The
case for peoples' diplomacy
On the occasion of the start of the Persian New Year (Nowrūz), President Obama delivered a recorded video message to the
Iranian people. In it, he highlighted the many ways
the Iranian government denies its citizens access to information, including
censoring media outlets and filtering the Internet. He declared that his
administration is committed to communicating with the Iranian people despite
the objections of their government “by making it easier for Iranian citizens to get the software and services they need to connect with the rest of the world through modern communications methods.”
As a candidate, Obama insisted—despite harsh criticism from
other presidential candidates— that he would reach out to the Iranian leaders
and talk to them in order to end the 30 year cold war. During his first year in
office, President Obama offered to start a conversation with the Iranian
leadership based on mutual respect. He then sent a letter, whose content was
not disclosed, to the leader of the revolution, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hosseini
Khamenei. As his first term in office ends, having failed to start any
significant dialogue with the Iranian regime, the President outlined a new
strategy designed to bypass the Iranian government and religious leaders and
talk to the Iranian people directly. Will this strategy succeed? Unlikely; and
here are several compelling reasons.
Besides the fact that the video message is representative of the predictable paternalistic attitude towards people of the third world, it also underscores the casual approach to solving one of the most critical international relations problems of the century; a problem that has far reaching economic, military, and political ramifications on the entire world.
First, it is neither diplomatic nor constructive to tell
citizens of another sovereign nation who their leaders ought to be. If that was
the norm as a matter of foreign policy, the Obama administration ought to
develop a consistent standard by which it decides how to judge foreign
governments. In that case, the U.S. administration would also tell the Saudis,
the Kuwaitis, and the Bahrainis and many other U.S. allies that their
governments are beneath the U.S. standards.
Second, although people-to-people (or people’s diplomacy)
interactions build stronger and more lasting friendships between countries, the
Obama administration is instead employing a government-to-people interaction,
which is a flawed and problematic approach. For peoples’ diplomacy to succeed,
the administration should enable and facilitate American citizens, especially
Iranian-Americans and Muslim-Americans, to engage their counterparts in Iran.
This and the previous administration have failed to rely on Muslim-Americans
and call on them to serve their country. Instead, the administrations’
inability to integrate Muslims alienated many of them, and diminished the
U.S.’s credibility abroad.
A recent federal case
against an American charitable organization, (United States of America v.
Mehrdad Yasrebi and Child Foundation, 05-CR-413 KI (Oregon)), reveals the unfortunate
state of Muslim-Americans, the potential
of peoples’ diplomacy, and the legal and practical problems with economic
sanctions.
![]() |
Zahra, one of thousands sponsored by the Child Foundation. |
He founded the Child Foundation (CF), a U.S.-based
charitable organization dedicated to helping needy children in Iran (his
ancestral home), Afghanistan, and other countries where he had reliable,
trustworthy contacts. He and his wife initially ran the organization from his
residence. He built the organization from nothing. First, he asked friends to
donate $20 a month, all of which he promised would go to providing food,
shelter, clothes, books, and healthcare to needy children. He and his wife
covered the overhead cost of the organization out of their own pockets. He also
placed small donation boxes in retail stores. He asked long-distance phone
companies to donate a percentage of the bill for international calls placed by individuals
who purchased a calling plan with the companies. He reached out to the
Iranian-American community and asked them to support his cause. After a decade
of hard work, the CF became a large and reputable U.S. charity providing
critical services to thousands of extremely needy but talented children from Iran
and several other countries. Dr. Yasrebi still recalls the joy he felt after
receiving letters from the many children he helped who are now lawyers,
professors, teachers, doctors, and successful laborers enjoying a dignified
life.
Since he insisted that the CF remain independent,
unaffiliated with any political faction or religious denomination, the CF faced
difficulties operating in Iran and even collecting donations from Shiite
Muslims. Dr. Yasrebi spent considerable time writing letters explaining the nature
of the charity’s work and asking religious leaders to issue fatwas allowing
their followers to donate part of their alms to the CF. Because it is an
American organization, the Iranian government, too, subjected the CF to additional
scrutiny and limitations. But none of these obstacles measure up to what the
CF, some donors, and Dr. Yasrebi have faced here in the United States.
Because of the U.S. sanctions against Iran that date back to
the 1980s, the CF had great difficulty transferring funding and services to
children in Iran. The scrutiny intensified after 9-11, and the CF and Dr.
Yasrebi were subjected to secret monitoring, wiretapping, and FBI-led profiling.
Then in 2008, federal agents conducted a synchronized raid at 6:00am on Dr.
Yasrebi’s residence, his workplace, the office of the CF, and the residences of
several other major contributors to the organization. The harsh raid
traumatized Dr. Yasrebi’s children and the negative media coverage stigmatized
his family.
After nearly seven years of intense investigation, the
government offered Dr. Yasrebi two options: a trial in federal court, where he—and
his wife—could face 20 to 25 years in prison for a myriad of charges including “cooperating
with a terrorist organization,” or a plea under which Dr. Yasrebi would admit
to minor violations and no charges would be brought against his wife. On the
advice of his attorney, Dr. Yasrebi, fearing for his liberty and the well-being
of his family, opted to take the plea. The government’s sentencing
recommendation was a 30-month prison term and a fine of $50,000.
During sentencing, the defense attorneys argued that, even after
a decade-long investigation, the government had failed to prove any of the
charges against the CF and Dr Yasrebi. They added that the minor infractions to
which Dr Yasrebi had admitted did not warrant such a harsh punishment for a
well-respected member of the community. They explained that the U.S.
administrations have repeatedly stated that the sanctions were not intended to
punish the Iranian people, and therefore food and medicine were exempted. The
attorneys asked the judge to reject the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation
and only impose a fine of $10,000.
Responding to the defense memo, the government insisted Dr.
Yasrebi be imprisoned and heavily fined. The prosecutors advanced shockingly
troubling arguments to justify their sentencing guidelines. They contended that
while food and other necessary goods are exempted from the sanctions, providers
must not buy them inside Iran. They also contended that the Child Foundation
should not operate in Iran at all because by providing for needy Iranian
children, the CF is making it possible for the Iranian government to spend money
on more sinister projects.
Their insistence that charities must purchase food and
clothes from outside Iran and then send them to beneficiaries inside Iran rest
on the idea that Iranian merchants and businesses are linked to the government
(perhaps because they are paying taxes?). This line of reasoning is both
fallacious and cruel. These specious arguments and flawed logic put the lives
and welfare of Americans at risk and give credence to arguments used by
extremists and authoritarians to justify their indiscriminate acts of violence.
On March 6, 2012, Judge Garr King found all of the
government’s claims that Dr. Yasrebi’s work was a risk to national security unfounded.
Reportedly, Judge King concluded that “the government hadn’t produced evidence
that Yasrebi or the charity were involved in funding terrorism.” He refused to
approve the prison penalty recommendation proposed by the prosecutors. While
the judge’s ruling more or less vindicates Dr. Yasrebi legally, the personal,
mental, and financial damage he, his family, and the community have suffered is
immeasurable. The case increased Muslim-Americans’ fears, anxiety, and
alienation. It also exposes the ugly impact of economic sanctions on ordinary
individuals abroad and at home.
First, Dr. Yasrebi’s employer, Precision Castparts, for whom
he has worked for nearly two decades, fired him. When he called a headhunter to
look for another job, he was told that they cannot help him because he is an
admitted felon. After waiting 14 years to make a decision regarding Dr.
Yasrebi’s application for citizenship, he was told that his application will be
denied because of the case against him. They failed, however, to explain the
14-year delay, which has placed Dr. Yasrebi in a precarious position. Had Dr.
Yasrebi been convicted of actual crimes, he could have been deported and his
American-born U.S. citizen children would have been separated either from their
father or their homeland.
Second, the U.S. v. Child Foundation case perpetuates a
tormenting sense of fear and alienation among Muslim-Americans. It cuts
familial bonds between Americans and their relatives living in their ancestral
homelands. It creates classes of citizenship, allowing naturalized U.S.
citizens to be treated as second-class. It punishes Muslim-Americans for the
sins of the regimes they left behind.
Third, this case proves once again that economic sanctions
rarely harm regimes, but rather destroy the fabric of society by imposing more
hardships on the poor, the needy, and the vulnerable. Importantly, this case
has exposed the negative impact of sanctions on U.S. citizens, legal residents,
and organizations.
The prosecution of Dr. Yasrebi has had chilling effects on
U.S. residents and naturalized citizens, especially those with contacts in
other countries. A naturalized U.S. citizen will be fearful of sending money to
an ailing mother in a country that is or may in the future be under U.S
sanctions. Academicians will hesitate to collaborate with colleagues in places
like Iran and Cuba. Activists will be reluctant to assist political prisoners
and human rights advocates in countries under sanctions. NGOs will be unwilling
to engage their counterparts in places where their work on behalf of the poor
and the voiceless is most needed.
The United States v. Mehrdad Yasrebi and CF case ought to be
considered in light of the case of American NGO workers arrested and charged in
Egypt after the revolution there. If the American government continues to
prosecute its own citizens and legal residents for providing aid to needy
children in a Muslim country, what claim (and credibility) could the
administration have now or in the future in helping Americans targeted by less
democratic regimes in Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, and other Muslim
countries?
In fact, the prosecution of Dr. Yasrebi on charges of
violating U.S. sanctions against Iran by providing charitable work in that
country pales compared to the possibility of his facing charges in Iran for
being an agent of the West. After all, Dr. Yasrebi worked for nearly 20 years
for a company that had significant business deals with the U.S. military.
Naturally, given the U.S.’s continuing military threats, the Iranian government
could argue that Dr. Yasrebi is directly providing the U.S. armed forces with
the technology and the tools that will be used to attack Iran. That is a far
easier case to make than the one leveled against Dr. Yasrebi by the U.S.
government.
This case exemplifies the risks and pain of unintended
consequences and puts human faces on the victims of the sanctions that were supposed
to punish a rogue government, not its people or the people of this country. The
so-called targeted sanctions presume that the other side will not adapt. The
reality is different and far more complex. A bank that is not under sanctions
today could be tomorrow, and that complicates their business relations. A bank
under sanctions today may simply change its name to escape them. Sanctions
hardly work to change governments’ behavior. Peoples’ diplomacy is the
alternative to sanctions and military threats. It is effective, humane, powerful,
empowering, and constructive.
President Obama’s
declaration that he will use American resources to provide Iranians with
access to the Internet while the U.S. government is prosecuting
Iranian-Americans for providing food, clothes, medicine, clothing and
educational materials to needy children flies in the face of logic and common
sense. His recent overture towards the Iranian people should start here in the
U.S. by empowering Iranian-Americans to speak on behalf of the people of their
adopted country, to highlight its virtues, and to build bridges between
peoples.
If President Obama wants Muslim-Americans to continue to speak out against brutal regimes in their ancestral homes, condemn extremist expressions in Muslim societies, and promote civil society and citizen-centered governance in the Islamic world, then he must start by making sure that Muslim-Americans are not second-class citizens, that their citizenship is not a bargaining chip, and that their loyalty will not be questioned. President Obama can begin by ordering a review of this and similar cases to make sure that the government did not break any laws or violate any civil rights while investigating and prosecuting such cases. Furthermore, the delay in Dr. Yasrebi’s application for citizenship, and the subsequent denial of that application, should be investigated to ensure that the same standard applies to all applicants, and to establish that his application was not denied because of his ethnicity, religion, or charitable work.
Unlike other indictments where terrorism charges were leveled, this particular case did not receive national media attention—possibly due to the extremely weak evidence the government presented. But the government’s treatment of the defendants, the nature of the charges, and the language used by the prosecutors in the case documents examined for this article underscore the interconnectedness of domestic and foreign policy and the impact of this connection on U.S. citizens and the country’s standing in the Islamic world. It exposes an undercurrent of mistrust and prejudice towards Iranian Muslims. It depicts instances of willful ignorance of Islamic cultures. It illustrates a stunning disregard of the civil and constitutional rights of Muslim-Americans.
_______________________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the
University of Iowa. Opinions expressed herein are the author’s, speaking as a
citizen on matters of public interest; not speaking for the university or any
other organization with which he is affiliated.
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...