Support the Iranian-American Nuclear Bargain

September 2, 2015

I have been very disappointed with Sen. Schumer and those of his colleagues in both houses of Congress who will not support the agreement with Iran. I’m sure they have convinced themselves that their stand is good for America, good for Israel, and good for their supporters. They should know better.

Many people like to talk about Iran as if it’s uniform – Iran is this; it acts like that. But Iran is many things just like this country is many things –Red and Blue; hawks and doves. We change, sometimes radically –flipping right or left. Our politics and culture respond to events.

The same is true in Iran. Some of us who have worked in Iran lived in historically tribal areas where their government had forced people to give up their migratory lives. Some lived in areas that had supported the Shah; others that were hostile to our interference, helping to depose an elected government and restore the Shah. The position of women has been changing radically; they are extremely well educated and participate in large numbers in Iranian professional life as doctors, attorneys, etc. Iranian culture is also changing radically, reflected in widespread and very public choices of dress, music and customs in conflict with the traditional religious injunctions. Attendance and participation in religious rituals is decreasing considerably. Even the clergy are affected by the changes. This is not your parents’ Iran.

A large portion of the Iranian people are very westernized and very friendly to the U.S. They are the people that chose Prime Minister Rouhani. Another group organized around the Ayatollah has been very suspicious. Contemporary Iranian politics is about the jockeying between those groups.

We can make sure that the hard-liners win the Iranian contest by withdrawing from diplomacy, refusing to resume trade, and making it clear that nothing will lead to rapproachement. That will lead to the most anti-American outcomes within Iran.

But if we are willing to engage, to use diplomacy, to arrange agreements to lower the tensions, to trade and travel, we will strengthen our friends there and help them gain and hold the upper hand. We can’t and don’t control Iranian politics. But we can and should see the complexity that is modern Iran and take advantage of the openings it gives us. Refusing to see and account for the changes in Iran isn’t hard-headed realism, it’s blindness.

We’ve made mistakes like that before. Our hatred of communism closed our eyes to the realities of Asian politics and blinded us to the possibility of using Vietnam to play balance of power politics between Russia and China. After an expensive war, we now trade with the same regime we fought for almost a decade. We can be smarter with Iran.

Iran is now the most westernized and stable of all the Middle Eastern Islamic countries. Around Israel, in every direction, countries have been getting less stable and more dangerous. Missing the opportunity to cultivate our friends in Iran would be a huge mistake for us and for the Israelis whether or not they can see that.

I have one concern – that the price of the agreement with Iran will be to arm Israel enough so that they feel free to thumb their noses at American efforts to broker a peace. I think it would be a good corrective for Israeli politics to wonder about American support. This cannot be a world without constraints, for Israel, Iran or anyone.

There is something called a self-fulfilling prophecy. Things happen because our beliefs make it happen. We can wreck the future or we can build a decent one. It’s our choice.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, September 1, 2015.


Future Oriented Diplomacy Toward Iran

July 22, 2015

We did something that infuriated Iranians in 1953 by organizing a coup removing their democratically selected Prime Minister. They did something that properly infuriated us in 1979 by taking our embassy staff hostage. George Bush announced that Iran was part of the Axis of Evil. So now is the die cast? Are we doomed to permanent enmity? Trapped in stereotypes and hatred, too many see no way to a better future except by deepening the conflict with every kind of force.

I have a fair amount of contact with people who study Iran or spend time there periodically. And they all tell me the same things. Iran is changing. Even clerical views are becoming less radical. The population at large is becoming more secular, less radical, and narrowing the clergy’s options. There is less attendance at the mosques and more activity that contradicts the strict interpretations of Islamic theology that worry Americans. Iranians are wearing unsanctioned clothing, listening to unsanctioned music and news, even dancing and producing theatre. Not only middle-class Iranians but up and down the income scale and across Iran geographically people are changing toward much more cosmopolitan views and lifestyles.

Those developments are important. They signal a widespread Iranian desire for rapprochement with this country, a weakening and a softening of clerical control over the government, and the possibility of moving toward much better relations between our countries.

We should not lose sight of the fact that Iran had a democratic government long before the Revolution and that Iran had an Israeli diplomatic presence while the rest of the Middle East treated Israel as a pariah. Although the Iranian Revolution dislocated some of those traditions, Iran cannot be lumped in with the radicalization of some sects in the Sunni world. It has long been following a separate, westernizing path.

A westernizing trend with deep roots in the population of an economically progressive and powerful Islamic country needs to be encouraged. Despite all the rhetoric about bringing Iran to its knees with sanctions, the sanctions are being used in Iran to sustain the more conservative elements in Iranian religion and politics. It is a clumsy American foreign policy that guarantees that the future will be worse than the past. The short term is dominated by disputes. Diplomacy, however, cannot ignore the long term.

That was the genius of the European Union. Germany and France had been enemies, repeatedly fighting major wars over several centuries. Yet after World War II they were united, but not by sanctions, reparations and renewed threats. Instead we rebuilt Germany under the Marshall plan, while French and German statesmen, with British and American backing, envisioned a world in which Germany could be a partner and an ally. That took vision, not merely the repetition of slogans about battles and hatreds.

I don’t mean to imply that the EU is a model that can be repeated wherever there are enemies. But diplomacy must work toward a vision for how we can share a better world.

That is really the strength of the Obama-Kerry plan. Instead of insisting that old disputes must fan future ones, it strives to reduce the friction and heal the wounds, while important historic forces work inside Iran so that it can regain a positive role in resolving middle-Eastern struggles.

And yes, of course, this agreement does not solve everything. The Iranians reached out to George Bush with a proposal to put a broad range of disputes on the table but instead of responding through diplomatic channels, he publicly called Iran part of an Axis of Evil. It’s hard to tell what that may have cost us. As some diplomats say, put everything on the table, agree on nothing. My point instead is that there are fundamental developments in Iran that should be encouraged, and that it is a huge mistake to write them off. Lack of vision can make a decent future unreachable.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, July 21, 2015.


Link to Beeman on the Iran deal

July 16, 2015

Here is a link to an article by Bill Beeman, Iran specialist and U. Minnesota anthropologist just back from a trip to Iran, that I think well worth reading:

Iran Won the Vienna Accords By Agreeing to Stop What It Never Was Doing

http://newamericamedia.org/2015/07/how-iran-won-the-vienna-accords-by-agreeing-to-stop-what-it-never-was-doing.php

New America Media, Commentary, William O. Beeman, Posted: Jul 14, 2015


What we Must See in Any Nuclear Deal with Iran

July 6, 2015

[This from William O. Beeman, Professor and Chair, Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, who has just returned from several weeks in Iran. It was written for distribution in Minnesota but is posted here with his permission.]

Representative John Kline has presented his view of the current nuclear negotiations with Iran (“What we Must See in Any Nuclear Deal with Iran,” [Minneapolis Star Tribune] June 24, 2015). Unfortunately he is misinformed or chooses to ignore basic facts about the Iranian nuclear program.

Representative Kline insists that “Iran must dismantle its nuclear infrastructure.” He ignores the fact that Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) along with nearly 200 other nations, including the United States. Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea are not signatories. The NPT guarantees all non-nuclear weapons states, including Iran, the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy development. Moreover, it requires the United States to protect that right.

Although the mainstream press and some members of Congress such as Rep. Kline now present Iran’s nuclear program as if it were uniquely threatening, nineteen other non-nuclear-weapons signatories to the NPT have precisely the same or more advanced nuclear infrastructure as Iran, including advanced uranium enrichment, and no one is calling for them to restrict their nuclear activities, even though some, like Japan, have openly said they will manufacture nuclear weapons in the future if they feel the need.

Rep. Kline  further states: “Iran’s nuclear weapons quest must be denied indefinitely.” What quest? Although many now believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that such a program did exist, exists today or will exist in the future. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and even the past four heads of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency all affirm this.

Another demand is that “Inspectors must be permitted unimpeded access to suspect sites.” Under the NPT signatories to the treaty are already required to allow inspections of any site with fissile material, or where fissile material will be introduced within 180 days. The IAEA already enforces this, and has identified every scrap of fissile material currently in Iran. Congressional members like Rep. Kline want a blank warrant to inspect anything and everything in Iran without notification. No nation on earth would agree to this requirement as a matter of national sovereignty.

Those like Rep. Kline who believe that the United States has the upper hand in these negotiations are very wrong. I have just returned from an extensive tour of Iran. The sanctions imposed by the P5+1 nations have not crippled Iran at all. Iran sustained a 3% GDP growth rate last year, higher than the United States. Its internal economy is strong. There are abundant food supplies, and Iran has learned how to circumvent most economic restrictions. Iranians care about the inconvenience of the sanctions, but mostly they long for an end to the estrangement with the United States. It is no secret that the Iranian public loves Americans; anyone American traveling to Iran knows this to be true. Iranians also know that the European partners in the negotiations are very likely to sign the agreement whether the United States does or not. International businessmen and women are flooding Iran today with investment proposals in advance of the talks. They clearly know something that Rep. Kline doesn’t.

Our elected representatives such as Rep. Kline would do well to first inform themselves about the actual parameters of the Vienna talks, and second, to refrain from making excessive demands that aim to torpedo the negotiations. Rapprochement with Iran is inevitable. The only questions are when, and whether the United States is going to be left standing alone with its unrealistic demands and its flawed view.

– William O. Beeman, Professor and Chair, Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota; website: http://www.williambeeman.com; blog: http://www.wbeeman.com; download publications: https://umn.academia.edu/WilliamOBeeman

See also Prof. Beeman’s comments in the Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-o-beeman/


Iranian-American Diplomacy

June 15, 2015

My wife and I are back from a reunion of Returned Peace Corps Volunteers (RPCVs) who had served in Iran, and a conference with some of this country’s experts about Iran.

Our first plenary speaker, Bill Beeman of the University of Minnesota, is a very well-known scholar about Iran. He described the complexity of their system of manners and the ease with which foreigners misunderstand Iran. I asked about Iran experts in the State Department. Beeman explained that Secretary Kissinger attacked what he called clientitis, where experts sympathize with the country they study and resist what political leaders want to do. Following Kissinger, the foreign service routinely rotates diplomats to prevent too much specialization. That has advantages and disadvantages; dialogue between experts deeply steeped in a culture and generalists with other concerns is important.

Beeman added that many in Washington claim expertise about Iran, connected with think tanks with axes to grind. Scholars independent of ideological organizations can afford to see reality without coloring it with what they want to happen. Certainly independent scholars need to be heard.

I am convinced that Beeman’s message about the complexity of Iranian culture and the ease of misunderstanding it is accurate. All former Peace Corps Volunteers, and others who have immersed themselves in a foreign culture, can attest to the ways that cultural signals are easily misunderstood in both directions. In diplomacy that can spell disaster.

Our headline speaker was former Ambassador John Limbert, the last U.S. ambassador to Iran and a hostage for 444 days. Limbert now teaches at the U.S. Naval Academy.

I brought Beaman’s comments to Ambassador Limbert. He responded that the State Department has some knowledgeable people and a seasoned negotiator like Secretary Kerry can pick up a great deal by listening closely. I teach interviewing and I know the importance of active listening that seeks to understand without substituting one’s own assumptions. But I couldn’t shake concern that decades of detachment from Iran will handicap negotiators on both sides. It’s too easy to see each other as hostile and assume the worst, or to miss what is really important to them and misunderstand what they are actually offering. That’s especially difficult because so many people claim to know what Iran intends.

As an example of the complexity of our and Iran’s interests, Ambassador Limbert described the U.S. expectation after the Revolution that Iran would be hostile toward the Soviet Union. The Russians had treated Iran as part of its empire for a long time and there were good reasons for Iranian hostility. But Iran did its best to maintain friendly relations and trade with the USSR. Had they suddenly become pro-Soviet? Or were they defending themselves by trying to avoid incurring Soviet wrath. Limbert’s point was that we have to learn to see their actions through their eyes, not our own, to understand and respect their own Iranian nationalism just as they must respect ours.

We have many overlapping interests. But Iran also cares about the mistreatment of Shi’a populations in the Middle East. Iran sees that as defensive and about justice, not about conquest or aggression. It is easy for Iranians to see the US as supporting a ring of Sunni dynasties around Iran.

That doesn’t create any clear picture of what should happen. Limbert’s point is that diplomacy is both necessary and difficult. Seeing it simply as us against them misses the complexities and the opportunities. In other words, give diplomacy a chance.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, May 16, 2015.


On Corporate Privilege – Have They No Shame?

April 21, 2015

In a legal system which holds corporations responsible for virtually nothing, corporate power, hypocrisy and the wall of corporate shame keep growing.

Corporations put clauses in consumer contracts that make suing them useless and impossible. They make us sign those contracts for most of what we buy from the modern economy. The Supreme Court says OK on the fiction that we don’t have to sign the so-called agreements. As far as the Court is concerned, all we have to do is opt out of the economy and then no corporation can bother us.[1] If a dispute ever gets to a hearing, it is heard by arbitrators chosen by the corporate sellers.

Industry groups repeatedly argue that they have to put such abusive provisions in their contracts or they couldn’t give us a good deal. In other words, when people are down, their mortgages underwater, corporations should just keep kicking – they’re really just doing it for us.

That’s bad enough for people who are just trying to be treated fairly. But corporations have been getting the privilege of trashing rules protecting us from toxins and pollutants in favorably disposed forums. These are so-called investor-to-state dispute settlement or ISDS clauses in international trade agreements. Corporations can attack any rules that will cost them money, which of course means all regulation is vulnerable. Like the domestic arbitration clauses that the U.S. Supreme Court has blessed, “These challenges are not heard in a normal court but instead before a tribunal of private lawyers,” as the Alliance for Justice and many prominent attorneys have told Congress.[2]

There’s already an ISDS clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.[3] Corporations are trying to keep the ISDS mechanism in trans-atlantic agreements that multi-nationals will use against food and environmental laws here and in Europe, claiming they restrict free commerce.[4] Cecilia Malmstrom, the European Union’s trade commissioner, responded “We want the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers.”[5]

Describing the terms of the 12-nation trade accord for a Trans-Pacific Partnership for which Congress is considering fast track authority for President Obama, Jonathan Weisman wrote in the Times that it would “allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment ‘expectations’ and hurt their business,” using the business friendly ISDS procedure.[6] Once again that is poised to protect multinational corporations from food, health and environmental regulation.

In D.C., the coal industry is trying to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Environmental Protection Agency from going ahead with procedures for strengthening rules preventing toxic emissions of mercury.[7]

Here at home, toy industry groups are suing against efforts of Albany County to ban the sale of toxic toys, with such poisons as lead, mercury and arsenic, claiming it’s a violation of the Constitution and federal statutes.[8]

Business repeatedly claims regulation isn’t necessary because they are honorable and we can trust them and the economy. But their choice of legal targets make clear what they really believe.

No one has the right or privilege to put toxins in us, in our air, water, or our kids’ toys. Have they no shame? It’s time we had a government, all of whose branches respected the rights of the rest of us.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, April 21, 2015.

[1] See American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304, 2313 (2013) (Kagan, dissenting); Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006).

[2] Letter over the signature of many well-known law professors and sent by the Alliance for Justice to congressional leadership, available at http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19342.

[3] NAFTA ch. 11.

[4] REUTERS, EU Seeks Solution to Keep Arbitration in U.S. Trade Deal, March 18, 2015, 12:22 P.M., http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/03/18/business/18reuters-eu-usa-trade.html.

[5] Id.

[6] Jonathan Weisman, Trade Pact Seen as Door for Suits Against U.S. New York Times, March 26, 2015, at B1, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html.

[7] Editorial, Dirty Coal at the Supreme Court, New York Times, March 23, 2015, at A20, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/opinion/clean-air-act-and-dirty-coal-at-the-supreme-court.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150323&nlid=47098180&tntemail0=y.

[8] Matthew Hamilton, Industry contests toxic toys ban, Albany Times Union, April 17, 2015 at A1.


Radicalization of Jihadi John

March 17, 2015

Identification of Jihadi John as a British citizen and college graduate has given rise to discussion about what radicalizes young people. There is no single answer but one aspect is to provide alternatives to the choice between deep frustration and dangerous radicalization.

Dreams of self-determination in much of the world have been shattered by dictators, corporate plunder and corruption of kleptocrats, too often with American backing. Dreams were shattered by the failure of pan-Arab and pan-African unity. Religious dreams were shattered by decades of repression of religious parties in the Middle East, jailing opposition leaders and attacking people over their faiths, and repeatedly denying them the fruits of victory at the polls. From the frustration of each failure came worse solutions. Our support and entanglement with repressive regimes have been a problem for us as well. And the damage is hard to undo – change creates instability and therefor danger.

The Humanitarian Law Project wanted to teach a Kurdish group how to bring their grievances to international bodies legally. Our government objected the group was on a terrorist list and teaching it peaceful ways to complain would only help it. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed and the lawyers backed off.[1]

We also have problems with radicalization. Some years ago, my research assistant and I discovered that high school history texts provided no models of citizen protest appropriate to a democracy. They systematically excluded dissent and disagreement in the name of patriotism. One of the books even pictured the Abolitionists before the Civil War as a lunatic fringe.

When people have no legitimate outlet, all hell can break out.

This country was extraordinarily lucky that the Civil Rights Movement had the leadership of wise and thoughtful people like Dr. Martin Luther King who took the path of nonviolence. They provided a path of peaceful protest, albeit protests that put the violence of the racist opposition on every TV set in the country. That reaction showed that everyone had been damaged by the repression of African-Americans, and that repression threatens democracy both because of what it does to the victors and to the losers. It showed that violence boomerangs in a democracy but does a great deal of harm – many paid with their lives for civil rights.

Many of us would just like other Americans to celebrate the virtues of America as it is. But chief among those virtues is the ability to go public with injustices and try to get them changed. That ability is also a powerful defense against home-grown violent movements. Unfortunately, it has been a well-kept secret in many schools. All too often, as in Ferguson, Missouri, we watch political leadership and police treating popular demonstrations as if they have no place in democracy, as if people are just supposed to keep their reactions to themselves.

The great Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, in 1927, that the Founders of our country

“knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; … that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”[2]

When people can’t or don’t understand how to get into that discussion, or are convinced they are powerless to participate, they are left with the hate that “menaces stable government.”

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, March 17, 2015.

[1] Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder, 561 U.S. 1 (2010).

[2] Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 257 other followers