November 2, 2006

Mohsen Sazegara on the Use of Secession as a Political Tool - gozaar

An Interview with Mohsen Sazegara

Mohammad Tahavori

Confronting the international community and combating internal strife has left Iran in a precarious position, where it must be prepared for any type of offensive action. This issue was clearly discernable from the comments made by Ali Khamenei, the country’s Supreme Leader, on Wednesday, September 20. In his comments, Khamenei emphasized the military’s ability to defend the country. But are the military’s capabilities sufficient to maintain the country’s security when faced with foreign aggression?  The response to this question from the perspective of military leaders - who have assumed ultimate power within the country and who believe they can protect it from harm by destroying opponents – is a positive one. However, the complex history of Iran has proven that the opposite is true.

Though in the past, the motto “protecting the country’s territorial unity and sovereignty,” has allowed religious leaders to obtain and maintain power in Iran, today they live in constant fear of opposition from ethnic and religious minorities. This, and the fear that such opposition might result in a demand for independence by these minority groups, has focused leaders’ efforts solely on silencing such thoughts and ideas. These leaders fail to realize that, as in the past three decades, the suppression of the opposition will yield no positive results.  Attempts to silence and control the opposition will only result in increased governmental and cultural strife and intensified ethnic upheaval.

Foreign penetration of Iranian civil society and ethnic communities and the role of foreign entities in encouraging separatists’ demands may seem like a good reason to suppress the rights of ethnic and civil groups. The truth is, however, that these tools do not increase the government’s ability to repress such urges and only decrease the patience and tolerance with which these groups and communities tolerate the government. 

Suppression of the press, national and regional, and the detention of civil activists within Iran in an attempt to impede efforts towards independence and separation have enabled a migration towards a single voice within the country. Yet, when viewed from a broader standpoint, this type of suppression has placed the entire nation under the same militaristic ideology, which has not yielded uniform results throughout the nation or outside the country’s borders.

The possibility of secession and the activities of activists and politicians, who seek to maintain territorial unity, is the basis of a conversation with Mohsen Sazegara, a political activist and researcher at Harvard University in the United States.

Mohammad Tahavori: The continued political, social, and cultural efforts by ethnic groups and the increasing power of civil activists within Iran, though much needed to protect the civil rights of ethnic minorities, has been countered by two hypotheses from politicians: first, there is the belief that foreign and domestic influences will use the rampant dissatisfaction with the government to promote separationism in Iran and the establishment of new regional governments that can diversify power in the country.  Second is the belief that, by building on the strength and potential of ethnic populations residing in and around the country, those promoting rebellion against Iran’s central government can force a change in the regime’s attitude or the regime itself. These groups, however, are not seeking separation to form independent governments.  Which hypothesis do you consider to be closer to the reality in Iran and why?  Is there a third hypothesis you would consider?

Mohsen Sazegara:  Before I talk about my thoughts regarding the various ethnic groups in Iran, allow me to point out a few things that will further clarify my thoughts. The first is that Iran is a country with a multitude of ethnic groups and religions.  The history of Iran has shown that Iranians have, even after incidents of separation and strife, come together and united as one. This point was first defined by an expert on the Middle East and it means that, based on this specific characteristic, separation from Iran will not be easy. Secondly, in this day and age where globalization is paramount, the traditional roles and powers of states have changed. This has been happening since the early 1900s.  Today, people, organizations, and companies are considered to be multi-national and as such, the time when new nations can be developed has come to an end. Should such an event ever come to fruition, there will be significant civil and cultural conflicts. The independence achieved by the former Yugoslavian states was the one exception in recent years, and that was under the strong influence of Germany.  So, it should be noted that the international community is not a proponent of establishing new nations and that globalization has replaced this concept. Therefore, multi-national organizations and companies have become the backbone of the world in which we live today.

The third point: I have heard personally from Hashemi Rafsanjani that Iran is a diverse country, that only the clergy can hold it together and that without the clergy, the country will fall apart. The shah thought the same way. The shah used to say: “Without me, there is no Iran. It will become a conglomerate of states.” But history has shown that the country did not fall apart without the shah and certainly, with the departure of the clergy, it will still maintain its unity. What has historically forced Iranian groups to seek secession has been the central government’s disloyalty, irresponsibility, and inefficiency toward its citizens.  It has been under circumstances of pressure and cruelty that various groups have had to depend on their ethnicity as a reliable source of support. At this time, as much as the regime has pressured the youth in Tehran, it has similarly pressured and agitated the Kurdish, Turkish, Arab, and Baluchi youth and has thus increased dissatisfaction among the people.

The last point is that, in my opinion, a democratic government and a government of the people for the people is the only way out of the current situation in Iran. We not only need to promote democracy amongst people and groups throughout the various regions of Iran, but we must emphasize this philosophy throughout Iranian society as well.  We must have regional parliaments and elective governorships in place, and the ability to place the power and decision-making processes with the people in each region.

In saying this, do you support Iran becoming a federation of states?

Definitely. Though the word federalism may not have much meaning in Iran – simply because Iran has never been a federation – we can still develop this concept of our own accord. The more we work on increasing regional authority, the more we help with the establishment of democracy in Iran. Politicians who support democracy should not be apprehensive about the impact of regional power.  These ethnic groups have certain social and cultural demands that are not only their right, but whose deprivation would constitute a form of oppression. Some of these demands, such as teaching the mother tongue in schools, are part of the central government’s obligation to protect cultural heritage. Obviously, many of these demands take on political connotations and politicians will use their potential to promote their goals. But if the concept of the regionalization of power becomes known, then there should be no concern about the politicization of these ideals in the fight for democracy.

Now in response to your question, as far as I know, there are no plans in Washington, DC or London to promote secession in Iran. Washington and London are seeking peace in the world, which would allow them to promote economic growth and global investment, not increased conflict and strife.  Separating countries into newly independent states simply increases the amount of conflict and no country would support such a tactic unless it is in a country such as the former Yugoslavia, where the concept of independence was fully developed and ready for implementation.  The rumors about Iranian secession began at a seminar held by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington with Michael Ledeen. This gentleman is not taken seriously amongst journalists and cannot be the basis on which the White House makes its political decisions.  It is a mistake if we base our understanding of the White House’s plans on independent US organizations.  As a matter of fact, the White House is very concerned about additional conflict in the Middle East.

I even believe that the idea that there are foreign influences provoking ethnic and other groups to resist the regime is also incorrect and that such a strategy does not exist.  The best example is the current unrest in the province of Khuzestan.  When the British accused Iran of promoting unrest in Basra, Iraq, there was similar unrest in Ahwaz and Iran similarly charged the United Kingdom with instigating these unrests.  Of course, these countries do constantly launch accusations at one another, but they tend to be circumstantial in nature and not strategic. We should also remember that when there is conflict between two countries, each country will make certain allegations against the other. In a conflict, anything is possible.  Politicians should not be afraid of threats and accusations, but should instead focus on the issues and ideas that can help promote and ensure democracy in Iran.

But the concept of a larger Middle East is not something that has been promoted by reporters and think tanks. The US State Department, through the Secretary of State and the Department’s spokesperson, has discussed this on numerous occasions.  They have said that, in their plans for a new Middle East, new governments with Kurdish, Baluchi, and Shiite Arab ethnicities… will be seen.

I think that the plans for a larger Middle East or a newer Middle East center more on democratization and not on changing borders. They have focused on the changing world of Islam and how its evolving ideals are impacting the concept of globalization throughout the world. The plans for the Middle East aim to resolve the relationship between Islam and the new world, a world where citizens have equal rights. Yet, the State Department has no specific plan for this.  The theory you discuss has been developed and promoted by Iranian government officials, but it has not been taken seriously in Washington DC.

Regardless of how seriously secession is seen in Iran itself, it seems that in neighboring countries, the situation in Kurdistan is considered important. In Iraqi President Barzani’s recent visit to Kurdistan, we saw the Iraqi Kurds replace the Iraqi flag with that of Kurdistan. In Turkey there is continued conflict between the Kurds and the government. Do you not think that, to end the current conflicts in these regions, Kurdish independence will one day become a reality?

Kurdistan is an exception among Iran’s ethnic groups. Kurdistan is the only ethnic group that is divided between four countries – Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria.  In Iranian Azerbaijan, there are occasional rumors of it merging with independent Azerbaijan, but the Turks in Iran have never been anxious to separate, as their identity is fully merged with that of the Iranian nation.  Other ethnic groups are in a similar position.  There is no doubt that in certain parts of Kurdistan, the idea of an independent Kurdistan is appealing to a group of activists; however, I have participated in presentations and talks by Kurdish authorities and have been involved in discussions with Kurdish students and intellectuals, yet I have never heard nor seen them support secession from Iran.  On the contrary, I believe that they, like the intellectuals in Tehran, think about globalization, about maintaining their rights, and about living alongside other ethnic groups while maintaining their culture and heritage.

However, there seem to be alternative thought processes that give ethnic groups in Iran another option. Noam Chomsky, in an interview with Akbar Ganji on BBC, said “there is information that shows that the US government is promoting unrest in Iran’s Azerbaijan and the southern parts of Iran, especially Khuzestan, which has oil reserves. If they [the US Government] can form an independence-seeking group in Ahwaz, under the auspices of supporting secession from Iran, they will promote military interventions in the area.” Safar Hendi, Iran’s Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, told a group of reporters in Azerbaijan, that “unfortunately, in a review of regional newspapers and publications, we found that eighty percent of them support secession from Iran and these ideas are being fully promoted by foreign organizations and entities.” On the other hand, Ardugan, the Turkish President, has brought up the idea of establishing a commonwealth of Turkic-speaking states. In these instances, there seems to be a focus on separation and secession, even if these plans do not have actual foreign support.

What is certain is that when there is undue pressure on people, there is increased dissatisfaction. In such instances you cannot separate a Fars, a Turk, or another citizen.  The youth in Tehran is as similarly dissatisfied as the youth from Sanandaj. Governments that use force promote the need for separation among their citizens. The young man who is a Fars would look for a way to leave the country, while the young man from Sanandaj or Tabriz has the pretext of secession and uses it more effectively.  In this case, the British and the Americans might want to use this phenomenon as a tool for increased conflict with Iran.  How many people can you find in Iran who have the ability to leave and live in another country, but prefer to remain in Iran?  When there is an unclear view of the future, the desire to move away and separate becomes more forceful. What I am concluding is that while this need for separation may one day become more dominant, it is not a global plan backed by a goal-oriented strategy.  More importantly, fears of secession should not force those politicians seeking a democratic government to shy away from the issue of minorities. On the contrary, they should move closer to these entities and use them effectively to develop and implement democracy in the country.

This is a serious question. As you mentioned, if the government continues with its current strategies, the desire for secession among ethnic groups becomes heightened. In such a case, how can democracy-seeking groups in Iran use the territorial unity of the country to promote this concept?

If ever we reach such a point, the election process and the rule of the people is the solution.   The concept of a government for the people by the people must be promoted. Personally, though, I don’t think this will happen. In establishing a democracy, the concept of federalism will take precedence over that of secession. However, if what religious leaders have said is true and secession is being sought, then we must resort to the election process as the decisive instrument.  I don’t think that we should move away from the rule of the people. However, I do believe that if we move correctly, recognize the basic rights of the ethnic populations in Iran, and follow the route of globalization, this type of conversation becomes a moot point.

For the last question, if Iran ends up in another war, will this war increase the disparity between the government, the people and the ethnic populations, or, as a group of politicians and military leaders believe, will the inherent dissatisfaction increase their acceptance of the war?

I do not think that either scenario will happen.  If there is military conflict between Iran and the US, we must first find out what kind of conflict it is. If the conflict focuses solely on Iran’s nuclear weapons strategy, then the people will only be bystanders. But if the conflict, based on almost an impossible situation, is of the type in Afghanistan and Iraq, then again, I don’t think that the Iranian people will place themselves in danger and their reaction will be similar to that of the Iraqi people. They will neither protest against the US, nor will they stand behind the military under the rule of the Supreme Leader.  Under these circumstances, I don’t think we will see diversity in how the various ethnic groups in the country will react. In the history of Iran, we have had occasions where, because of the undue pressure posed by the sitting regime, people welcomed external influences. The time when people will accept oppression over colonialization or colonialization over oppression is a difficult one to foretell.
https://www.gozaar.org/template1_en.php?id=320