In international politics, there is no such thing as a “one fits all” formula. Without making any undue reference to a particular coffeehouse chain, there cannot be a Starbucks model of and for global relations. Business and trade -- while opening many doors -- are not to be confused with politics. There was a popular saying years ago that whenever you booked yourself into a Holiday Inn hotel, you knew what to expect: the same type of bedding, the same menu, the same level of quality all around the world. A comforting thought far away from home, you might have said. Coffee is no different -- order a cafe latte in any of the popular, globally branded coffeehouse chains and you will get exactly what you had in mind. Nation-states resemble neither hotels nor coffee shops. Diversity is what makes our planet tick -- politically, religiously and strategy-wise -- as long as it is embedded in a democratic understanding of how to run a country.Results of the Iranian elections show that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad secured a clear victory over Mir Hossein Mousavi. As soon as the election results were announced, supporters of the latter candidate claimed that serious vote rigging had been reported.
Before taking sides all too easily, let us take a deep breath and re-evaluate Iran's more recent history, including 1979, the year of the so-called revolution. Only history and historians -- not present-day politicians -- will allow us to decide whether Iran became a more or rather less democratic country after the late Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was ousted from power. Initially, I would support those who wanted more freedom and did indeed disapprove of the Shah's very anti-democratic regime, but my question remains: What kind of civil liberties and for whom -- in particular Iranian women -- have really been achieved by Iran's new rulers during the last 30 years? And which of the two candidates really offers a reform program for his country?
Whenever I see people demonstrating for just causes far away from their own nation, I do feel sympathy, of course. At the same time, I ask myself a vital question: Which interests do these exiles represent? It is never a matter of simple black and white, and very often foreign demonstrators simply want to oust a certain leader to return to their country once their own beliefs and political movements have been secured by a new majority.
I cannot ascertain whether the most recent Iranian elections were a fraud or not. What I can ascertain is that there were two candidates, at least on paper, having a fair chance of winning. Two candidates for the top job -- now who would have thought? Yes, there were various shades of black to be seen in Iranian politics before, including fielding more than one candidate, but this election was much more diverse.
What many observers overlook is that democracy is a precious thing that needs a lot of time to mature. Twenty years from today there may indeed be fair and free elections in Iran, which by then may have become a stable, peace-promoting regional actor. Slamming the door to today's leaders, accusing them of misbehavior, is one thing. Trying to integrate Iran into the world of nations is, although much more complicated, the best path.
Iran is trying to use nuclear power for its rising energy demand. At the same time, Iran may be trying to manufacture a nuclear bomb to dominate this particular region.
The West, and in particular Turkey as an emerging regional powerhouse, has two options: first, to help facilitate economic development in Iran to eventually allow more moderate leaders to take over power. It may be called the “soft approach,” but not the “orange approach.” Iran is far from being ready for an Orange Revolution -- it would create havoc and destabilize not only Iran, but the entire region. Patience is required more than ever when dealing with Iran's old and new leaders.
Second, firmness is a must, too: The United Nations has to make it very clear to Tehran that building nuclear weapons or engaging in serious human rights violations would not only lead to sanctions, but to closed doors on a global scale. There is still time to avoid that -- by engaging with Tehran in useful dialogue.
Coming back to my introductory statement, let me finish by saying this: Global news and the way we hear about it is changing. There are Twitter, Facebook and Eye Reporters and many other communication channels out there. All these alternative “media” are very helpful, but should never be trusted alone. Unverified text messages with or without attached videos or photos are OK, but you would not want to engage in international conflict solely based on them, would you? I urge great caution and care when deciding which “news sources” we trust the most.
