SEVERAL apprehensions have been expressed recently that there may be more attempts soon to divide and break Iran. Voicing these concerns, Eldar Mamedov has recently written an article titled ‘First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart’. The article was published in Responsible Statecraft on July 1. Mamedov wrote: “Washington’s foreign policy has a dangerous tendency to dismantle the nations it deems adversarial. Now, neo-conservative think-tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow-travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilise the Middle-East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and US partners.”
The reference to US partners in this quote is to those countries in the region that are friendly towards the US or allied with it, but would be upset by such efforts as this would harm them too, for example, by encouraging secessionist forces within these countries as well.
Mamedov’s article goes on to quote from sources that advocate such a disastrous policy towards Iran.
As is well-known, Iran has several ethnic minorities, some of which are concentrated more in border areas. Even without foreign instigation, at times, there have occasionally been problems and some repression. So, when local human rights activists speak and campaign against any such repression with the sincere objective of trying to secure the release of someone wrongly imprisoned and to undo other injustices and promote democratic reforms, then without any doubt this is very noble work which should be widely appreciated.
However, when forces which have been very hostile to Iran and have attacked and harmed the people of Iran (and have even instigated coups to topple democratic elected popular government of Iran, as in 1953) try to use any such internal problems in a highly opportunistic way to break the country to promote their own interests and aggressive objectives, then of course this is highly objectionable and needs to be opposed widely. If this happens soon after there has been an attack on Iran, then there is all the more reason to oppose this.
In such a situation, the Iranian government should rapidly reach out to ethnic minorities so that any pending problems can be resolved quickly and sincerely.
It is very clear that in an already tense and volatile situation, any attempts to instigate any more or less estranged communities in border areas by hostile foreign powers can also lead to a wider conflict and a very serious humanitarian crisis, which needs to be avoided.
In the past, when the Kurd minorities of some countries in the region were first instigated (with claims of ‘helping’ them) and then abandoned in highly opportunistic ways by foreign powers, this led to entirely avoidable large-scale loss of life and the emergence of longer-term hostilities.
Of course, the genuine problems of some minorities, including Kurd minorities of the region, spread over several countries, deserve full sympathy and these should be resolved, but opportunistic and self-centered use of this issue by bigger powers only increases problems, as experience has shown.
During long periods of colonial rule, the colonial powers prolonged their rule in various countries by pitching one community or ethnic or faith group against the other. False notions that people cannot live peacefully with each other were spread by the colonial rulers and their collaborators, while in reality, using their power, they themselves increased divisions. At the same time, the rich traditions of living together in harmony were negated.
Such trends continued in neo-colonial times, now supported by more organised research. A lot of research was aimed at finding various flashpoints on which internal divisions and conflicts could be instigated. At times, even human rights advocacy on behalf of certain groups was tailored to such opportunistic use by big powers.
Hence, it is very important to be cautious about these issues. What is noble should be supported and what is sinister should be opposed. Genuine people’s movements and advocacy efforts generally help to resolve or reduce problems, as this is their objective, whereas opportunistic ones, instigated by external forces with their own aggressive motives, end up harming everyone and creating endless violence because this is also their real objective — to weaken and divide others.
So, in present conditions, if we see that suddenly there is a big rise in concern for some ethnic minorities of Iran or their problems, then we must consider the issue more carefully regarding what exactly is happening.
Several times when highly unjust coups and regime change operations have been instigated by big powers, a part of this has related to certain sections of people coming out in large numbers against the regime. This results in violence on both sides and the result can go either way. A question that we need to consider is — in such a condition, should a popular leader or government surrender meekly, or should there be a resistance? If there is a meek surrender, foreign powers which aim to harm the country will succeed. If there is a fight-back, then those on the streets, several of whom are not even aware that they are being used opportunistically by big powers, are likely to be harmed.
These are complex questions, but what one can argue more easily is that the opportunistic use of problems of others to serve the narrow interests of big powers should be opposed.
—————
Bharat Dogra writes extensively on environment, development and welfare issues. The views expressed here are the writer’s own, and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them. He can be reached at: bharatdogra1956@gmail.com
