Examination of Witness (Questions 80 -
84)
TUESDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2003
DR ALI
ANSARI
80. What particular distinctive opportunities
do you see as being available to this country in promoting better
relations with Iran and also helping to promote better relations
between Iran and the West generally?
(Dr Ansari) Iran is the great missing part of the
jigsaw in the Middle East. We hope for a diplomatic revolution
which will essentially see Iran restored in a way to its important
role in the region for central Asia, the Persian Gulf. If you
had a pro-western Iran it would make life a lot easier. A lot
of other problems would dissipate. Recently the Indian and the
Iranians have signed agreements, some say more defence style agreements.
It is a sign of the way things are going. Clearly the target for
this is Afghanistan, Pakistan, essentially what they feel are
the common threats of Islamic radicalism.
81. You have talked about Britain being pro-active
and in a sense you have just been saying that in different words.
If you were to suggest two or three particular lines that Britain
should take over the next year or two, what would they be?
(Dr Ansari) Britain has to be very careful because
of historical experience and how it deals with Iran. Nevertheless
I would say that you want to make sure that you seem to align
yourself with the aspirations of the young in Iran. They will
be the future, they will be the people coming to power eventually.
You would not want to be seen to be tied to a very reactionary
establishment. That is one thing. In order to pursue that there
are various routes that I think are important. Education is the
key cultural asset that Britain has. English is very much in demand;
British universities are very much in demand. The British council
in Iran are doing an excellent job in Iran on this. These are
areas you can work on, as well as the standard and commercial
and trading agreements and the ability to move on on those. Keep
in mind those aspects of human rights which are certainly important
to the Iranians. If a student is arrested for no reason that we
can perceive and thrust into prison, if someone is condemned to
death because he has spoken his mind, it does help to be able
to say that we think this is wrong. I do not think there is any
problem in that. We just have to be judicious in how we do it.
Nevertheless these things play well; we live in an increasingly
unitary world. People watch the BBC World Service.
82. So be frank and friendly.
(Dr Ansari) Yes.
Mr Maples
83. I want to bring you back to the conflict
between the reactionary forces and the progressive forces or whatever
labels you chose to put on them. We were discussing this with
a senior Iranian government minister the other day, in particular
the ability of the Council of Guardians to overrule acts. He said
it was not as simple as that. If there was a difference between
the two there was further council to turn to. He said that did
not always rule in favour of the Council of Guardians. Could you
tell us how that works and how often it does come down on the
side of the progressive forces?
(Dr Ansari) The system was set up as
a legacy of Ayatollah Khomeini in order to have as many checks
and balances as he possibly could. I think this is part of the
argument against this notion that it is an autocratic or dictatorial
regime. If it was it would be more efficient than it is. There
are many different bodies and they all like to interfere and to
relate to each other. Constitutionally speaking the power to legislate
resides with the Majalis, the parliament which is elected by universal
suffrage. In order to ensure that the laws are compatible with
Islamic law and do not contradict Islamic law in a particularly
harsh way, you have a Guardian Council of twelve jurists, six
of which are religious lawyers, six of which are lay lawyers.
Six, if I understand correctly are elected by the Majlis (although
there have been problems with this), the other six are appointed
by the supreme leader. Where these two bodies cannot agree, where,
for instance the Guardian Council continues to return legislation
to the Majlis because it is not good enough then a third body
was instituted which was meant to include all the great and the
good, again nominated by the leader, who would then take a decision;
it is like an arbitration council. The problem is that when you
have a radical group of MPs in the Majlis faced with two much
more conservative establishment bodies in terms of the Expediency
counsel and the Guardian Council, then frankly the Majlis is not
going to get very far. When the bodies were set up the Guardian
Council was only meant to have a supervisory role on legislation,
a very loose oversight role. Now it has become much, much more
interventionist. It has been given the right to be much, much
more interventionist and it often makes judgments on laws. The
one that was quite interesting was the issue of torture. The law
banning torture was sent up to the Guardian Council and the Guardian
Council, technically speaking, can only reject it if it is on
Islamic grounds. On Islamic grounds, so far as I can see, there
is no justification for torture, but nevertheless they rejected
and said, "No, no, there must be a case". Having read
the Economist over the last couple of weeks I see that torture
is a much more acceptable thing even in the West, sadly. This
situation has meant that there is an element of gridlock. It has
not worked as well as it should. That is why there is new legislation
going through to see whether the Majlis can regain some of the
powers it had. A lot of this will depend on whether the leadership
will intervene. At the moment we have a structural gridlock.
Mr Hamilton
84. Can we return to the reaction of Iran to
a possible attack on Iraq. On a recent trip to the United States
we were told by someone in the state department that it could
well be in the next ten or fifteen years—and this really
reflect what you were saying—that Iran is the greatest ally
of the west in the region and that that would have enormous impact
on future peace in the region. Leaving that to one side for the
moment, how do you feel that Iran—or the different constituent
components of the Iranian state—will react after an American
or US led attack on Iraq?
(Dr Ansari) There are many people in
society who actually see a US led invasion of Iraq as a welcome
thing. They think it will just be the catalyst that is required
to push the reform process forward. How this is going to work
I could not really tell you, but nevertheless there is that view.
There are others that feel that Saddam Hussein is in the front
line of the defence of Iran and that if you let Saddam Hussein
go down the tube Iran will be next on the list. These are a minority
as well. A lot depends on the way in which the United States seeks
to devise its policy towards Iran and I have to say that for the
first time in 24 years I think the United States is devising a
policy towards Iran. I do not think it has had one. The way Iran
will react to any intervention in Iraq will depend on the attitude
of the United States and the European Union and Britain towards
the notion of Iranian sovereignty, towards the notion of Iran
as an independent sovereign state with a national ideal. There
are views—minority views—in Washington that I have
heard that say after they have finished with Iraq and have created
a federal democracy they will then move on to the last great empire
in the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire, and go in and dismember
that one. This is a view that I have heard. This sort of thing
would be disastrous if it caught on in Iran. One of the things
that I cannot stress enough—it has not been taken on board
because we are so engrossed with ideas of Islam in Iran and the
Islam republic and the revolutions—is that we must not underestimate
the strength of Persian nationalism. Persian nationalism is extremely
strong. If you can mollify that, say, "Look, we are going
to hammer Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein, but we value Iran and
the Persians are a great people" (and mean it, of course)
then yes, you will find the Iranians will be very good friends.
Chairman: That is a very good warning note on
which to end. Thank you very much.
|
