of human rights and disregarding values such as democracy and freedom of information circulation in this country are disappointing West however. Meanwhile West has interests which force it to establish close ties with Saudi Arabia.
The situation formed inside Iran after the election surprised the world, who knew about Iran’s slow but constant move towards democracy. Foreign countries are tracing Iran’s developments with care. They, too, are caught between the opinion of their citizens and Iranian expatriates, and their interests tied with close relations with Iran.
We can’t expect a unanimous behavior towards Iran by all members of the international community. But it seems that the European Union is moving towards consensus. Iran’s case is under discussion in the European parliament. They may decide to decrease the level of relations with Iran and recall their ambassadors. Some European countries have summoned Iranian ambassadors to express their protest. British, French and German leaders have taken an explicit stance towards Iran’s events. But we have to wait and see how the situation develops in near future.
It seems that Iran is also weighing reactive measures against countries that have been critical of the situation. What about that?
The truth is that Iran is making an escape forward. Tehran is pretending that relations with West are not important and it can advance its interests through other means. Iran is in fact trying to neutralize pressures from West. Rarely Tehran tries to convince and make issues transparent.
At any rate, what is happening in Iran has been questioned by many countries. Iran’s escape forward and threatening other countries to break ties due to their intervention is not rational. International treaties have given other countries the right to express their opinion. Freedom of speech and demonstration, if violated, call for a country’s accountability. Ultimately, the global public opinion should be convinced, unless we decide to ignore everyone and stay out of all laws and regulation. That will be followed with isolation which is definitely not a favorite option.
Let’s talk about the impact of post-election developments on Iran’s foreign relations. What will happen to our national interests and international ties?
There is no doubt that in today’s world, domestic developments and foreign affairs are closely connected. Countries who follow Iron curtain and isolation policies are near-extinct in today’s world. Communication tools have made the world a smaller place, apparent from the term ’global village’. The physical distance between people, between social spheres, is not an issue anymore. International laws and increasing power of international organizations also restrict the sovereignty of states to some level.
Countries which voluntarily join international organizations and treaties take on commitments which put limitations on them in the domestic scene. In fact, they relinquish some of their sovereignty rights in favor of regional and international cooperation. Human rights protocols, regional cooperation treaties etc. are some instances of these binding contracts. So, international treaties and mass media limit domestic sovereignty of states to some extent. Media make the public opinion aware of what is going on and with this awareness the public opinion –having the right to intervene in state affairs- pressurizes their states to defend their values.
Both of the factors I mentioned have been influential in Iran’s recent developments. Iranians around the world, and countries with which Iran has signed treaties, reflected the course of events inside Iran. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the trend and Iran’s violation of some of the commitments; and tried to pressure Iran through diplomatic tools such as bringing down the level of relations, recalling ambassadors or public diplomacy (such as using mass media to express their opinion).
How do you analyze the reactions by different countries and international organizations such as the United Nations to Iran’s developments after the presidential elections?
Well, UN Secretary General has expressed his concern. European leaders have mostly taken up a critical stance. The U.S. president has been urged by the Congress and Senate to adopt a tougher stance against the Iranian government’s behavior. But unlike West, Eastern countries have either remained silent or showed support for Iran in ways such as sending letter of congratulation.
Is there a possibility that Western countries break ties with Tehran?
In today’s world, relations with other countries are tuned according to the legitimacy and international prestige that can be achieved. A country enjoying strong national support will have a better international face. This is a country which many prefer to have constructive ties with. If the opposite case was true, the international community would hesitate in upgrading ties. In fact, they would be facing a dilemma between their interests and their values.
For example, Saudi Arabia is a country which tries to show West it is carrying out reforms. Violation of human rights and disregarding values such as democracy and freedom of information circulation in this country are disappointing West however. Meanwhile West has interests which force it to establish close ties with Saudi Arabia.
The situation formed inside Iran after the election surprised the world, who knew about Iran’s slow but constant move towards democracy. Foreign countries are tracing Iran’s developments with care. They, too, are caught between the opinion of their citizens and Iranian expatriates, and their interests tied with close relations with Iran.
We can’t expect a unanimous behavior towards Iran by all members of the international community. But it seems that the European Union is moving towards consensus. Iran’s case is under discussion in the European parliament. They may decide to decrease the level of relations with Iran and recall their ambassadors. Some European countries have summoned Iranian ambassadors to express their protest. British, French and German leaders have taken an explicit stance towards Iran’s events. But we have to wait and see how the situation develops in near future.
It seems that Iran is also weighing reactive measures against countries that have been critical of the situation. What about that?
The truth is that Iran is making an escape forward. Tehran is pretending that relations with West are not important and it can advance its interests through other means. Iran is in fact trying to neutralize pressures from West. Rarely Tehran tries to convince and make issues transparent.
At any rate, what is happening in Iran has been questioned by many countries. Iran’s escape forward and threatening other countries to break ties due to their intervention is not rational. International treaties have given other countries the right to express their opinion. Freedom of speech and demonstration, if violated, call for a country’s accountability. Ultimately, the global public opinion should be convinced, unless we decide to ignore everyone and stay out of all laws and regulation. That will be followed with isolation which is definitely not a favorite option.