Iran Freedom Act 2004: Legitimising an illegal practice

Although the Congress passed a similar version of the bill in July 2003, this bill, by the very nature of its stated objectives, raises concern. The text also displays America's arrogant view of the world, and its passion for rectifying what it sees as aberrations in the political setup of other countries, particularly those of the Middle East.

The title of the bill that is being referred to is, Iran Freedom and Support Act 2004, introduced by Senators Santorum and Cornyn on July 16, 2004. Among other things, it seeks to deliver the Iranian people from what the sponsors of the bill describe as its "unelected" President. The bill seeks tens of millions of dollars to fund activities of and by Iranian exiles to effect a change of regime in Iran. Although not explicit in the bill, it would be an intelligent guess that dissident activities would also be fomented, funded, and participated in by various US intelligence agencies including the CIA.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The reluctance of the regime in Tehran to open up to the West and to improve ties with the US, its possession of WMD, as well as its alleged support to Al Qaeda against the US, are some of the reasons that have apparently prompted the senators to introduce the bill. All these are, of course, a part of US war on terrorism.

It is also of interest that while in the past the US had indulged in many foreign interventions, either openly or clandestinely, it has now thought fit to seek Congressional authorisation in the case of Iran. Does it forebode something more sinister than the seemingly "harmless" effort to help the Iranian dissidents, both inside and outside, to bring about a change in Iranian polity?

The disconcerting aspect of the bill is that it authorises the US government to bring about political changes in a third country through political, diplomatic, and financial support to elements hostile to a legitimate and internationally recognised regime, whatever is its form.

While one would like to see democracy and democratic institutions flourish all over the world, it cannot be the business of one country to establish democracy in another, through means that are extrinsic and, under international law, illegal. The Iraq situation demonstrates the fact that democracy does not automatically follow in the wake of aircraft carriers or fly in on the wings of F-16s.

This bill, in other words, would allow the US administration to intervene in the affairs of, as the tenor of the bill suggests, a recalcitrant state, in this case Iran. Such a plan was perhaps in the minds of the Bush administration for at least since the plan to invade Iraq was drawn up, which, by the way, predated the 9/11 attack.

This brings up a very fundamental issue of international law and norms, not that these are of any concern of the Bush administration to affect its international behaviour, i.e. the legitimacy of the act of "regime change." If the US arrogates to itself the right to intervene in another country to change its government, would the US, by the same token, grant a third country the right to effect similar changes in the US, for whatever reasons and by whatever means it thinks fit or feasible? Consider just for a moment a situation where everybody sought to change everybody else's regime!

In fact, successive US governments since the end of the Second World War had made it an article of faith to intervene in third countries, with or without international sanction, mostly without, in order to further their own national interest. To quote Howard Zinn, the American historian and playwright: "The United States engaged in at least twenty military interventions in the Caribbean in the first twenty years of the last century. And then from World War II through today, we've had an endless succession of wars and military interventions."

However, the US record in regime-change is unenviable. In fact, according to George W. Downs and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, two US academics, of the thirty-five or so interventions by the US since the Second World War, only one country, Colombia, was able to establish a modicum of democracy. In fact the success rate of US "Operation Democracy" has been only a dismal three percent.

One object of this bill is to make Iran de-link itself from Al-Qaeda. While no one condones terrorist acts, a peep into the pages of history would reveal that it was the US that had at one time conducted covert operations in many parts of the globe, to install regimes of its choice, however brutal that regime might have been. Again to quote Zinn: "In its foreign policy, the United States has consigned several million people to their deaths and supported terrorist governments in various parts of the world, especially in Latin America and the Middle East." And, all these were done to change regimes and install pliant rulers, all in the name of establishing democracy.

Naturally, the effect of foreign interventions by the US has been counterproductive. A study conducted in the US by the CATO institute, in 1998 titled Does US Intervention Abroad Breed Terrorism? quotes the Pentagon Defense Science Board asserting a strong correlation between increase in attacks on the US and its interventions abroad. The study very prophetically suggested that, "the US could reduce the chances of such devastating and potentially catastrophic terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas." Alas, it didn't!

According to Downs and de Mesquita again, "Presidents rarely fail to trot out 'democracy' as a justification for their actions abroad. That's because it is popular with Americans, who like to feel they are on the side of the angels. But if it's democracy we're after, we are failing miserably."

Illegal practices cannot be sanctified by mere sanction of a country's legislature. Changes that are externally induced neither last long nor deliver the goods. Only those that are brought about by the sovereign will of the people of a country will endure as well as have the seal of legitimacy.

Big powers need to keep that in mind.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.