Examination of Witness (Questions 60 -
79)
TUESDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2003
DR ALI
ANSARI
60. I think it is only recently that Ayatollah
Montazeri has been released from house arrest, if I am not mistaken.
Is there any significance in this?
(Dr Ansari) I think it is significant, but I think
it is significant also because the hard-line establishment was
somewhat worried that he might die under house arrest.
61. Am I right in remembering correctly that
it was Ayatollah Montazeri who first suggested that Islam should
not be integral to the government of Iran?
(Dr Ansari) He is not the only one to have said this.
He is probably one of the most prominent people who have said
this. Iran at the moment is very divided amongst themselves. The
ayatollahs take very different views. It is somewhat of a chauvinistic
view but they take the view that there are the Iranian ayatollahs
and the Iraqi ayatollahs; the Iraqi ayatollahs are the ones who
came from Najaf. They then argue that the Iraqi ayatollahs are
somewhat more hard line than the Iranian ayatollahs. It is not
strictly speaking true. Nevertheless, there is a view pervasive
among a number of clerics—let us not forget that President
Khatami is a cleric—that any reform will come from the clerics.
It will be determined by the clerics and they feel that religion
in Iran, Islam, as a faith is suffering because of the state's
persistent intervention, because of the state's role in being
part of the religious process, not being a secular state.
62. It was Montazeri who was seen at one stage
as the natural heir to the ayatollah.
(Dr Ansari) That is right. Montazeri, like all Iranian
political leaders have tended to see a change in views over the
years. It is natural over 24 years, a war, a revolution, you tend
to have your views changed in some ways. He is seen now as someone
who has seen the error of his ways or he has decided that the
current system is not sustainable and what is important about
him is that he has a lot of followers in the government. He has
a lot of people in government who are his religious disciples,
if I can use that word.
Mr Olner
63. Ayatollah Jalaluddin Taheri recently announced
his resignation as leader of the Friday Prayers in Esfahan. This
was an ayatollah of long standing, this was an ayatollah who had
been appointed by Ayatollah Khomeini from exile as far back as
1976. Did his resignation start to cause ripples of unrest, where
a person of such long standing decided that he was so concerned
about the poverty, the politics of the Ayatollah's, that he felt
he needed to resign. How much impact did that have?
(Dr Ansari) I think Ayatollah Jalaluddin
Taheri's resignation speech was enormously significant but it
was somewhat dampened by the fact that President Bush made a comment
on the airways the day afterwards and proclaimed his support for
Mr Taheri which was not the right way to do it.
64. We all sometimes suffer from what Mr Bush
says.
(Dr Ansari) Certainly Ayatollah Taheri comes from
the left-leaning ayatollahs. He was appointed by Ayatollah Khomeini
well before the revolution. Because of his age, because of his
proximity to the Imam and the origins of the revolution he was
extremely important. I was in Iran at the time of his resignation
speech and it did resound. It was not the only comment to come
out of a senior ayatollah. At the time there were other senior
ayatollahs that made similar comments. Ayatollah Taheri's was
probably the most explicitly hard hitting in a sense. The city
of Esfahan has also seen a number of its prominent leaders thrust
into prison. It is not the most happy city as far the hard-line
establishment are concerned. Taheri is really reflecting that.
65. That was one ripple. The other ripple is
about student protests within Iran. Iran is well blessed with
a fairly young population that is, to a large extent, fairly well
educated.
(Dr Ansari) That is correct.
66. Do you think they are sufficiently well
organised, as a ripple, to pressurise further conservative changes
within Iran?
(Dr Ansari) I think the student movement has suffered
considerably since the 1999 demonstrations and riots that emerged.
Nevertheless in my view it remains an organised force for change.
Reporting on the student movement in Iran at the moment is not
as widespread as it could be. Because the students remain such
a thorn in the establishment's side they tend to be marginalised
so far as the public are concerned. In my view, both as a historian
and a political scientist, the role of the students in Iran in
developing new ideas will remain a major force for change along
with other groups, including the journalists and others. It is
principally because they are seen as a major force for change
that they have been so heavily attacked by the establishment.
They are not going away and, as you say, the population is so
young that every year you are getting another wave; it is like
a human wave attack every year and it is pretty difficult to resist
eventually.
67. Do you think there is going to be peaceful
change within Iran over the next two or three years with the political
system that they have, or is that political system not capable
of being reformed and there needs to be a velvet revolution.
(Dr Ansari) I would say that Iran's political system
is very much in the process of evolutionary change but evolutionary
change that needs a kick now and then to get it going because
it does not seem to want to move very quickly. I will put two
caveats onto that, however. The vast majority of people in Iran—I
would say 99% of Iranians—would want peaceful change; one
revolution in a lifetime is enough as far as they are concerned.
There are two issues here that are unknown to some extent. One
is the impact of what will happen in neighbouring Iraq over the
next six months, or month, depending what the timetable is; that
will certainly have an impact on the domestic situation in Iran.
The second is really the ability of certain elements within the
establishment, I am thinking particularly of the judiciary, to
needlessly provoke the population. If you needlessly provoke the
population then you are likely to elicit a response which will
be considerably more violent than need be. If you do not provoke
the population when there is no need, I think the system will
internally change on its own, rather slower than some people may
want, but nevertheless there are other forces for change that
will push it in the direction which I would be more happy with.
Sir John Stanley
68. Dr Ansari, we understand that one of the
policies that is strongly favoured by the government of Iran is
that the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the NCR, should
be made a proscribed organisation, as a terrorist organisation.
I should be grateful if you would tell us whether you would agree
with such a policy and if not why not?
(Dr Ansari) The National Council of Resistance
is generally seen as a political body or an organisational body
and since the late or mid 1980's has really come under the effective
control of an organisation known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq organisation.
The MKO or the MEK—depending on the acronym you want to
use—is a body of somewhat militant resisters to the Islamic
Republic. They have their own bones of contention with the clerical
regime. They were involved in a fairly bloody civil war with the
clerical regime in 1980-81. They are now based north of Baghdad
and effectively they live on the grace and goodwill of Saddam
Hussein, which does not help. According to the State Department
it has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation. As far as
most Iranians are concerned—and I know there is a certain
amount of controversy about this—most Iranians, because
of their situation in Iraq and because of their affinity and affiliation
with Saddam Hussein, and because of the experience of eight years
of war, do not see the Mujahedin-e Khalq as a likely contender
for any form of regime change. Most of them probably detest them
more than they do the clerical regime, principally because of
nationalist objections, to be perfectly honest. I mean, you do
not sit in Iraq; it is an absurd situation to be in. My view is
that parliamentarians both in this country and the United States—and
European Union to some extent—should be a lot more judicious
in their associations with the National Council of Resistance,
principally because they are widely seen and probably are the
political wing of an organisation that is proscribed as a terrorist
organisation under the eyes of the state department of the United
States.
69. If you want to express a view to us we would
be glad to have it, do you believe that the British Government
would be justified and right to follow the same policy as the
US government by making the organisation a proscribed one?
(Dr Ansari) My own view is that if the British Government
seeks to pursue its interests in the long term, it should do all
it can to support the process of democratisation in Iran in line
with the growth of nationalism in the country. Support for the
Mujahedin-e Khalq is not compatible with it. I would distance
myself from them.
Mr Pope
70. Dr Ansari, in this country most of us have
viewed the tensions between reformers and conservatives as being
focussed primarily on Iranian domestic policy. Could I just ask
you about foreign and security policy. In your opinion do reformers
have a different agenda for Iranian foreign policy than the conservatives?
(Dr Ansari) I think the reformist/conservative
divide in Iran is now a little outdated in some ways. For the
purposes of analysis it is useful. I think in foreign policy terms
the major difference between reformists and conservatives is this,
the reformists would like Iranian foreign policy to be conducted
through the standard organs of government - ie the foreign ministry,
the other ministries—under the leadership of the executives
and so on and so forth. Whether their views on foreign policy
would be dramatically different is another matter. A good case
in point is the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It is
certainly a much more widespread view and I know few Iranians—even
Iranians abroad—who see no problem with Iran pursuing a
nuclear weapons program. They live in a dangerous neighbourhood.
We should remember of course that the nuclear weapons program
was started under the shah with German help. It is not something
that the Islamic Republic has suddenly taken up; this is something
that pre-dates that. The other thing that we have to bear in mind
is that there are elements within the extreme right who are quite
keen to pursue their own foreign policy irrespective of what goes
on in government, and this is a problem. We have a lot of Oliver
Norths in Iran.
71. Could I ask about the impact of President
Bush's State of the Union speech last year when he included Iran
in the axis of evil. I think quite a number of us were surprised
that that happened. One can see a case for Iraq and a case for
North Korea being in an axis of evil, but I think a number of
us were quite surprised that Iran was included. Many people in
Europe thought that this was a tactical mistake. Our best bet
is a constructive engagement with Iran, encouraging reformers,
and by denouncing the whole of Iran as being part of an axis of
evil that would weaken reformist elements. Can you just tell us
what the net effect has been and has it hindered the reform process?
(Dr Ansari) If George Bush had omitted the phrase
"axis of evil" it would have been a lot, lot better.
Many Iranians were quite happy with the fact that there was unelected
minority. They had no objections to that in principle. What they
objected to was being bound in with two other countries, particularly
the Iraqis whom they do not have a huge amount of love for; the
people were somewhat baffled by North Korea. It had a bad effect
in two ways. One is that the reformist government of President
Khatami had really bent over backwards to help in the Afghan war.
They probably did more than was publicly known. This was the consequence
of that—it played very badly in Iran. It said, "You
can't trust the Americans, what the hell are we doing?" On
the other hand, it also had a negative effect on the key constituents,
particularly students and young people who felt somewhat let down.
They have a somewhat idealist perspective of the west and the
United States in particular, and I think this was a bit of a shock
to the system. I have to agree that tactically it was a mistake.
The fact that within two or three months he was talking about
sitting down and having a dialogue with evil obviously made it
quite clear.
Mr Chidgey
72. Dr Ansari, Commissioner Chris Patten visited
Iran last week. One of the things he said in advance of his visit
was, "We in Europe have a huge interest in Iran's development.
Without wishing to interfere, we hope that Iran will recognise
that the process of reform opens the way for Iran to play a more
significant role regionally and globally." To what extent
does the European Union's policy of engagement help to strengthen
reforms in Iran? Does the EU policy not simply add a veneer of
respectability to what many would call a deeply repressive regime?
(Dr Ansari) There is truth in what you
say to the extent that the European Union and the nature of the
European Union means that on occasions that policies seem inconsistent.
If it has inconsistencies in the approach of its policies it means
that basically you are not getting your main points across. I
think that Iran remains immensely important for Europe and for
Britain in particular in the next century, certainly in terms
of gas supplies. I think Iran's development as a leader in Islamic
democracy is going to be extremely influential. I do agree that
there are elements where Europe could improve upon some of its
critical dialogue. Maybe its dialogue or critical engagement should
be a little bit more critical and a little bit more consistent.
The main area which I certainly hear a good deal of grumbling
about—sometimes from some very surprising quarters—is
really on the issue of human rights. I think sometimes, while
other issues are less important for ordinary Iranians, there is
a view that on the issue of human rights the moral clarity of
the Bush administration can often seem more attractive to young
Iranians than the ambiguity in some ways of the European Union,
particularly where you have this revolving presidency. I do not
want to name names, but there are certain countries—not
Britain—that they are more critical of in terms of their
position.
73. Human rights is not the only area of difference
between the EU and Iran. Two others, for example, would be Iran's
involvement with weapons of mass destruction and Iran's approach
to the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts which, some would argue,
include support for terrorist cell organisations. How much do
you believe that Iranians value the dialogue that they currently
have with the European Union? Why is it seen from the Iranian
perspective as important?
(Dr Ansari) I think the dialogue is vital. It is immensely
important to the Iranians both on commercial, cultural and political
grounds.
74. If it so important to the Iranians, could
we, in the EU, be doing more to press the Iranians for reform
as part of that dialogue.
(Dr Ansari) Any form of encouragement and pressure
has always been judiciously used and I think it is difficult sometime
with the EU to get a coherent statement out. I think there has
to be a better balance of carrot and stick, certainly. There are
people within Iran who would like the EU to be harder on certain
issues, certainly if there is a question of a hard-line reaction
in the country. If a number of people were executed in Iran, for
instance, they would like to feel that the European Union would
not have a token protest, withdraw their ambassadors for a week
and then trundle back; that, to most Iranians, does not make sense.
On the other hand there has to be an element where you do support
and encourage trade agreements, educational links and other areas
which would be of tremendous appeal to a lot of young Iranians.
I cannot emphasise that more. Rather than encouraging certain
elements of the elite to get richer, it would be helpful if we
encouraged certain members of the younger generations to get to
know and be friendlier towards Europe.
75. On the question that you raised as to executions
and the withdrawing of ambassadors for a week, you will be aware
that one of the issues that is of great concern to us in the west
is the executions by stoning. You are also aware that it was announced
in late December last year that the judiciary would no longer
order executions by stoning and the judges would issue alternative
forms of punishment, particularly for adultery. This was a suspension,
of course, not a permanent change. What concerns us is that the
EU policy of engagement with Iran, we could argue has produced
few tangible results. It is a relatively new policy so if reforms
are not forthcoming at what point would you assess should the
EU draw their line in the sand, their red line and refuse to go
ahead with negotiations, for example towards the trade cooperation
agreement rather than withdrawing ambassadors for a week?
(Dr Ansari) It is going to be much more difficult
to make views heard on the issues heard on the issue of executions
where a criminal offence is considered to have happened. If there
is an execution for murder I do not think there is anything for
the EU to do. There have been few, if any, executions since 1997.
I am talking about political executions, political prisoners.
76. Not stoning for adultery?
(Dr Ansari) That is a separate issue. I think that
is an issue that has to be dealt with. It is very interesting
that in Iran there is this very dynamic environment of religious
interpretation. In terms of religious law in the last ten years
there has been a lot of discussion, and this is not something
that Ayatollah Khomeini would have been alien to; he would interpret
the law. Again this is more applicable to Shi'ism than Sunnism
to be honest, one interprets the law in line with your own time,
in line with your own age. Therefore, when you come to the modern
age you obviously have to interpret the law according to your
own age. There are clerics who do not subscribe to that view.
Because of the judicial system and the fact that the judicial
system in Iran has a certain independence from the law let alone
from the executive, and certain judges seem to act in ways which
are somewhat baffling to most Iranians, I think these are a problem
and these are issues which I certainly think that a more firmer
stand would be seen as positive. I am not a religious jurist,
I am probably not qualified to judge on this, but the fact is
yes, in the twenty-first century in a country like Iran with the
civilisation that it has, I think the stoning of women for adultery
is absurd.
Sir Patrick Cormack
77. Dr Ansari, could we move on to British relations
with Iran. How far are Iranian attitudes conditioned by what one
might call historical pre-conceptions and how far do they differentiate
between Britain and the United States in this?
(Dr Ansari) Anglo-Iranian relations are
both blessed and cursed by their historical nature. Britain was
the major power in Iran for a hundred years, from the 1850s right
through to the nationalisation of oil. There are a number of major
British companies which can see their roots in Iran and certainly
in the exploitation of Iran and resources. There is certainly
a sneaking admiration for the British; there is a strong Anglophilia
among many Iranians, certainly in government as well. While politically
they may not have liked what Britain did, they do believe that
Britain knows how to run things politically; Britain knows politics.
There is a saying that the Russians have force, the Americans
have dollars and money but the British have politics. The British
understand how to manage things. There is certainly the view that
among some Iranians that Iran is the only country in the world
where the British Empire still exists. This provides Britain with
great advantages in terms of pursuing its commercial, political
and cultural relations in Iran. There is a strong interest in
Britain in culture and language and British universities. But
it does have the negative effect and the negative impact is this
fear that Britain politically interferes too much and also there
is a view that Britain is far too closely attached to the clerical
classes in Iran. Certainly among young people it is something
which the Americans can gain from.
78. How far is their attitude towards Britain
going to condition their attitude towards any conflict involving
Iraq?
(Dr Ansari) Their attitude towards Britain?
79. Yes.
(Dr Ansari) Their attitude towards any conflict in
Iraq is somewhat anomalos with the rest of the Middle East. They
are distressed by the fact that there will be civilian casualties,
but there is no love lost. Frankly, the western allies have been
doing Iran's foreign policy a great favour over the last year
by eliminating both the Taliban on the one hand and potentially
Saddam Hussein on the other, both great blood enemies of Iran.
There is certainly a feeling at governmental level, establishment
level and societal level that they really cannot get excited by
the fact that Saddam Hussein may be gone in a couple of months.
They may not have really thought through the consequences of what
this may mean to the Middle East. This is a different issue. There
are certainly concerns amongst those who think about this a bit
more deeply about what the Americans may have in store for them
afterwards. That is a worry. I am not sure if the Americans know
what they have in store for Iran afterwards so it does not really
matter at the moment, but there is that concern. I do not think
it will adversely affect Anglo-Iranian relations, no.
|
