Ahmadinejad & the Peace Community: Intentions for the meeting

The motivation for the Fellowship of Reconciliation to facilitate a conversation between the political leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran and representatives of the peace movement in the United States grew out of our long history with the practice of civilian diplomacy and our recent experience leading delegations of citizens to Iran.

Our work fits snuggly into the current political debate of the relative merits of dialogue and nonviolence versus belligerent rhetoric and warfare as methods of resolving differences between peoples. We, by principle and history, captured in our name, come down firmly on the side of reconciliation of differences through active nonviolence.

From the pending threat of the first world war in 1914 to the present call by high level political leadership in the West for military attacks on Iran, FOR and its partners in the peace movement have opposed warfare and promoted cultural awareness and quiet diplomacy. Over the past four years FOR has arranged for more than 100 civilian diplomats to visit Iran for two weeks of interaction with ordinary people in cities throughout Iran. We are probably the largest single provider of such experiences at the moment, though the practice is not unique to FOR. (If you would like more information on participating in a 2009 delegation learn more and download the application online here, or e-mail our Iran program staff.)

As an interfaith, multicultural organization of modest size, civil demeanor, and rich connectivity, FOR was well positioned to offer to facilitate and extended an invitation to more that 100 organizations currently active in opposition to war with Iran, to come together to share the many concerns American citizens have with both American and Iranian policies around ideology, economy, theology, environment, regional political order, human rights, and civil liberties.

In a letter of welcome to open our conversation (see below), I specifically made two key points. First, this was an asymmetrical conversation between elected officials on one side and civil society on the other. It represented that practice within the prophetic tradition of peace-makers speaking truth to power. We ask both Iranian and American governments to answer to abuses of power relative to treatment of women, young people, religious and political dissent, and the exploitation of natural and human resources.

Second, we come to this dialogue without an internal consensus beyond a commitment to nonviolent political solutions to the ills of militarism, materialism, and racism. I noted that “Those gathered here represent ideologies ranging from universal pacifism and faith-based commitments to peace to secular groups grounded in democratic traditions, economic rights and liberties, communism, and/or a purely pragmatic opposition to the prospect of conflict between the United States and Iran. For some their religious principles underlie their participation in the work of peace; for others a secular framework sufficiently supports their beliefs and works.

There are some deeply ingrained differences among us in our choice of strategies and language, in our underlying critique and analysis of governmental policies, in our confidence in active nonviolence as the best tool for change. But we all believe that change is necessary and that reconciliation is possible. And we all believe that civil society ought to have a prominent place in the process of reconciliation.”

This was the statement that opened the conversation (a downloadable PDF version of this document is also available below):

September 24, 2008


The Honorable President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Honorable Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
The Honorable Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee
The Islamic Republic of Iran

Greetings Mr. President Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Mottaki and Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee. Thank you to the Iranian Mission to the United Nations for this invitation to gather the peace community in the United States, which stands in opposition to the use of warfare to resolve conflict, to share its visions and concerns for the state of relationships between the United States and Iran.

It is my privilege, on behalf of one of the oldest peace communities in the contemporary world, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, to introduce you to those gathered in response to your invitation. We are a diverse collection of individuals and groups from all across the country. We are broadly representative but we are not homogeneous and do not represent the full range of voices which can be heard in the United States today, partly because of the short time we had to gather this group and partly because of the particular relationship we represent. These are the groups most directly committed to seeking a nonviolent, peaceful resolution to the differences between the United States and Iran, though many here do have broader agendas as well.

I am sure that, with us, you recognize that this is an asymmetrical conversation. We do not speak for the government of the United States and in many ways we stand firmly in opposition to its policies and practices. While you do speak for the people of Iran, we suspect that some of them, like us, are a voice of caution that humbly argues the reins of power can too easily become divorced from the service of justice of those marginalized as minority communities in our societies.

Our strength is in our base. We represent hundreds of organizations, tens of thousands of members, and millions of American voices who oppose the arguments for armed conflict as a way of resolving our differences with Iran. Many groups here emerged as a response to the preemptive choice by the United States to invade and occupy Iraq as an answer to the events of September 11, 2001. Others have stood in opposition to militarism, materialism and racism as evils of our time and society for decades. Still others are a yet more recent response to the voiced threats between Iran and the United States in the last few years, and the further deterioration of conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East as a result of the U.S. incursion and occupation there.

Our strength is in our method as well, of speaking truth to power, our prophetic call to turn away from violence and conflict and toward nonviolence and reconciliation.

Our one common attribute is our shared belief that the differences between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot be resolved through armed conflict. We feel further that the frequent reliance on a belligerent rhetoric which threatens violence and war does nothing to contribute to a resolution of our differences.

Though we lack confidence that we receive the respect and attention that our positions and voices deserve, as broadly representative of the opinions and wishes of our fellow citizens as they are, we are absolutely convinced that we have important contributions to make to world peace.

Ideally, a conversation such as ours today will deepen an argument for representatives of the governments of the United States and Iran to meet face to face to resolve differences, and will persuade our governments to open the way for direct conversations amongst citizens of our two countries about how best to bring about constructive change in civil society. We seek to meet the needs of all citizens for equality, justice and well-being.

This is a conversation toward which we have made some early progress through the practices of civilian diplomacy (the exchange of citizen delegations) with the support of the Iranian government. Nearly one third of those in this room today have been visitors to Iran in the past three years as participants in interfaith dialogue and cultural exchange delegations. We also suspect that there are conversations already underway between representatives of our respective governments as illustrated by talks in Baghdad and Europe reported in the press, which we encourage.

More than 40 individuals and groups submitted statements of how we have effected change and our vision for a different future. Nearly 100 questions were written for your consideration. Over 200 people responded to the invitation to be here today. All those statements, questions and addresses of the individuals are included in the packet we have prepared for this meeting.

There is not time to introduce every participant or raise every question here, but we would hope that the time we do have creates enough interest that you will want to pay attention to this material, especially to those requests and offers to create on-going relationships between communities and groups in the United States through programs such as group exchanges, Sister Cities, interfaith dialogue, marches of solidarity and cultural awareness activities.

Those gathered here represent ideologies ranging from universal pacifism and faith-based commitments to peace to secular groups grounded in democratic traditions, economic rights and liberties, communism, and/or a purely pragmatic opposition to the prospect of conflict between the United States and Iran. For some their religious principles underlie their participation in the work of peace; for others a secular framework sufficiently supports their beliefs and works.

There are some deeply ingrained differences among us in our choice of strategies and language, in our underlying critique and analysis of governmental policies, in our confidence in active nonviolence as the best tool for change. But we all believe that change is necessary and that reconciliation is possible. And we all believe that civil society ought to have a prominent place in the process of reconciliation.

While we are a diverse group, we do not represent the full range of voices that support nonviolence as a way of life and in service to social change. Let me lift up two: There are Jews among us, but Jewish peace groups are absent, we believe in part, because they have not been persuaded that their community, as a people, will be respected and protected in negotiated resolutions to conflicts in the Middle East broadly framed.

Muslim peace voices are underrepresented, we believe in part, because those from the Muslim community who step forward in the name of peace are at greater risk of suspicion and intolerance among their American compatriots.

In light of these concerns it is incumbent to see those of us who are here as standing in solidarity with the rights and responsibilities of these brothers and sisters to be safely involved in our conversation and to seek reassurances that they are respected and tolerated as full partners in this work as we move forward. We also stand in solidarity with those groups in Iran which seek to shape a future still more fully aligned with the peaceful promise of Islam and the global consensus for basic human rights for all peoples everywhere.

We enter this conversation with respect and humility, respect for the elected roles of leadership which you each fill on behalf of the people of the Islamic Republic of Iran and which bring you to the gathering of the United Nations in New York this week, and humility for the understanding that you would invite the voice of conscience of a portion of the American public to express itself on behalf of ideals of peace and in opposition to warfare as a legitimate means of resolving differences in the world today. You can appreciate, I expect, that we will be denigrated for choosing to accept your invitation, just as we know that you accept some risks to hear our concerns, bluntly and boldly presented in this conversation and document.

May the stories told here become a part of a brave effort to make a difference for peace in the world and in our shared future.

Respectfully yours,

Mark C. Johnson
Executive Director
Fellowship of Reconciliation