In the name of Allah

 

Transnational Responsibilities and Human Rights

in the Foreign Policy of the I.R.I.

 

Seyed Sadegh Haghighat[1]

 

To answer if human rights matter in foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this article is to tie the issue of human rights to religious conception of transnational responsibilities. It seems that this key word can play dual role for and against human rights. 

 

Realism in I.R./National Interests

National interests are defined as the goals and aims of a nation which should be followed realistically. Since there is no single “interest”, it might be used as plural: “interests”. According to Plano and Olton, “national interest is the fundamental objective and ultimate determinant that guides the decision-makers of a state in making foreign policy. The national interest of a state is typically a highly generalized conception of those elements that constitute the state’s most vital needs. These include self-preservation, independence, territorial integrity, military security, and economic well-being.”[2]

Iain McLean refers to two different conceptions of this term: “National interest is the interest of a state, usually as defined by its government. Accordingly, two broad senses may be distinguished:

1)                        Used by politicians to justify a particular course of action, especially in foreign policy. In foreign policy, the term invokes an image of the nation, or nation-state, defining its interests within the anarchic international system where dangers abound and interests of the nation are always at risk.

2)                        Used as a tool for analyzing foreign policy issues, particularly by political realists, such as Hans Morgenthau. Here national interest is used as a sort of foreign-policy-related interpretation of “public interest” – indicating what is best for the nation in its relations with other states.”[3]

Comparing these two definitions, we can conclude that the first is more general than the second. As McLean indicates, the second use of that term emphasizes not merely the threat to the nation from the international anarchy, but also the external constrains such as the interests and power of other states, and the other factors beyond the control of the nation like geographical location and dependence on foreign trade. The realists’ use of the term national interest in evaluating foreign policy focuses on national security as the core of national interest.

But what are the national interests of a state? And how can we recognize the national interests of a certain state from those of others? Although “interest of state” and “national security of state” are closely allied terms,[4] it is necessary to notice that there is no agreed methodology by which the best interests of a nation can be tested. In fact there are two different ideas to determine them. Some writers have argued that the best interests are, nevertheless, objectively determined by the situation of the state within the international system and can be deduced from a study of history and the success/failure of the past policies. According to others, national interest is subjectively interpreted by the government of the day. In this version, it is merely what the politicians consider in this regard.[5]

 

Idealism in I.R./Transnational Responsibilities

Transnational responsibilities, here, can be defined as the responsibilities that an ideological state pursues out of the nation-state borders as an ideological “duty”, though the term is more general than being limited to ideological sates.[6] In fact, this criterion differentiates between secular states and ideological ones. According to secularism, religion and state must be divided. So duties and responsibilities rooted in religion do not confine the frameworks of foreign policy. In an Islamic state, however, the conducts of the government and its nation – if not all, at least the guidelines – are defined by religion. A country which does not act completely according to religion may be a non-religious one or just ostensibly religious.

“Transnational responsibilities” are more general than being restricted only to “religious states”. So there are some kinds of non-religious states which realize some transnational responsibilities for themselves. Marxist states like the Soviet Union used to act drawing on the Marxism teachings. The main difference between religious and Marxist states on the one hand, secular states on the other hand, is that for the first group religious/ideological “duty” has priority over “national interest”. So they may take a position in their foreign policy regardless of whether their national interest is for or against it.

Borrowing from Max Weber, we can consider “national interests’ and “transnational responsibilities” as two different ideal types. Consequently, there is no pure concept of them in practice. Hence some states in order to synthesize new concepts, try to combine them. Surely, the new synthesized concept will be some thing else. It is true for the I.R.I’s foreign policy after the Islamic Revolution and it is one of the main reasons that make it difficult to understand. In spite of secular states, ideological states establish their foreign policy idealistically. According to Plano and Olton “the idealist approach believes that foreign policies based on moral principles are more effective, because they promote unity and cooperation among states rather than competition and conflict. According to the idealist, moral power is more effective than physical power.”[7]

 

Islam and Trans-national Responsibilities

Transnational responsibilities of an Islamic state are based on divine revelations, but the transnational aims of the secular and modern nations, especially in the age of globalisation, are based on interests. In other words, Islamic states are to do their transnational responsibilities regardless of whether they fulfil their interests or not. Transnationalism features a de-territorialized mode of action. The rhetoric of mobilisation recentralises, in a non-territorial way, identities that have become fragmented within the nation-state context. The rhetoric of “Ummah”, that is a worldwide unified Muslim community, can be reinterpreted to reframe all national diversity as one imagined “political” community, thus shifts away from its religious notion. Transnationalism creates new expressions of belonging and political engagement as well as a “de-territorialized” understanding of “nation”.

Referring to the Holy Qur’an, religious states consider all Muslims as one community: “Surely this Islam is your religion, one religion (only), and I am your Lord, therefore serve me.”[8] In this way, the 11^th article of the I.R.I’s Constitution refers to that verse of the Holy Qur’an, and concludes that the Islamic state’s “duty” is to unite Muslims in political, economic and cultural aspects. As a result, we can say that it is an obligation for the Islamic state, not a “right”. Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) says: “If you hear a man calling all other Muslims, and you do not help him, you won’t be a true Muslim.”[9]

           A secular state may believe in these creeds, but based on its interests and not as the duty of the state. With regard to the current Iranian Constitution and Iran's foreign policy conduct over the last three decades, the objectives may be classified into three areas:

            a) Economic growth and development, preserving territorial integrity and national sovereignty;

            b) Upholding the rights of Muslims and defending liberation movements, on the one hand, and confrontation with Israel and the West (notably the United States);
c) Establishment of an Islamic polity based on Shiite principles.

To achieve the three levels of objectives found in the Constitution, the Islamic Republic of Iran needs coalition and alliance with other countries.

 

Offensive Jihad

Jihad is one of the most important issues which differentiate between transnational responsibilities and human rights. Considering one of the definitions of Jihad disregarding the relationship between text and context, the United States Department of Justice has used its own ad hoc definitions of jihad in indictments of individuals involved in terrorist activities:

• "As used in this First Superseding Indictment, 'jihad' is the Arabic word meaning 'holy war'. In this context, jihad refers to the use of violence, including paramilitary action against people, property or governments deemed to be enemies of a fundamentalist version of Islam".
• "As used in this Superseding Indictment, 'violent jihad' or 'jihad' includes planning, preparing for, and engaging in, acts of physical violence, including murder, maiming, kidnapping, and hostage-taking."[10]

These kinds of misconceptions, ignoring the relationship between text and context, try to bring a special case from a couple of centuries ago to this time, and condemn the implications. The same is Karl Popper’s critics on Plato. The point is that it is not enough to use Quranic or Prophetic texts without adequate knowledge of the human situation and cultural milieu in which they were revealed and first applied, as well as the precedence of some verses over others based on order of revelation or abrogation. In other words, context and circumstance of Quranic revelation and traditions (Hadith) are crucial in coming to terms with jihad.[11]

 

Ambiguity of the Foreign Policy of the I.R.I.

According to professor Sariolghalam “Iranian foreign policy practitioners have constantly faced with the problem and the dilemma of coalition in resolving foreign disputes and/or in more extensive cooperation and coordination. Iran's cultural, geographical and economic particularities determine to a great deal the orientation and type of foreign transnational coalitions and formulations. There is a degree of tension in Iran's foreign relations with all of its neighboring countries. Perhaps the main reason is because of the uniqueness of the Islamic Republic of Iran's political system being in disharmony and incompatibility with the mainstream international trends. This disharmony is not necessarily negative, but it is merely unique and different. Its continuation is also not cost free. It is within this system of paradoxes and contradictions that the Islamic Republic of Iran is trying to pursue its goals both at the internal as well as the external environments.”[12] It is a reality that western diplomats can not understand Iranian foreign policy easily. The obscurity in the foreign policy of the I.R.I. might trace back, at least, to three main factors:

1-      Transnational responsibilities / national interests: Because of the ambiguity of the relationship between national interests and transnational responsibilities, Iranian’s foreign policy is not obvious. It is because of the dual role against other countries and institutions: an Islamic country with huge transnational responsibilities, and a nation-state which pursue its interests in the modern international milieu. 

2-      Nation / “ummah”: the notion of territory plays a powerful role in terms of demarcating transnational state responsibility. Thus, while citizens (and even non-citizens) within a particular country generally enjoy a plethora of protection under international law against abuses committed by this state, protection for those living in other countries remains uneven and uncertain. At heart, Islam wishes to reintegrate the individual into the natural order. The sacred text of Islam, the Qur'an, uses term, ummah, to refer to the community of believers. The term is used to describe both individual communities, great and small, of faithful Muslims and to refer to the worldwide community of believers - in the latter sense of the term it is synonymous with dar al-Islam, or "The Land of Islam," which refers to the world Islamic community. The Ummah, Muslim community, is considered as an interpretive community. As a concept, it means three things: (A) The Ummah is a dynamic concept, reinterpreting the past and meeting new challenges and (B) the Ummah must tackle global problems. The Ummah as a community is required to acknowledge moral and practical responsibility for the Earth as a trust; its members are trustees answerable for the condition of the Earth and its inhabitants. (C) The Ummah should be seen a critical tool, as the process of reasoning itself.

As Sohail Inayatullah holds “to create a future based on the Ummah equity and justice are prerequisites. This means a commitment to eradicating poverty. It means going beyond the development debate since development theory merely frames the issue in a political language. This means rethinking trade, developing south-south trade as well as new instruments of financial accounting and the financing of new routes and transportation infrastructure. But perhaps most significant is a commitment to literacy for all. We need to recover that historically the Ummah meant models of multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religious, and pluralist societies. A true Ummah respects the rights of non-Muslims as with the original Medina state”.^[13]

3-      Ambiguity of “expediency”: According to the 5^th and 110^th articles of the Iranian Constitution, the supreme leader, one of the grand Ayatollahs, has the highest authority to legitimate political power. So he can initiate war or make peace with other countries. The main decisive factor of governmental decrees is expediency; however, its very criterion is not clear. Although the supreme leader is the one who recognizes expediencies at last, specialists can give consultations to him. It is not known exactly if expediency can put only “the secondary decrees of the shari'a” aside or it can disregard even “its primary decrees” too. Some scholars believe expediency itself is considered as one of the important issues that might secularize Islamic fiqh.  However, the definition, frameworks and borders of expediency are issues which need more clarification. 

 

Conclusion

Considered as a double-edged concept, transnational responsibilities play dual, and sometimes opposite, roles with regard to human rights. In the public statement of Amnesty International, human rights responsibilities are strictly recommended.[14] Moreover, Islamic government, according to the holy Qur’an and the Prophet’s traditions, has to help the needy all over the world. In most cases, Islamic transnational responsibilities and human rights put in one direction, though, on the other hand, they may contradict each other. Since the border between the transnational responsibilities and national interests of the Islamic government is not obvious, and since the implications of distinction between “Ummah” and nation in the modern era is not clarified, and for the ambiguity of expediency in the Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence), transnational responsibilities might have two diverse kinds of implications for human rights. On the one hand, Islamic transnational responsibilities and human rights are considered in one line, but on the other, some cases might contradict internal laws of nation-states or other international laws.