Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Remarks at 1998 Asia Society Dinner
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York, New York, June 17, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman, June 18, 1998
U.S. Department of State
(As Delivered)
.............
Moving now from Southeast Asia to Southwest, we come to another strategic state--the Islamic Republic of Iran. One of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world, Iran is at the center of a region which includes countries that contain three quarters of the world's population, three quarters of the world's proven energy resources and sixty percent of global GNP. These facts of life, and the critical role that Iran plays in that region, make the question of US-Iran relations a topic of great interest and importance to this Secretary of State.The United States established relations with Iran, then Persia, in 1856. For decades, our ties were limited but cordial. After the Second World War, America supported Iran in a bitter territorial dispute with the Soviet Union. And through the first decades of the Cold War, as part of a strategy intended to counter Soviet expansionism, the US supported the Shah's regime and allocated to it large quantities of military and economic assistance.
We did so because of a common strategic interest. We were concerned with an effort to contain the spread of totalitarian influence across the globe. The exigencies of the Cold War also generated US policies and activities that were resented by many Iranians. In retrospect, it is possible to understand their reaction, but the Cold War is now over and it is time to put that period behind us.
After the forced departure of the Shah in 1979, Iran turned inward, in keeping with the Ayatollah Khomeini's slogan that "we must become isolated in order to become independent." This trend was manifested most extremely and unacceptably in the seizure of hostages at the US Embassy.
Neither country has forgotten the past, but most Iranians, like most Americans, are now focused on the future. And clearly, it is possible now -- if Iran so chooses -- for it to be both fully independent and fully open to the world.
Last May, Iran's people were given a chance to voice their support for a more open society, and did so. Nearly 70 percent supported the election of Mohammad Khatemi as President, providing him with a mandate for change, demanding from the Iranian Government greater freedoms, a more civil society based on the rule of law, and a more moderate foreign policy aimed at ending Iran's estrangement from the international community.
At the time, President Clinton welcomed this election, and as a former professor and lifelong student of history, I found the vote remarkable. The depth of the demand for change was obvious. So too was the evident desire of young Iranians and many Iranian women for greater openness and more personal liberty.
I was most impressed by the size of the mandate. Twenty million Iranians came forward to make themselves heard in the hope that, by so doing, they could effect real change in their government and in their daily lives.
Since taking office, President Khatemi has responded to the demands of the Iranian people by emphasizing the importance of dialogue among nations and cultures, and by acknowledging the world's growing interdependence. He has said that "a society intending to reach development cannot succeed without understanding Western civilization." I would say, in response, that the same can be said with respect to Eastern civilization and Islamic civilization.
President Khatemi has said that the American Government deserves respect because it is a reflection of the great American people. I would say that President Khatemi deserves respect because he is the choice of the Iranian people. In his interview with CNN in January, President Khatemi called for a dialogue between civilizations, something which President Clinton welcomed because of our strongly-held view that there is much common ground between Islam and the West, and much that we can do to enrich each other's societies.
In past years, Iran's opposition to the Middle East Peace Process and to those willing to negotiate with Israel has been vitriolic and violent. The Islamic Republic still refuses to recognize Israel, and its leaders continue to denounce Israel in inflammatory and unacceptable terms. But last December, Iranian officials welcomed Chairman Arafat to the Islamic Summit in Tehran and said that, although they did not agree with the logic of the peace process, they would not seek to impose their views and would accept what the Palestinians could accept.
In January, President Khatemi publicly denounced terrorism and condemned the killing of innocent Israelis. He argued that terrorism was not only against Islam but also counterproductive to Iran's purposes. Iran, after all, has also been a victim of terrorism.
If these views are translated into a rejection of terrorism as a tool of Iranian statecraft, it would do much to dispel the concerns of the international community from Germany to the Persian Gulf, and from Argentina to Algeria.
There are other signs of change, as well. For example, Iran's record in the war against drugs has greatly improved -- at least within its own borders -- and it has received high marks from the UN for its treatment of more than two million Iraqi and Afghan refugees. Iran is also participating in diplomatic efforts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and is making a welcome effort to improve relations with Saudi Arabia and other neighbors in the Gulf.
We view these developments with interest, both with regard to the possibility of Iran assuming its rightful place in the world community, and the chance for better bilateral ties. However, these hopes must be balanced against the reality that Iran's support for terrorism has not yet ceased; serious violations of human rights persist; and its efforts to develop long range missiles and to acquire nuclear weapons continue.
The United States opposes, and will continue to oppose, any country selling or transferring to Iran materials and technologies that could be used to develop long-range missiles or weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, we oppose Iranian efforts to sponsor terror. Accordingly, our economic policies, including with respect to the export pipelines for Caspian oil and gas, remain unchanged.
But let me be clear. These policies are not, as some Iranians allege, anti-Islamic. Islam is the fastest-growing religious faith in the United States. We respect deeply its moral teachings and its role as a source of inspiration and instruction for hundreds of millions of people around the world. US policy is directed at actions, not peoples or faiths. The standards we would like Iran to observe are not merely Western, but universal. We fully respect Iran's sovereignty. We understand and respect its fierce desire to maintain its independence. We do not seek to overthrow its government. But we do ask that Iran live up to its commitments to the international community.
As in Indonesia, we hope Iran's leaders will carry out the people's mandate for a government that respects and protects the rule of law, both in its internal and external affairs. Certainly, Iranian voters last year were concerned primarily with domestic issues. But the Iranian people are also conscious of the critical role their country has long played in a region of global importance. What Iran must decide now is how its strength will be projected and to what ends. Much has changed in the almost twenty years Iran has been outside or on the fringes of the international system.
Nations have recognized, for example, that if they are to safeguard their own interests from the threat of terror, they cannot tolerate acts of indiscriminate violence against civilians, nor can they offer refuge to those who commit such acts.
Despite the recent South Asia tests, more and more nations have enlisted in the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Respected nations from South Korea to South Africa to South America have decided that it is best for their people to forgo developing such weapons. The tide of non-proliferation agreements reached in the last two decades is ample evidence of this trend.
What have proliferated are multilateral efforts to protect international security. The UN, regional organizations and coalitions have countered threats to peace during the Gulf War and in peacekeeping operations around the world. This global network has grown largely without Iranian participation. But Iran would be welcome if it is willing to make a constructive contribution.
We believe that President Khatemi expressed the sentiments of the Iranian people when he voiced the desire for a world in which misunderstandings can be overcome and mutual respect and logic govern relations among states. The United States shares that desire, and we are taking concrete steps in that direction. This month, we implemented a new, more streamlined procedure for issuing visas to Iranians who travel to the United States frequently. We also revised our Consular Travel Warning for Iran so that it better reflects current attitudes in Iran towards American visitors.
We have supported cultural and academic exchanges, and facilitated travel to the United States by many Iranians. We are ready to explore further ways to build mutual confidence and avoid misunderstandings. The Islamic Republic should consider parallel steps. If such a process can be initiated and sustained in a way that addresses the concerns of both sides, then we in the United States can see the prospect of a very different relationship. As the wall of mistrust comes down, we can develop with the Islamic Republic, when it is ready, a road map leading to normal relations.
Obviously, two decades of mistrust cannot be erased overnight. The gap between us remains wide. But it is time to test the possibilities for bridging this gap.
............
[End of Document]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
