Essay on Hamdeli Newspaper - September 8, 2018 -
The original text is in Persian and the following translation was done by Ai.
The discussion about the country's foreign policy strategy, although it is a completely specialized matter, is of great interest to public opinion, for better or worse. In addition, public opinion is currently naturally or due to the dominant discourse, focused more on "right" than anything else.
Right in the private sphere, in the public sphere, at the national level and the "international level", and this has caused Iranian people to tend towards a more or less demand-oriented existence. Of course, the equality of rights of countries is rationally assumed. But in practice, two major approaches can be considered in political and international issues: 1- The international law approach, which focuses on national rights, bilateral and multilateral agreements and processes between countries. 2- The international relations approach, which focuses on international spaces. The first looks more at what "should be" and the second at "what is and can be". Perhaps long-term and strategic views can be typically divided into the second category.
"Rights" and their demands in international discussions are of course of primary importance. But at the same time, while addressing national rights, other important components can and should be reminded to public opinion. Categories such as national interest, national interests, duties and responsibilities that are not necessarily always in accordance with national rights.
In various fields such as nuclear technology and equipment, defense industries, science, industry, sports and art, Iran, like any other independent country in the world, undoubtedly has all rights and complete sovereignty, and even due to the authoritarianism of the international arena, no court or powerful force should and cannot impose more restrictions on us than other countries.
But at the same time, due to limited resources and conflict of interests, we ourselves must always keep in mind that prioritizing each of these rights must be rational, calculable and have strategic justification. Just as in sports, investing in a sport (such as rally) that is not our tradition and in which we probably do not have a special talent is usually considered a waste of resources and energy - despite the fact that it is our right - in other areas, public opinion is expected to view the issue with the same rationality and realism. Because otherwise, we cannot expect a rational and correct decision to be made.
In fact, despite the fact that the country has the right and freedom to make any choice it wishes, "as a citizen of this country and not an impartial judge," that choice should be promoted and supported, which will provide greater benefits for the country.
In addition, these benefits should be considered in the long term and with a strategic perspective, and not just from the perspective of establishing rights.
The clear and obvious question in our macro and strategic discussion is the choice of approaches and examples that sometimes, despite their weak propaganda dimension, in the long term lead to the expansion of national interests.
It should be known that sometimes "national interests and concerns" are in substantial and realistic conflict with "national rights," and it is at these historical junctures that the direction and direction of the country's movement is determined.
To insist on establishing a particular right simply because it is right in a particular matter - even if it has no relation to our national interests and concerns - increases the cost of exercising that right disproportionately to our interests. That is why we see in the model of countries such as Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, and Turkey that the national decision and determination is not in establishing all rights in the short term, but in increasing national interests through observance of expediency: an observance accompanied by effort and practice that brings more skill every day and in the long term, through the power created in the authoritarian and power-oriented international space, the establishment of national rights also becomes more achievable, less costly, and easier.
It should be internalized that concepts such as independence, sovereignty, and securing national rights, although important and a priority for all countries in the present era, have become a little more complicated to achieve in light of the current order of the international community than it initially seems.
Creating dependence for powerful countries in the labor, capital, and consumption markets, through indirect paths in consolidating some national rights and postponing some demands and strengthening themselves without political costs in the long run, will certainly increase national power to such an extent that, through this power and dependence, many of the deferred rights can be realized without the slightest harm to the country. It must be believed that the recognition of national rights by others requires power, not a declaration of position: real power is only possible with a strategic view and prioritizing national rights, interests, and concerns.
Nuclear energy is certainly our inalienable right, as are the higher stages of this technology, missile security is certainly our right, and so is presence in the region and engagement in the world.
But at the same time, a stable economy, maximum oil and condensate exports, our share of the energy market, balanced and tension-free trade and financial relations with major contracting countries, and the purchase of sophisticated military weapons such as fighter jets and combat naval fleets are also our rights.
Aren't the ability to attract foreign capital, having strong economic and industrial partners in the world, stable businesses, having high-yield factories, creating enough sustainable job opportunities, not having our children emigrate, and reforming the education system our inalienable rights? What about an improving environment with sufficient funding, improving the level of health and treatment, insurance and social security, the prosperity of the country's development projects, the dignity of employees and retirees, not having our officers travel around, and not having our teachers sell themselves?
What our rights are is definitely not up for debate, because we all agree that whatever rights others in the world have, are definitely and rationally conceivable for us as one of the major and important countries in the region and the world. Rights are things that we must be aware of and strive to realize in the long term every day. In addition, it is imperative to defend the integrity of rights and national choice against competitors, especially in the international arena.
Both the nuclear power plant and the solar power plant are our rights, and it is no one's business which one we choose. It is we and only we who can and must choose which power plant is more cost-effective for us and brings cheaper, more borderless and cleaner electricity, considering the geographical, mineral, technological, political, environmental and economic justification conditions.
Our national interest, which right to use, which demand to prioritize and which field to play on, should not be confused with the discussion of rights. This decision is a matter of our discretion. We want and establish our national rights so that we can expand our national interests. Our real right lies in choosing a strategy to enjoy our interests, and not just in shouting for rights that are getting less and less to us every day. We should not give in to defeating the purpose by not choosing the right strategy on this path.
This question, like a game of chess, like a football field and a battlefield, can be answered appropriately not in proportion to our rights, not in proportion to what we want, but in accordance with the requirements of our facilities, infrastructures, and positions in the national, regional, and international arenas, and in the form of a national dialogue.
Today, taking both paths in the last ten years - one before the JCPOA and one after it until before Trump - has confronted our people and our government with the reality of a thing called strategy in the country's foreign and macro policy. Trade that became smoother every day in the face of international bottlenecks, investors, banks, and international companies that were increasingly present in the country - and today we are faced with news of the departure of some of them and the statistics of their arrival in the post-JCPOA era - the gradual improvement of the level of coverage of medical costs and the quality of these services, and the possibility of demanding at the international level instead of always being condemned and limited, are two paths that can be questioned at the national level. Iranian society, by virtue of having a strong and dynamic public opinion, can immediately react to these types of views and determine the decision and direction.
The Trump era, whether hard or easy, three months or six years, is finally passing. Trump is leaving but Iran remains. This exception and his crazy behavior are not the subject of our long-term discussion. The main question is the choice of a specific and long-term strategy for the country to sequentially use rights in creating and expanding national interests. Which macro and strategic vision the nation and its intellectuals, rulers, elites and academics finally choose after trying more or less all the ways and through the principle of majority rule, is a matter of utmost importance and influence than factors such as the exchange rate and short-term economic indicators.
File
