Come back (and be quiet)
Iran's conditions for returing expatriates
By Khordad
July 21, 2000
The Iranian
Given the choice, most young Iranians would pack their bags to find
their fortunes elsewhere. Every day a host of talented and brilliant young
Iranians depart for destinations in North America, Europe, Australia, and
even Asian and South American Countries, where they build new lives for
themselves and their families. They leave for a multitude of reasons. Key
among them is the opportunity for a better life, which consists of, among
many things, economic and professional growth and political and individual
freedoms.
The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) are upset about this
continued flight of "national resources" (sarmaay-e meli). Well,
even if they are not upset, they are finally taking note of the vast potential
the Iranian diaspora offers, both economically and in terms of brain power,
for economic and technical development efforts within Iran. Truth be told,
if nationalistic sentiment were enough to keep these people within Iran's
borders, they would never have opted to leave in the first place. But this
approach, as evident in a recent conference on the subject, titled "Goftemaan
Iranian" (Iranian Dialogue), is the cornerstone of the IRI's policy
for attracting and engaging the Iranian diaspora in the economic growth
and development efforts within the country.
With little exception, every speaker at the conference spoke eloquently
and passionately about nationalistic sentiment among Iranians living abroad,
Iran's glorious 2,500-year history and the significant achievement of the
Iranian diaspora in adopted homelands. They beckoned a return of the diaspora,
whether permanent or in the form of organized cooperation, on the grounds
that these "national resources" owe their country their continued
involvement in its strive toward economic and technical/scientific development.
They cautioned the Iranian immigrant community not to surrender their countrymen
and women living in Iran. And they emphasized that national sentiment and
patriotism, a hallmark of Iranian identity, is sufficient inspiration for
drawing these "national resources" back to Iran.
This national pride and sentiment, it was argued, would be enough inspiration
for the return of even the younger Iranian generations living abroad, who
may or may not have lived in Iran and who may or may not be familiar with
its language or culture. The return of this younger generation, speakers
contended, would depend, in large part, on the success of cultural preservation
and promotion efforts carried out by the IRI and the expatriate communities
in the West. The nationalistic tone of the conference, especially on the
heals of the latest parliamentary elections, which also emphasized, to
the exclusion of Islamic rhetoric, nationalistic identity and unity, is
noteworthy. But it falls short of a concrete and realistic plan for addressing
the issue at hand.
Ataollah Mohajerani, the Minister of Culture, possibly one of the most
eloquent speakers of his generation, one who fought successfully, through
oratory excellence, his attempted impeachment by the last Majlis, echoed
much of this sentiment. "Freedom and compromise were the main elements
of success which allowed Iran and Iranians to achieve their glorious height
of civilization," he noted. Perhaps a political analysis would take
this statement to be a criticism of the lack of freedoms currently enjoyed
by Iranians. Unfortunately, Mohajerani's double talk (dar lafaafeh harf
zadan) can hardly serve as a starting point for dialogue between the IRI
and the expatriate community it is courting so feverishly.
This is not to say that I am naive about the political implications
and consequences of a dialogue with Iranian expatriates and the need for
its advocates to take a cautious route. Already the hardline newspaper
Jomhouri Eslami, has objected to the Khatami's policy of courting
expatriates. The hardline Kayhan has also printed a couple of articles
condemning efforts of cultural and scientific exchanges with the West and
the expatriate community, because they offer opportunities for infiltration
by foreign agents and enemies of the IRI. Nevertheless, any discussions
with Iran's expatriate community about their participation in development
efforts in Iran need to be upfront and honest.
Another speaker at the conference representing the government, Mr. Hadi,
listed the recent, more expatriate-friendly, policies of the IRI. Chief
among these policies were the easing of restrictions on the return of expatriates
to Iran, including military service exemptions, reducing passport fees,
and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding dual nationals.
Unfortunately, much of these expatriate-friendly policies, particularly
with respect to dual nationality expatriates, are implemented outside of
a systematic legal framework, offering little guarantees and assurances
for returning and visiting expatriates. Hadi went further to claim that
99% of the flight of Iranians for destinations in other parts of the world
is not due to ideological differences with the state, but for economic
and professional opportunities.
Hadi also mentioned that the IRI would work through its embassies to
support and defend the rights of its citizens living outside Iran with
the employment of legal services and other such measures. As honorable
and heartwarming as these efforts are, they smack of an unbearable irony.
How can the IRI commit to protecting the rights of expatriate Iranians
living abroad or returning to Iran, when it has failed so miserably to
protect the rights of its own citizens living in Iran?
In his speech read during the opening ceremony, President Khatami claimed
that "sound and constructive dialogue would be possible if there existed
mutual understanding and courage to face opposing view points, refusal
to consider personal preferences as absolute, and recognizing and accepting
differences and diversity." In other words, he asked the expatriate
community for tolerance of an intolerable political situation. It is absurd
to imagine that Iranians living abroad would come back to Iran to work
toward economic and technical development, based simply on good will and
nationalistic sentiment, without being overwhelming tempted to address
issues of political instability and freedom. In fact, open and upfront
discussions about political and personal freedoms, the rule of law, individual
protection under the law and pluralism need to be precursors to any attempts
at regaining the trust, the cooperation and the eventual return of Iran's
expatriate community. Economic and technical development issues then can
follow suit.
In a country, where the majority of its intellectuals, whether they
question the legitimacy of a theocracy or not, spend their time behind
bars, a dialogue such as this one needs to begin at home. How can a country
attract its diaspora, for cooperative purposes or for a permanent return,
if it cannot manage any sort of dissent within its borders? These silenced
intellectuals, who in fact mirror the images portrayed during this conference,
of the successful Iranian living abroad, do indeed have the nationalistic
and patriotic drive, which has committed them to their homeland.
Instead of importing intellectuals from abroad, with the condition of
silence on political issues, Khatami's government needs to engage and support
the existing dialogue with intellectuals in Iran and demonstrate a real
commitment to change, regardless of consequences promised by the hardliners.
