U.S. sanctions
The McStick... hold the carrots?
Reactions to the League of Iranian-American Voters' condemnation of the French-Iranian gas deal and a reply.
Reactions
Ali Shaibani: Sanctions are a setback
Mehrdad Koohian: Things are improving
Farzin Mokhtarian: Moderates should be
helped
Reply
Shawn Sedaghat: Human rights serious concern
Sanctions are a setback
At a time when many well-known political specialists, former national security advisors, and economists are urging for reform of the unsuccessful dual containment policy against Iran, whose only result has been to increase the suffering of the Iranian people, and to hurt American businesses, it is interesting to see a letter, from a group of Iranian-Americans urging President Clinton to uphold the D'Amato Act, which incidentally was authored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Perhaps the signatories of this letter have missed the fact that the new president of Iran, and therefore , indirectly, his cabinet, have the endorsement of 70% of the Iranian voting population. And perhaps they have also missed Mr. Khatami's emphasis on increasing civil liberties, the rights of women, and freedom of the press; or for that matter, the comments of the new interior minister.
If Mr. Khatami, and his new government are to be able to realize some of their promises, and thus improve the lives of the Iranian people, a healthier economy is of utmost necessity; and anything that improves the lives of the Iranian people should be of utmost importance to all Iranian-Americans. I, for one, have many friends and relatives living in Iran, whose lives are directly affected by the state of the economy; therefore I cannot condone any law that sets back the lives of the Iranian people and hinders them from occupying a position of cultural and economic prowess they deserve.
I especially cannot condone a law, whose authors are lobbyists of a foreign nation, currently considering Iran to be their number one enemy. I urge the members of the League of Iranian-American Voters to reconsider their letter in light of what it means to the lives of the people of Iran. I also urge all other readers to send their own letters condemning the dual containment policy as a defunct and regressive policy.
Sincerely,
Ali Shaibani
shaibani@hotmail.com
Things are improving
I am writing in regards to the sanctions supported by the League of Iranian-American Voters.
In agreement with Mr. Ali Shaibani, I also cannot condone sanctions against Iran. Sanctions will hurt the people of Iran and never the government. Furthermore with the recent improvements in many facets of life for the people in Iran we have to give Mr. Khatami a chance to enhance the economic situation for our people.
My friends, there are human rights abuses in many countries in the world. The U.S. government only points at those that don't agree with its policies. Israel for one probably has the worst human right record of all. It has nuclear weapons and chemical weapons and it conducts the most brutal terrorist acts. But Israel remains and as we all know will remain U.S.'s best friend. Now what is anybody doing about that? How come there are no sanctions against them.
Does Saudi Arabia respect human rights or Peru or several other South American countries. Please, don't believe for a second that the U.S. government is concerned about human rights and that's the basis for their sanctions. There are "others" who prefer to see Iran isolated.
We, as responsible Iranians, should condemn U.S. sanctions and condone the Europeans for their dialog with the Iranian government. As we all know most European countries and nearly all other countries in the world don't have a problem with Iran.
Don't get me wrong. I am aware of the human rights abuses in Iran and the lack of personal freedoms, but as acknowledged by many observers things are improving there. Let's stop putting unfair pressure on a government that already has to deal with hard-headed internal fanatics.
Mehrdad Koohian
mehrdad@concentric.net
Moderates should be helped
Mr Sedaghat,
I was shocked by [the letter from the League of Iranian-American Voters] in THE IRANIAN.
The Iranian government has been showing signs of moderation and improvement for a number of years now. There is just no other viable alternative for Iran which would not jeopardize Iran's independence. I think the moderates in Iran should be helped by constructive engagement and not isolation.
I also think that the "international terrorism" charge against Iran is created by the Israeli lobby because Iran helps the Lebanese resist the illegal Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
Mr Sedaghat, please show more sedaghat in the future.
Farzin Mokhtarian
ees2fm@surrey.ac.uk
Reply
Human rights serious concern
Dear Mr. Mokhtarian, (and all others with similar views):
Thank you, for your dissenting response to our communique. I believe it was Justice Holms, of the United States Supreme Court, who said speech should be delegated to the "free marketplaces of Ideas", because it is there that it will meet its just fate. You have raised certain issues that are of importance and we would like to address them.
As an individual I agree with you wholeheartedly when it come to opposing the Sanctions Act. I refer you to the article that I wrote for the Asre Emrooz daily, published in L.A.
As an attorney, who handles immigration matters for Iranians on a regular basis, I also deplore the sanctions and have written to President Clinton and the U.S. Secretary of State, to that effect. I feel that the implementation of the sanctions would at the very least antagonize the Iranian population.
However, the LEAGUE OF IRANIAN-AMERICAN VOTERS, is comprised of Iranian-born individuals who, by and large, taken an oath in order to become U.S. citizens. This vote precludes "loyalty" to any other "prince or potentate". This group must remain loyal to America when it comes to an international incident between the U.S. and a foreign government or country. As such our prime objective is to safeguard the rights of IRANIAN-AMERICANS.
At the same time we all feel the pull of our motherland, our Vatan-e Aval. As we must, and do, concern ourselves with only those policies of the Iranian government that involve the lives of IRANIAN-AMERICANS, or their relatives. We believe any government, which deals with Iran, under the guise of "constructive dialogue" while ignoring to make an issue of the fundamental and human rights violations in Iran, is motivated simply by economic motives. To then label a purely economic act as "constructive" begs the question. Constructive to whom? Did any of this "dialogue" involve the rights of the Iranian people?
Self-centered as this may be; our league cannot be all things to all people. There are other organizations that deal with other issues of Iran, and although we may or may not subscribe to their beliefs and aspirations, we wholeheartedly support any exercise of the right of free speech.
As far as any argument that Iran does not support "international terrorism", we must refer you to the killings of Shapour Bakhtiar, the Mikounous trials, the Salman Rushdie affair and the simple fact that most of those who are politically active cannot use their full names, because they are afraid for their lives. We agree with an argument that the "international terrorism" role of Iran is exaggerated for political reasons, but "ta nabashad chizaki, mardom nagouyand chizha".
As far as support for the new government and Mr. Khatami, again we refer you to the fact that as the elected representative of the people of Iran, we must take notice of the new president and wish him well. However, the new wave of mass arrests, the sentencing of Mr. Sarkouhi, and the recent stoning of women in Iran, are all matters of serious concern, which Mr. Khatami is yet to address.
We are also aware of the fact theat the policy of "dual containment" was introduced and supported by individualss who have, previously, worked for AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Councel. Since Israel, and other countries, have lobbies to support them and a healthy "politics of exile" don't you agree with us that time has come for an Iranian political action comitte? ARA has this goal in mind.
Once again, we would like to thank you in for your dissenting response.
Shawn Sedaghat
Member, League of the Iranian-American Voters
goodattorney@hotmail.com
June 4, 1997
The Honorable Madeleine Albright Secretary of State 2201 "C" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Ms. Albright:
I have recently been informed that due to the Iran Sanction Regulations, the processing of all immigrant visas by various U.S. Consulates is to be suspended, until formal guidelines have been issued.
As an attorney concentrating in Immigration matters, and as an immigrant who was born in Iran, I felt it is my duty to offer you another point of view on this matter, since in issuing a formal guideline your offices should take into account various factors which may have not been evident at first glance.
Starting in 1978-1979, and continuing to this day, hundreds of thousands of Iranian have left the country of their birth to seek refuge in other countries by-and-large due to ideological differences, religious repression, ever decreasing personal freedom or gender based oppression.
The United States, particularly California, was a major destination for these immigrants. Currently California boasts, by some counts, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iranians who escaped the theocratic regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Soon the government in Iran found out that this "brain-drain" created a vacuum both socially and economically. It realized that maintaining a stern posture towards the expatriates was depriving it from their expertise and the hard currency that they could spend in Iran. As such, they allowed to freely visit their old homeland.
Taking a page from the Kissinger-Nixon ping-pong policy which was the first step in the thawing of relations with China, the Mullahs in Iran started to export Iranian made movies for showings in the U.S. This served two purposes: first, the already-home-sick expatriates would hark back to the days of old and wish they could visit the old country so quaintly depicted in these movies. Secondly, the Islamic Republic would be portrayed as a benign and good-natured David to America as Goliath.
This policy coincided with the harder immigration policies in the U.S., particularly towards the Iranians. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians in the U.S. who wish to visit and re-unite with the families they left behind must visit them in Iran since the U.S. visa policy towards Iranians, whether for immigrants or non-immigrants, is less-than-inviting.
The current suspension in the issuance of immigrant visas to Iranians came about after a report by the Department of the Treasury, in which it had been summarized that Iranians do not cut off their relationship with Iran creating a net gain for the Iranian economy and thus against the goals underling Iran Sanctions.
It is against the backdrop that the implementation of Iran Sanction should be looked at. Iran's open door policy has taken into account the mentality of the expatriate where the U.S. is once again seeking a quick fix approach. At issue here is not whether Iran Sanctions will prove effective but whether or not barring other Iranians from immigrating to the U.S. furthers the goal behind such sanctions. At the current exchange rate, an average Iranian risks most, if not all, his life savings to free himself from the yoke of repression. Once settled in the U.S., when such an immigrant visits Iran, it is to maintain contact with those family members who were less fortunate.
We must keep in mind that during the recent elections in Iran where 29 million people or 75% of the eligible voters cast their votes, 20 million voted against the status quo. Whether or not Mohammed Khatami will relax the strict governmental control or be friendlier with the West should not be our main concern in the U.S. The West has always complained that there is no "bankable" opposition to the rule of the Ayatollahs. These elections demonstrated that there is an opposition to the status quo; an opposition that is at least 20 million strong.
During his trip to Britain, President Clinton stated that "I have never been pleased with the estrangements between the people of the United States and the people of Iran; they are a great people and I hope the estrangement can be bridged".
It would be shortsighted to ignore the fundamental opposition of the majority of the Iranian people to the rule of oppression and theocratic dictatorship. It would also be shortsighted to prevent Iranians who want to escape that repression from immigrating to the United States. Since the 1950s, the U.S. has circumvented a popular uprising in Iran, befriended an unpopular monarch, sold countless millions in arms to a people who was in need of other essentials and assisted Iraq in invading Iran. None of these have proven to have been wise policies. Rejecting Iranians who have spent time and money to legally obtain the right to immigrate to the U.S., will not help bridge our estrangement either and is mean-spirited, capricious and quite possibly illegal.
During the cold war the slightest hint by a Soviet Citizen as to a desire to seek asylum was welcomed and publicized and currently citizens of certain countries, such as El Salvador and Bosnia enjoy temporary protective status. Iranians should also be encouraged to show their discontent by being allowed to immigrate in great members. Each act of unkindness towards an Iranian who wants to immigrate to the U.S. strengthens the hands of the Mullahs by reinforming the negative image of the U.S. among Iranians. Surely, this was not the intent behind the Sanction against Iran.
I hereby request that the State Department set up a committee to weigh the issues at hand but only after due discussion with a representative group of Iranian expatriates currently living in the U.S. It is only through such a discussion that the fact finder can then form a well-reasoned policy.
I also request that during such discussion and fact finding period those applicants with ready immigrant visas be allowed to complete the processing of their applications.
I would like to thank you in advance for your kind, well reasoned and courteous attention to this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Shawn Sedaghat, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEDAGHAT & TAHERIPOUR
cc: President of the United States
White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Related links
* THE IRANIAN Opinion
section
* Iran News
* Complete list of Iranian
online media
|
|
.