Only Free Men Can Negotiate; Nelson Mandela
For many years, peace activists engaged with Iran-U.S. relations worked hard to create an atmosphere for direct dialogue between the two counties. Their activities have had a wide range of aspects known as "track two" diplomacy; these people-to-people connections have led toward writing and talking to the U.S. Congress to encourage the members of the Senate and House to press for direct talks with Iran.
Having President Obama in the office created hope. His first step to showing that his policy is different from that of the previous administration was his Norooz Message to the people of Iran; then his broader approach of “extended hands” and his administration’s lack of aggressive interference in the events in Iran after the disputed election were additional good signs of a smart administration with constructive ideas for rebuilding relations.
Although, still, there were many occasions we would liked to have witnessed better. On the other hand, we must be fair and admit President Obama’s smart actions and reactions — in his short term in the office thus far — to the unfolding events in Iran and neighboring countries has been hopeful.
October 1, 2009 was a happy day for many of us who were following the events and relations between the two countries of Iran and the United States. We were all looking forward to the second round of meetings, which started on October 19th and we are looking forward to seeing the end of it by this coming Friday.
But what is going on in the U.S. House of Representative is not something we were looking for. The new set of sanctions is the new “Stick” — although nobody use the word anymore, since the Iranians showed they don’t like it — but not using the word “Stick” doesn’t mean they don’t see it in our hands. The new H.R. 2194 — which will place more pressure on Iran, especially on its petroleum needs — is an act toward war, not negotiation.
By H.R. 2194, the U.S. holds Iranians is the condition, either accept our “suggestion” — read it as our orders — or we will exert more pressure on you. Isn’t this like holding them in a prison and asking them to accept everything we say?
There are many who are supporting the U.S. act, but for a moment I just want to draw attention to the Iranian situation as well.
The western powers are pressuring Iran to accept what they say. The U.S.'s “ally”, Israel, which interestingly has many nuclear warheads, is not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, doesn’t have a good reputation on paying attention to the international community, and doesn’t have a peaceful relations even with its neighborhood countries, is threatening Iran on a daily basis — destroying or “striking its nuclear facilities”, if Iran doesn’t accept the 5+1 suggestions. Then the U.S. House of Representatives is drawing the worst and most hurtful sanctions on Iran. Plus, if western countries want to attack Iran, they have already their army, all around Iran’s borders. Does this sound like equal conditions for both sides of the negotiation?
Lets add to this, the domestic condition in Iran after the disputed election, the new terrorist attack on Iranian borders, which killed 40 people including five senior members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Add the phobia of Iranians toward the west, which in all domestic problems they accused the western counties, namely U.S. and England for interfering. I don’t think this will put the Iranians at the same level of comfort as their opponents.
Still, many of us are hopeful the negotiations will get to a “good” result for both sides, since a good and peaceful negotiation is the one, which will end with win-win result. We also shouldn’t forget, we all wanted to see US and Iran sit behind thetable and discuss their problems. Now they are doing that, the worst thing that all of us, including USHouse of Representatives may do is to cause failure of the negotiations. That is the worst thing that couldhappened to all of us.
