Here is an article by Scott Peterson for the Christian Science Monitor on the new Peace Museum that is set to open in City Park in Tehran. It is a very moving article about how the idea of the museum came about and a reminder of the devastation of war. Museum director Shahriar Khateri also discusses Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, a subject that has been given very little attention in the West.
I noted in a blog post last week that in reviewing the conference report of the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill, I discovered that House and Senate conferees agreed to drop a provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have prohibited not more than 75 percent of the amount authorized from being obligated until the President submitted a report on policy objectives and United States Strategy regarding Iran. According to the Conference Report, the President submitted the report to Congress. I also noted that I have not seen a public version, so I decided to inquire about it with a senior congressional aide.
According to my source, the Bush administration did submit the report over the summer after they had seen the provision in the Senate version of the Defense Authorization bill. The senior congressional aide also said that the report, presumably drafted by the State Department, had an early 2007 date on it but seemed to have been sitting collecting dust until they decided to send it to Congress this summer. The senior congressional aide said it was possible that after the State Department drafted the report, the Office of the Vice President or perhaps someone else refused to clear it because of language about a commitment to diplomacy.
I was also told there is only a classified version and Congress has not pursued insisting on an unclassified version because the whole exercise was "frustrating and the report was not particularly long or substantive, and we got pulled on to other things."
I personally believe that Congressional oversight of the Bush administration's policy on Iran is vitally important to keep the Administration accountable. Members of Congress should absolutely be pushing for an unclassified version of the Administration's policy objectives on Iran. The more people can weigh in with Congressional offices on this one, the better.
Yesterday, the House and Senate passed an omnibus appropriations bill that included $60 million for so-called “democracy” funds in Iran. As one congressional aide speaking on condition of anonymity to the Washington Post noted, “There is a lot of uneasiness about the whole Iran democracy program. It is potentially a way of providing an excuse for cracking down on dissidents.” President Bush, whose signature on the bill is required before it can become law, sent the bill to his budget director for review.
On Monday, December 17, the New Jersey state Senate voted 34-0 to pass divestment legislation that prohibits state pension money from being invested in companies doing business in Iran. The Assembly voted 78-1 in June to approve the measure. The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine for his signature. Both Florida and California passed similar legislation earlier this year and New Jersey is now the third state to pass such legislation.
New Jersey's state pension fund is the ninth largest in the U.S. and is thought to be worth about $80 billion, though it is unclear how much is invested in companies doing business in Iran. The legislation requires the state to hire an independent research firm specializing in global securities to identify such investments.
I like to call this the “50 Foreign Policies Movement.” Several other states are being pressed by lobbies to take up similar legislation. I’ve been told by folks who work closely with State legislators that even the Human Rights Campaign is on board with Iran state divestment now and their reasoning is that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is homophobic.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry asked the state's pension funds to divest, though they didn't meet his deadline and legislation involving divestment from Iran died in the Legislature. Meanwhile, Michigan's House has approved divestiture legislation and the Senate announced separate measures, though none have advanced to the governor's desk.
On July 31, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2347, The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, by a vote of 408-6, despite opposition from the Secretaries of State and Treasury. The bill will establish a federal list of companies that have direct investments in Iran’s energy sector and remove specific legal barriers to enable mutual fund and corporate pension fund managers to cut ties with these listed companies if they choose to do so. The bill also provides federal authority for state and local governments that choose to divest their public pension funds and calls on the U.S. government to list companies with more than $20 million invested in Iran's energy sector. Senator Barack Obama introduced the bill in the Senate where it is awaiting approval.
Even the Bush administration opposes State divestment. Click here for arguments against divestment and quotes from Bush administration officials.
Despite opposition from prominent organizations and individuals, including key Iranian dissidents such as Akbar Ganji and Shirin Ebadi, Congress is pressing forward with funding for a controversial program that undermines U.S.-Iran relations. Later today, the House will vote on a consolidated State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Following the reconciliation of the House and Senate versions in conference, Section 693 of the bill provides for $60 million to be made available for “programs to promote democracy, the rule of law and governance in Iran.”
There are several reasons why this funding is a bad idea. For starters, Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best the US can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone. The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.
The secrecy surrounding the distribution of these funds has created immense problems for Iranian reformers and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hardliners in Iran are terrified by the prospect of a “velvet revolution” and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts.
Noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is a legal obligations of the United States. This was stipulated in the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis.
For all of these reasons, 25 organizations signed a letter to House and Senate Conferees in September. The letter made the case for reprogramming the funds to better support Iranian democratic activists. According to the organizations:
“We believe this program, intended to aid the cause of democracy in Iran, has failed and instead invigorated a campaign by conservative regime elements to harass and intimidate those seeking reform and greater openness in Iran. As segments of the U.S. Administration tout regime change, secret State Department “democracy promotion” funding has enabled Iranian authorities to label those supporting reforms or engagement with the West as foreign agents and traitors. Recent detentions of Iranian-American scholars, journalists, union leaders, student activists and others are widely viewed as responses to threats posed by U.S.- funded efforts.
“Iranian reformers believe democracy cannot be imported and must be based on indigenous institutions and values. Intended beneficiaries of the funding, -- human rights advocates, civil society activists and others -- uniformly denounce the program. “Washington’s policy of ‘helping’ the cause of democracy has backfired,” wrote Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi in the International Herald Tribune recently. “The Bush Administration should put an end to its misguided policy.” Others respected human rights activists, including Akbar Ganji and Emad Baghi, voice similar sentiments. The fact is, given the current dynamic of conflict between the U.S. and Iranian governments, no organization inside Iran can openly accept funding from the U.S. Government.
“The inability of the State Department to expend funds in this account from previous years and its failure to respond to Congressional inquiries for information about the program, further justify its elimination. The program’s fundamental flaw is reflected in the State Department’s inability to generate realistic proposals for activities inside Iran. Less than half of funds allocated in previous years for “democracy programs” in Iran have been expended -- on activities unknown.
“As supporters of the values of democracy, we believe any such funding would be better spent on activities outside Iran which could facilitate openness and still promote civil society. We urge Congress to mandate that the Department of State take into account the views of democracy advocates living in Iran -- the intended beneficiaries of the funding. As people-to-people exchanges involving scholars, artists, athletes, groups of professionals and others are proven to foster understanding and cooperation, we urge you to include language in the bill to ease restrictions which make it extremely difficult for NGOs to implement exchanges. Iranian civil society advocates welcome access to information technologies that help expand their access to internet and other media. Finally, while funding for radio and television broadcasting to Iran is extremely important and useful, given the large expansion of Voice of America’s Farsi service last year, we believe further funding should be contingent upon a thorough evaluation of current programming.
“Congress can and should play a constructive role in promoting democracy in Iran and elsewhere. Eliminating so-called democracy promotion programs in Iran, and reprogramming such funds for activities that Iranian democratic activists want, are good first steps.”
Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, by a margin of 370-49. The bill is expected to pass the Senate by the end of this week. I posted analysis of Iran policy in the bill earlier this week:
House Recedes to Kyl-Lieberman Language on Revolutionary Guards
Iranian Ballistic Missile Threat Reinforced in Def Auth Bill
Def Auth Report: President Submitted Policy Objectives on Iran
Defense Authorization Bill Will Require Reports Assessing Iran’s Role in Iraq
Defense Authorization Conferees Refuse to Blacklist Iran-Syria Nonproliferation Act Violators
More analysis is also available on the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation's website. For further analysis of the conference agreement of the FY '08 Defense Authorization bill by Chris Hellman and Travis Sharp, click here.
In this excellent opinion editorial published by the New York Times yesterday, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett argue that "Since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei’s death in 1989, United States policy toward Iran has not served American interests. Neither continuing to disregard legitimate Iranian interests nor timid incrementalism will improve the situation. In the long run, the real lesson of the new National Intelligence Estimate is that we need a comprehensive overhaul of American policy toward Iran." They also outline exactly what a new approach in U.S. policy toward Iran would look like.
The U.S. should:
