By Nader Uskowi
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made no public reactions to the personal appeal by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula to grant asylum by Brazil to Sakineh Mohammadi, the Iranian woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. Lula said on Saturday he hoped his friendship and regard for the Iranian president, the supreme leader, and the Iranian people was “worth something” and the Iranian leaders would accept Brazil’s offer of asylum for Mohammadi.
The Iranian media has also blocked the news of Lula’s offer. Even the Press TV, the English-language state-owned network that tries to portray a professional image for itself, has been silent on Lula’s offer.
The Iranian leaders and the country’s media have recently touted Brazil and its president as Iran’s greatest ally and have pointed to Lula’s personal involvement during Tehran Conference to strike a deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran on the country’s nuclear program. Lula has been portrayed in Iranian media as a symbol of independence in today’s world. Now Lula’s personal appeal to Iranian leaders to free Sakineh Mohammadi from the cruel and uncivilized sentence she has received has put them in an awkward position. They cannot appear yielding to a foreign leader’s pressure on a domestic matter, but they cannot afford loosing Lula as an ally.
The episode shows the serious shortcomings of Iranian diplomacy. Desperate to prove that Iran is not rapidly being isolated at the world’s stage, the Iranian leaders and their controlled media made big deal of the move by Brazil and Turkey, portraying them as the vanguards of the struggle against “world arrogance.” But the policy cuts both ways. What if those very countries object to the reactionary policies of the Islamic Republic, as is the case with Lula’s offer for Mohammadi?
These are indeed some of the darkest days for Iranian diplomacy since the Iran-Iraq war ended two decades ago.
UPDATE (2 August): The US urged Iran to accept the asylum offer from Brazil for Sakineh Mohammadi.
"If Brazil is willing to accept... this woman, we would hope that Iran would consider that as a humanitarian gesture," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said on Monday. "And the fact that Brazil has stepped up and indicated a willingness to resolve it, we hope Iran will listen." [AFP, 2 August].
I would argue that Lula's public "offer" in this case is merely an attempt at portraying himself as independent and impartial on the world stage.
ReplyDeleteSurely, no one makes such offers at intervening in another country's criminal justice system, for the purpose of anything other than political posturing. In this case, it is not Iran that is the intended audience. It is the West. In this respect, this is actually a good sign for Iran.
There are many, many examples of such posturing on the world stage, some including convicts in US prisons. So I wouldn't by any means over-blow this "offer" out of proportion.
The 2010 Tehran Declaration remains an unprecedented diplomatic success for Iran, which could provide the makings of a mini diplomatic breakthrough when talks continue in September.
Also, do not forget, on the diplomatic front, many in the international community were critical of the latest UNSC resolution against Iran, including Turkey, Brazil, Venezuela, 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement, 56 member states of the Organization of Islamic Conference and 22 nations of the Arab League. So while these may be "dark days" in relation to the US and its constellation of allies, Iran and its diplomatic fortunes should be considered within the context of cold war conditions.
..."and their controlled media"...
ReplyDeleteThank God they aren't subsidiaries of FOX News and similar "Weapons of Mass Deception" yet.
These criminals are still operating in Brazil and Lula must have known beforehand that he would be catching flak over the Tehran Declaration. He can expect a counter gesture (if the Iranians are wise), but definitely NOT through the media.
WMD
Anon 3:45 PM,
ReplyDeleteThere we go again! When Lula pulls off the Tehran Declaration, he’s the vanguard of the movement against world arrogance. Now that he has taken a position against stoning a woman to death in the 21st century, he is “posturing” to portray himself as an independent actor on world stage. Tell that to Lula, that his principled stance on stoning is nothing but political posturing. These types of analysis seem to be offered to defend the current government in Tehran, regardless of the policy issue at hand, here stoning a woman to death.
Based on your analysis, Ahmadinejad’s nuclear policy has been nothing but an unqualified success for the country, with the exception to relations with the US and its allies. This is not what happened during UNSC 1929 vote: Russia voted against Iran (and its president is openly and publicly criticizing the immature behavior of Ahmadinejad at the world stage). China voted against Iran. Unless you are classifying Russia and China part of the US constellation of allies. Seven of non-permanent members of UNSC voted against Iran, including Gabon, Uganda, Nigeria and Bosnia with Lebanon abstaining. They are members of the Non-Aligned Movement and some members of the Islamic Conference that you argue are actively supporting the Iranian policy. In the Arab world, many of the 22 nations you are referring to are publicly criticizing the country’s nuclear policies, with UAE foreign minister who seemed to be campaigning for an attack on Iranian nuclear installations.
Ahmadinejad’s presidency and his foreign policy has been a disaster for the Iranian diplomacy. He has taken the country on the road of isolation, loosing allies such as Russia and relying on the Brazilian president who is now creating a major headache for him. His presidency has produced four UNSC resolutions and now the toughest economic sanctions against the country. It is high time for the senior leadership of the Islamic Republic to say enough is enough and start the process of impeaching a president who seems to be doing everything in his power and his ability to isolate Iran.
Friends of Iran do not rejoice its isolation, the country needs to normalize its relations with the rest of the world and focus on its own economic development and its unlimited potentials.
Anon 3:45 PM,
ReplyDeleteThere we go again! When Lula pulls off the Tehran Declaration, he’s the vanguard of the movement against world arrogance. Now that he has taken a position against stoning a woman to death in the 21st century, he is “posturing” to portray himself as an independent actor on world stage. Tell that to Lula, that his principled stance on stoning is nothing but political posturing. These types of analysis seem to be offered to defend the current government in Tehran, regardless of the policy issue at hand, here stoning a woman to death.
Based on your analysis, Ahmadinejad’s nuclear policy has been nothing but an unqualified success for the country, with the exception to relations with the US and its allies. This is not what happened during UNSC 1929 vote: Russia voted against Iran (and its president is openly and publicly criticizing the immature behavior of Ahmadinejad at the world stage). China voted against Iran. Unless you are classifying Russia and China part of the US constellation of allies. Seven of non-permanent members of UNSC voted against Iran, including Gabon, Uganda, Nigeria and Bosnia with Lebanon abstaining. They are members of the Non-Aligned Movement and some members of the Islamic Conference that you argue are actively supporting the Iranian policy. In the Arab world, many of the 22 nations you are referring to are publicly criticizing the country’s nuclear policies, with UAE foreign minister who seemed to be campaigning for an attack on Iranian nuclear installations.
Ahmadinejad’s presidency and his foreign policy has been a disaster for the Iranian diplomacy. He has taken the country on the road of isolation, loosing allies such as Russia and relying on the Brazilian president who is now creating a major headache for him. His presidency has produced four UNSC resolutions and now the toughest economic sanctions against the country. It is high time for the senior leadership of the Islamic Republic to say enough is enough and start the process of impeaching a president who seems to be doing everything in his power and his ability to isolate Iran.
Friends of Iran do not rejoice its isolation, the country needs to normalize its relations with the rest of the world and focus on its own economic development and its unlimited potentials.
@ Uskowi,
ReplyDeleteFirst, Khatami doesn't seem to have done such a good job either considering that his 2003 offer (virtually surrendering to Bush according to some) was summarily rejected.
As to Ahmedinejad, I'll admit that to us westerners he sure fits the "crazy foreign bad guy" image perfectly.
As to China and Russia (with Putin gone), they are constantly being bullied into UNSC resolutions on penalty of military intervention in violation of the UN charter !
As to the NAM, well ...
WMDeception
From Anon 3:45:
ReplyDeleteNader, with all due respect,
The update only confirms the intended audience was the US. And it was successful, as such. (Lula is quite an adroit statesman on the world stage.)
When exactly has Russia ever been a *reliable* ally? Is this where you place the emphasis on Iran's diplomatic success? If so, you're simply putting Russian opportunism before the interests of Iran.
And make no mistake, the latest UNSC resolution was watered down to the point where it was actually opportunistic for the Chinese to accept them.
Like another commenter here has pointed out, we have Khatami's previous offer of nuclear capitulation to compare with Ahmadinejad's. When capitulation is ignored, you know exactly where you stand, and defiance is the only logical course of action.
Let's see how things turn out this September.
For an accurate rendering of the situation, click here to read the Leveretts' objective analysis.