Author: Lionel Beehner, Staff Writer
May 31, 2007
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How much contact do Iranian activists have with civil society groups abroad?
Increasingly Iranian intelligence agents curtail their contacts, citing suspected ties to U.S. groups and also organizations like the Soros foundations and other Europe-based NGOs. Of late, Iranian activists tend to avoid associating with U.S.-based NGOs for fear they may arouse suspicions of being on the U.S. government's bankroll. "Iranians who consort with Americans are made much more vulnerable by this explicit desire to fund programs aimed at regime change [in Iran]," says [Isobel] Coleman [Coleman, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations]. "It doesn't matter if they haven't touched it [U.S. State Department funds]. They're guilty by association." Coleman favors more people-to-people exchanges and greater civil society interactions with Iran but recognizes the difficulties at the current time in light of the recent arrests.
What is the current U.S. policy regarding civil society in Iran?
Last year Congress approved $66 million of Secretary Rice's $85 million request aimed at promoting civil society in Iran, which includes funding for cultural and academic exchanges, public diplomacy efforts, and broadcast programs like Voice of America and Radio Farda. The portion of this money allocated to civil society groups—roughly $30 million—reaches Iranian activists indirectly through undisclosed third-party channels like U.S.- or Europe-based NGOs and exile groups. U.S. State Department officials say the money is not aimed at groups bent on overthrowing the current regime but rather on groups with a "broad spectrum of agendas and philosophies." The number of Iranian NGOs that receive U.S. funds is in the tens, not the hundreds or thousands (though some experts deny that any Iranian NGO has received U.S. funds). The money requested specifically for civil society will increase from $30 million to $75 million next year.
Why is the State Department's policy so controversial?
Experts say the allocation of U.S. funds toward civil society taints those Iranian activists and academics who receive them because of the source: the U.S. government. "It puts a target on the backs of many of these groups and independent academic researchers and creates complications for those in Iran who are advocating for greater openness," says the New America Foundation's [Afshin] Molavi. "It takes away the idea that this is truly people-to-people," says Trita Parsi, director of the National Iranian American Council. "I think exchanges are a great idea, but if you add that these are part of an effort to promote democracy, which Iran reads as regime change, then you're shooting yourself in the foot." [Hadi] Ghaemi of Human Rights Watch says the State Department's lack of transparency regarding which groups receive funds—for obvious reasons to ensure the aid recipients' safety—allows the "Iranian intelligence ministry to say any NGO with any interaction with the outside world could be a pawn of U.S. state policy and used as a weapon to justify persecution and prosecution of activists in Iran."
What alternative solutions do these critics propose to bolster civil society?
While most experts support contacts and exchanges between Westerners and Iranians, they want to minimize the role of government. For instance, Parsi suggests lifting U.S. sanctions that bar private Americans or businesses from donating to Iranian causes or civil society groups. [Laura] Secor [Secor, an editor at the New York Times who has covered Iranian political activism] says the U.S. government should "take its cues from those Iranians who have been risking their lives for the past twenty years and have more experience than we do [in civil society promotion]." Others say greater dialogue between the U.S. and Iranian governments would create a better environment to address civil society concerns and allow for more people-to-people exchanges. "Having some kind of diplomatic relations is useful," says CFR's Coleman. "By refusing to talk to each other, we can't begin to understand what the nuances of their internal positions are and how we might be able to influence things." -- Yoshie