Actitud y comportamiento de las personas frente a los dispositivos de control

From the outset, Khatami’s administration advocated cooperation and active participation in dealing with issues afflicting the international society whilst promoting a peace-seeking image. This emphasis on the rationalist principles of Iran’s foreign policy was a constant throughout Khatami’s presidency regardless of the circumstances. Due to Iran’s tarnished reputation since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, it was clear that many countries, especially Western states, did not trust Iran. The only way to change this view of Tehran was through the promotion of dialogue as Iran sought ‘a world blessed with peace’ instead of a world dominated by Islam, which Khamenei envisions.375 In fact, shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, the former president suggested that ‘a coalition for peace instead of war and hostility’ should be established arguing that the ‘dialogue among civilizations is a step in this direction,

373 _{Kharrazi, “H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister of Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 54th Session of}

the UN General Assembly (1999)”

374 _{Mohammad Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 56th Session of}

the UN General Assembly (2001),” accessed May 23, 2015,

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/56/PV.44; Kamal Kharrazi, “H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister of Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 57th Session of the UN General Assembly (2002),” accessed May 23, 2015, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/57/PV.9

375 _{Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 53rd Session of the UN}

150 and it offers a new paradigm of interaction among nations and cultures in a world that longs for peace and security’.376 _{Of course, what ensued was completely the opposite and a coalition was}

built mainly by the United States and the United Kingdom to militarily intervene in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) and Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom).

While the United States and the United Kingdom were preoccupied with the ‘war on terror’ and the respective military operations, Iran was engaged in cooperation efforts to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the interventions. Preventing the collapse of two of its neighbours was key for Iran in order to contain possible negative repercussions beyond the influx of potentially millions of refugees. It was clear that after 2001, terrorism had become a dangerous threat to international society and states must come together to combat it, hence the popularity of the ‘war on terror’. Terrorism has been known to pose a challenge and was considered a menace, years prior to the 9/11 attacks and globalization made it more complicated to deal with this phenomenon rooted in a culture of violence.377 Peace and order has become increasingly threatened and the rationalist principles and institutions of the international society were summoned to extinguish the threat or at the very least contain it. A ‘coalition for peace’ may have been an idealistic way of combating terrorism and we would never fully understand what would have happened if the world had taken that course instead of displaying military might but what mattered at the time was a response to such a shocking attack on the West. Something had to be done and fast, regardless whether this meant breaking the rationalist principle of non-intervention, thus military interventions commenced even without a mandate from the United Nations. Iran of course did not want to be left behind knowing that the roots of terrorism are looming in its backyard, although Iran preferred a different approach as mentioned earlier. After all, terrorism was not just a problem that began in 2001 but was already well underway in the Middle East and Iran was finding ways to tackle the problem. Kharrazi reiterated Iran’s commitment to fighting terrorism in conjunction with drug- trafficking already in 1997, which is an enormous problem in the Islamic Republic, as part of the foreign policy outline of the Khatami government whilst clearing out that the country has

376 _{Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 56th Session of the UN}

General Assembly (2001)”

377 _{Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 53rd Session of the UN}

General Assembly (1998)” Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 56th Session of the UN General Assembly (2001)” Kamal Kharrazi, “Statement by H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister for Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 55th Session of UN General Assembly (2000),” accessed May 23, 2015

151 been wrongly accused of supporting terrorism to achieve certain political purposes.378 In fact, the Islamic Republic of Iran portrays itself ‘as a victim of the most brutal acts of terrorism’ perhaps referring to the terror attacks of the Mojahedin-e Khalq, Iran’s far-left political organization.379 The call to unite against this threat was already voiced out by Khatami years before the tragic event in the United States:

‘The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran have honest and sincere efforts to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including state terrorism constituting an important priority. As required by our religious, moral and cultural values and norms, we unequivocally oppose all forms and manifestations of terrorism, and we shall combat it vigorously and earnestly. In our view, in order to eradicate this menace, we should engage in serious and transparent international cooperation to combat terrorism, and at the same time redouble our efforts to attain the objective of global justice.380

By bringing together countries through the DAC, Khatami had hoped that a global multilateral coalition against terrorism would be formed with Kharrazi highlighting the need for ‘common and rule-based strategies to fight and eradicate’ terrorism citing the significance of the role of the United Nations.381 _{When Khatami discussed his ‘coalition for peace’ he mentioned that}

‘combating the sinister phenomenon of terrorism is an urgent and unavoidable imperative’ which the United Nations can legitimately arrange to uproot terrorism ‘through viable, just and non-discriminatory measures’.382 Once again, the dominance of rationalism in statements regarding terrorism is striking as resort to military intervention and violence is downplayed referring to the principle of the rationalist institution of war where war should be avoided at all costs as it disturbs peace. However, by legitimizing a war against terrorism through an international organ such as the United Nations, perhaps a justified retaliation towards terrorism could have been tailored with the cooperation of all nation-states in the international society making it a means to restore peace. It was clear that terrorism was a ‘global phenomenon’ requiring collective effort of the states in international society but unilateralism got ahead of

378 _{Kharrazi, “H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister of Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 52nd Session of}

The UN General Assembly (1997)”

379 _{Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 53rd Session of the UN}

General Assembly (1998)” Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 56th Session of the UN General Assembly (2001)” Kharrazi, “H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister of Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 57th Session of the UN General Assembly (2002)”

380 _{Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 53rd Session of the UN}

General Assembly (1998)”

381 _{Kharrazi, “Statement by H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister for Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the}

55th Session of UN General Assembly (2000)”

382 _{Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 56th Session of the UN}

152 the game.383 Working with the United Nations has long been considered as an effective strategy by the Khatami administration and the former president and foreign minister consistently stressed the successes of such a method in tackling international problems, demonstrating Iran’s strong faith in the potential of the organization as well as the more rationalist mindset of Khatami.

Promoting Iran’s credibility is one of the ways the Khatami government could draw other states to its cause of participating in a concerted effort against threats to humanity such as terrorism. In order to achieve this, Khatami and Kharrazi stressed Iran’s active humanitarian and peace- making role in Afghanistan working with the United Nations as well as the OIC.384 By informing all the states of international society through the UN channel of Iran’s efforts in tackling the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan as well as mediating between warring factions, the Khatami government wants to prove that it is an agent of peace, with the intention of solving problems in the region as well as in the world. Khatami was well aware that the world is yet to find confidence in Iran and trust it in order to see the country as a team player. Afghanistan is the prime example wherein Iran could display its rationalist worldview ultimately aimed at convincing the world of the new image of Iran as a reliable partner with its political worldview anchored in the rationalist tradition. Iran is working to assist the people of Afghanistan in rebuilding their country and ensure that their citizens regain their rights as well as regain their sovereignty not through unilateral measures but through cooperating with international organizations.385 _{This shows that Iran is not interested in destroying the country or any other}

country for that matter upholding the rationalist norm of non-intervention. The urgency of the situation in Afghanistan has been brought to the attention of the international community by Kharrazi years before the terror attacks in New York and the call has been repeated annually in hopes of getting more states to help.386

383 _{Kamal Kharrazi, “H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister of Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 58th}

Session of the UN General Assembly (2003),” accessed May 23, 2015, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/58/PV.12

384 _{Kharrazi, “H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister of Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 52nd Session of}

The UN General Assembly (1997)” Kharrazi, “Statement by H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister for Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 55th Session of UN General Assembly (2000)” Kharrazi, “H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister of Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 57th Session of the UN General Assembly (2002)”

385 _{Khatami, “H.E. Dr. Mohammad Khatami, President of the I.R. of Iran before the 53rd Session of the UN}

General Assembly (1998)”

386 _{Kharrazi, “H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister of Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the 52nd Session of}

153 The elimination of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is also another significant point highlighted in the yearly statements of the Khatami administration at the United Nations. Having been a victim of the use of deadly chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran emphasizes how deadly and inhumane the use of such weapons is. Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and nerve agents against Iran at different points during the war causing severe casualties. Those that survived these attacks still suffer from the effects of the chemical weapons. At the time of writing, the Tehran Peace Museum in Park-e Shahr in Tehran had on display illustrations of the effect of such harmful weapons as a reminder of the tragic effects of war and the use of WMDs. This bitter experience is engraved in the minds of the Iranian nation, especially since the international community did not come to Iran’s aid during the war. Hence, condemning the use of and demanding the complete eradication of WMDs have been a top priority of Iran’s foreign policy and the Khatami administration accentuated this in almost every statement they made at the United Nations. Along the same lines, Iran has constantly condemned war and the suffering of peoples in different countries as a result of war since the Islamic Republic speaks from its own experience and the Khatami government has supported the proposition of a zone free from WMDs in the Middle East to bring about peace.387 This insistence on peace and avoidance of war at all cost further emphasizes the dominance of the rationalist tradition in Khatami’s foreign policy discourse and having gone through the horrible experience of an eight-year long war, it is understandable that Tehran adheres to such a rationalist understanding of war. War, as an institution of the modern international society of sovereign nation-states, is supposed to be avoided and the United Nations was established after the Second World War ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourges of war’ as stated in the preamble of the UN Charter.388 Iran sees the UN as a project of peace and the Khatami administration wanted to prove that Iran could also partake in this project of peace and even be an active agent in promoting peace instead of bloodshed with Khatami’s government referencing the Islamic Republic’s experience during the Iran-Iraq war.

Insecurity in the Middle East due to Israel’s possession of WMDs and its treatment of the Palestinians have also been raised as an issue of concern by both Khatami and Kharrazi at the United Nations insisting that failure to address these core issues in the region inhibits the establishment of security, stability and peace. Such a demand and a vision reflects a rationalist understanding of international relations wherein the rights of the Palestinians, like the Afghans,

387 _{Kharrazi, “Statement by H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi Minister for Foreign Affairs of the I.R. of Iran before the}

55th Session of UN General Assembly (2000)”

154 should be given to them as demanded by the rationalist institution of international law demanding the state of Israel to recognize the human rights of the Palestinians.389 _{The negation}

of war as a rationalist institution of international society, is considered viable by the Khatami administration only through a total elimination of WMDs. For a country that had no access to any type of WMD during the eight-year long war with Saddam while being a victim of the use of chemical weapons, it is only logical that Iran does have insecurities regarding these weapons and this has two implications. First, is that in principle, due to experiencing such horrid incidents caused by WMDs, Iran feels more secure if WMDs were to be eliminated in the region. Second, since no one had come to the aid of Iran and provided them with weapons to defend itself during the war with Iraq, Iran might be keen on developing its own WMD for its own future defence. It is here that the suspicion of Iran’s uranium enrichment with its potential for developing weapons grade uranium is aimed at and Tehran is well-aware of it. Nevertheless, the Khatami administration, and later, the Ahmadinejad government persistently insist on Iran’s right to have a nuclear program for peaceful civilian purposes. Being a member of the NPT, Iran does reserve the right to have a peaceful nuclear program, reflecting the rationalist institution of international law despite all the suspicions of the United States. At least during the Khatami administration, Iran was prepared to negotiate with the West to prove that the nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, hence the ‘Grand Bargain’ was proposed by Tehran. However, this move that could have spared both countries almost a decade of agitation was dismissed by Washington, perhaps as a repercussion of the events of 9/11. Diplomacy was Khatami’s strength and his government tried to prove, but with little success, that Iran is capable of being rational on the same level as the West and of building trust through dialogue instead of confrontation, which was preferred by his successor.