U.S.-Iran

* FAQ

* Write for The Iranian * Editorial policy

On the same side?
Distorted mindsets of the past must be shattered

December 19, 2001
The Iranian

Speech by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at a conference organized by the American-Iranian Council in New York, December 17, 2001.

Thank you Dr. [Hooshang] Amirahmadi, and thank you Ambassador [Robert] Pelletreau, and members of the [American-Iranian] Council for your recognition and very kind words. I am delighted to see so many friends and former colleagues, including such legends of the American Foreign Service as the indomitable Tom Pickering and the irrepressible Frank Wisner -- or perhaps it's the other way around.

I also want to recognize Ambassador Nicholas Platt, who has done so much to strengthen ties between the United States and Asia, and to greet the officials here from the office of the Permanent Representative to the UN from the Islamic Republic of Iran. I hope our paths will cross many times in the future under increasingly favorable conditions.

Finally, I want to congratulate Dr. Amirahmadi and Ambassador Pelletreau and all the members of the Council for your efforts to foster cooperation and understanding between two proud countries, reflecting two great civilizations. The importance of that task has never been more clear. There are many obstacles to this effort, but also many allies. Foremost among them are members of the Iranian-American community.

For decades, Iranian-Americans have contributed profoundly to the richness and diversity of American life. Now you are helping to forge new economic, cultural and social ties between the land of your parents and that of your children. I salute you and encourage you to persist, for we live at a time when intercultural understanding can spell the difference between misery and prosperity, war and peace, death and life.

Twenty one months ago, in Washington, I spoke at a Conference on American-Iranian relations. This Council was a principal sponsor of that event. Since then, much has changed. For one thing, there is a new administration in power and I am no longer Secretary of State. I loved being in government, but I also appreciate the chance now to talk more freely and on my own behalf.

I want to emphasize this because there should be no misunderstanding. Tonight, I speak only for myself, which means when we get to the discussion period later on, I may actually be able to answer your questions. Since last year, there have also been catastrophic events, which weigh upon us heavily. The shock of that wretched morning in September still burns in our hearts and minds.

We are deeply conscious of what Kofi Annan called the other day in Oslo a "new insecurity" brought about by the devil's marriage between technology and terror, and carried out, in the words of President Khatami, "by a cult of fanatics who ... could only communicate with perceived opponents through carnage and devastation."

We still mourn our fellow citizens and the many others -- including five Iranians -- who died in the September 11 attacks. We mourn, as well, the victims of more recent violence: those stricken by anthrax; Afghans murdered by the Taliban and its foreign allies; the soldiers who have perished; and civilians accidentally killed by U.S. bombing. And we grieve for the hundreds of innocent Israelis and Palestinians who have died by violence this past year. It is not surprising that, after all this, I -- like many others -- have come to hate hate.

I am sick of the remorseless killing, the inflammatory stereotypes, the bigoted assumptions about Islam, the false images of America, the stupid chants, and the arrogance of those who do not accept that no one's blood is less precious than their own.

I long for a better, more peaceable world, where children everywhere are taught to see from many perspectives, and good-hearted people from every culture triumph over the apostles of division and hate. Unfortunately, we remain far from that kind of world.

And as members of this Council know, those who seek to build bridges across the cultural and political chasms that divide us can only do so against high odds and at considerable risk. When I became Secretary of State, I was fully conscious of both the odds and risks, but I also wanted very much to explore the possibility of a fresh approach to Iran.

There were several reasons for this. Iran's strategic importance is obvious. It is a cradle of civilization, located at a crossroads between East and West. It is a leader within the Islamic world, and a major producer of oil and gas. It suffered greatly during the twentieth century at the hands of both imperial powers and home-grown despots. And it is poised now to play a key role in determining the stability and prosperity of the entire Middle East, Gulf and Southwest Asia.

While I was at the UN, we operated under the policy of dual containment. I inherited that policy upon taking office as Secretary of State in 1997. It soon became evident, however, that the policy did not reflect the changing realities. Iran did not belong in the same category as Iraq.

Iraq had attacked its neighbors, and used weapons of mass destruction, not once, but twice. And Iraq was governed by a ruthless dictator who murdered his opponents and stifled any hope of change or growth. Iran had not attacked its neighbors. In fact, it had been the victim of Iraqi aggression and chemical strikes. And Iran was embarking on a political process that -- although slowed by ideological clashes -- would help it become more open and democratic.

As the months went by, my hopes were bolstered by the fairness of the 1997 elections, by Iran's efforts to improve relations with Arab regimes and Europe, and to become more active in the United Nations. Iran became a leader in the fight against narcotics trafficking, and signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. The role of women in education and public and social life grew. And from Tehran came expressions of interest in replacing confrontation with understanding and harsh words with informed discussion.

Within the Administration, we were intrigued by the possibility of an official dialogue with the constitutional authorities in Iran. We wanted to see whether we could develop a better mutual understanding about the grave issues that divided our two countries. Over time, we exchanged many messages with these leaders, some public and some through private, indirect, diplomatic channels. These communications helped to soften the rhetorical tone on both sides, but failed to bring down the wall of distrust.

Iran has many grievances against the United States. We said we were prepared, without conditions, to discuss those grievances, as well as our own very serious concerns. Iran's reply was that America would have to change its policies before we could begin a political dialogue. This reflects the depth of disagreement that remains on key subjects. Around the margins of our relationship, however, there has been steady progress.

At the State Department, we took note of changing attitudes and modified our travel advisories. The President lifted restrictions on the sale of medicines and food. On a people-to-people level, we engaged in a host of cultural, academic and athletic exchanges. In fact, I was told after my first major speech on Iran, in June of 1998, that I would have to wait to gauge the reaction, because Iran was too busy celebrating its' victory over the U.S. soccer team.

In my second speech last March, I announced an end to the U.S. embargo on imports of Iranian pistachios, carpets and caviar. In the months since, our imports of these products have totaled more than $200 million. So both countries have taken some important steps, but only small ones.

The question in our minds tonight is whether the events of the past three months have created a new opportunity for improved relations between the United States and Iran. The answer I think is both yes and no. Certainly, the Middle East remains an area of sharp contention.

The United States is simply not going to abandon Israel in a region where many governments still do not accept its right to exist, and where so many voices continue to incite hatred and violence against its people. America has a longstanding commitment to Israel's security and survival, a commitment we have kept and will keep through Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

At the same time, we do not expect Iran to abandon its support for the aspirations of Palestinians. Indeed, we have worked closely with Palestinian negotiators to help them make progress. Ideally, the United States and Iran could join in helping both Israelis and Palestinians find the road to a just and enduring peace.

But I am not enough of an optimist to believe that we could agree on how to do that in the absence of improved relations between the parties. I do, however, see three areas where America and Iran might be able to find more common ground, even in the absence of a formal political dialogue. Actions here do not require concessions by either country; merely a recognition of the benefits to both of cooperation in specific areas.

The first area is obvious, and that is Afghanistan. Iranians, from Ayatollah Khamenei on down, condemned the September 11 attacks. But Iran has not supported the U.S. military action, out of an expressed concern for innocent Afghan lives. Unlike the terrorists, whose sole purpose was to murder innocent people, America has done all it could to avoid civilian deaths.

And I hope Iran understands that our purpose was not to attack the people, but instead to enlist the support of the Afghan majority in freeing themselves from tyrants, many of whom were not Afghan at all. That is why the military coalition has succeeded in gaining local allies, and why so many Afghans have reacted to the Taliban's defeat with relief and joy.

Tactical differences aside, the United States and Iran share many interests in Afghanistan. Both our countries have been represented for several years on the so-called "six plus two group" whose goal was a negotiated end to the Afghan Civil War.

This is one of the few places where U.S. and Iranian officials sit around the same table. I participated in one meeting with Foreign Minister Kharrazi, and the views we expressed were quite similar. The same was true when Secretary Powell shook hands with the Foreign Minister at this year's meeting.

The United States and Iran have joined in encouraging the creation of a broadly representative interim government for Afghanistan. In the weeks ahead, we should continue working together toward goals we share, including the delivery of humanitarian relief; the early and safe return of refugees; and the deployment by the UN of an international force to assist local authorities in providing security.

As our leaders have warned, the job of creating a stable, terrorist-free Afghanistan has just begun. Ultimately, the outcome will depend on whether Afghan leaders choose to work with each other to rebuild their country, or fight with each other to control guns, narcotics and power. The odds will improve if women are given a real voice, if the United States does not walk away, and if Afghanistan's neighbors join to push the country along, instead of squabble, and end up pulling it apart.

Iran has an important stake in the outcome, and much to contribute to its success. I urge the Bush Administration and others participating in the international effort to seek Iran's views, and consider them seriously and with respect.

This is also true of a broader and extremely important question that extends beyond Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda network has been nourished by schools in the Gulf and South Asia that have been teaching children not how to live in the world, but rather how to destroy it. As a result, many of the young are angry, ill-informed and unprepared to contribute constructively to their communities and countries.

Iran's young people, by contrast, are almost uniformly literate, eager to learn, and motivated by a desire to see Iran occupy a position of honor and responsibility among nations. The contrast is important, and may well contain lessons from which we all can profit.

A second area where I believe the United States and Iran could establish a broader degree of common ground concerns the definition of terrorism. For years, our two countries have wrangled over this term. Both have accused the other of harboring and supporting terrorists. At the same time, both have denounced terrorism. Clearly, at some point, in some places, the language has become detached from the reality. Again, I am an optimist, not a partaker of hallucinogenic mushrooms.

The United States and Iran are not yet ready to agree on how to describe Hezbollah, which is a political party, a social organization, a militia, a group that also condemned the September 11 attacks, an inciter of hatred against Israel, and a sponsor, in the past, of explosions that have killed hundreds of innocent people.

I suspect we are also not ready to agree on how to characterize the horrible tragedy involving the U.S. Navy ship VINCENNES and an Iranian commercial airliner in 1988. The United States says it was an accident, and has explained why the captain, whose career was soon curtailed, took the actions he did. We also paid compensation to the families of the victims.

After September 11, I think Americans can understand even better the shock and sorrow of the loss those families felt. So where, then, is the room for common ground?

I would begin with September 11. Both the United States and Iran have agreed that these attacks were terrorism and wrong. I hope we would also agree, that whatever the alleged motive, it is terrorism and wrong to train young men to strap bombs onto their bodies and go kill people in buses or shops.

It is terrorism and wrong to plant a bomb under a bus and then machine gun passengers as they try to get away. It is terrorism and wrong to storm into a Palestinian refugee camp and murder unarmed men, women and children as so-called Christian militia did in Lebanon in 1982.

It is terrorism and wrong to plot to blow up a mosque as members of the Los Angeles Jewish Defense League are alleged to have done. It is terrorism and wrong to hijack civilian aircraft or seize hostages. It is, in summary, terrorism and wrong to engage in lethal attacks against innocent people wherever and whenever that might occur.

The twentieth century was the bloodiest in human history. We have a chance for a fresh start, but we have not started well. At Iran's initiative, we have begun a Dialogue of Civilizations. But this requires that a line be drawn between civilization, itself, and brutishness; between the rule of law and no rules at all.

If the United States and Iran were to agree on where to draw that line, even if we disagreed on one or two coordinates, we could help shape a global consensus, and make it easier for all nations and peoples to protect themselves from what has become a global threat.

The third area where I believe Iran and the United States can do more corresponds almost exactly to the work of this Council. After all, ties between countries extend far beyond ties between governments. I say that now with enthusiasm because I am out of government myself.

I would hope that the process of exchanging visits and ideas, and of engaging in joint projects will continue and move to a new level. It would be useful, for example, for businesspeople to talk to each other more and more, and to address anew such matters as Iran's potential membership in the World Trade Organization.

Nongovernmental organizations should expand their contacts, especially to share ideas about how to build, preserve and protect truly democratic institutions. It would be important for American and Iranian legislators to meet, and I know that--with the Council's help--plans for such a gathering are underway.

And I think it might be productive for former Executive branch officials from the United States and Iran to get together to share their unique perspectives, and create new avenues of communication. I, for one, would be pleased to participate in such an enterprise at an appropriate time, whether in Iran, the United States, or some other location.

In closing, let me suggest that our two governments might also consider a step recommended by former Secretary of State Vance several years ago. And that would be to establish formal diplomatic relations. These need not be particularly warm; nor must they begin at the Ambassadorial level.

But there is plenty of precedent for the exchange of diplomats between governments that do not see eye to eye, and the truth is that diplomatic relations are more vital when contacts are difficult than when they are smooth.

In my speech 21 months ago, I said that the great divide in the world today is no longer between East and West or North and South; nor is it between one civilization and another. The great divide today is between people anywhere who are still ensnared by the perceptions and prejudices of the past; and those everywhere who have freed themselves to embrace the promise of the future. That divide was never more evident than on September 11.

Let us say frankly that the distorted mindsets of the past must be shattered, and that in the battle against terror, in the struggle for democracy, in support of human dignity, and in defense of civilization, Iran and the United States belong on the same side. Together, let us be unafraid to build bridges that will lead both great nations to that high and common ground.

Comment for The Iranian letters section