MOHSEN SEDDIGH
<Contributor>
On the eve of the release of Ben Affleck’s Argo, Canada has closed its embassy in Iran and declared personae non gratae all remaining Iranian diplomats in Ottawa. It was a sudden announcement that did not come as a colossal surprise as relations between the two countries have been shaky during the past few years, in particular since the death of an Iranian-Canadian freelance photographer in a Tehran prison cell in 2003.
There seem to be several reasons for the decision. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s statement of September 7 mentions a few reasons, which I quote here. According to the statement, “[t]he Iranian regime is providing increasing military assistance to the Assad regime; it refuses to comply with UN resolutions pertaining to its nuclear program; it routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide; it is among the world’s worst violators of human rights; and it shelters and materially supports terrorist groups.” There is also the argument that the Iranian embassy in Ottawa spied on Iranian-Canadians. And finally, Canada says it was concerned for the safety of its charge d’affaires and six other diplomats in Tehran. The latter concern might be well-founded given what happened to the US embassy in Tehran 33 years ago (which happens to be portrayed in Argo) and also the state-sponsored mob attack on the British embassy in Tehran last year which led to the closure of said embassy and severance of diplomatic relations between Iran and the UK.
Meanwhile, Canada’s announcement has received mixed reactions ranging from joy to grief. Ironically, most of the grief seems to be felt within Canada while most of the joy without. While there can be no questioning the legitimacy of a decision aimed at protecting Canadian diplomats, there are other considerations as well that need to be taken into account when making a decision that potentially affects tens or hundreds of thousands of Canadians. A balance needs to be struck if the decision is indeed for the purposes that it is claimed to pursue. The question is whether the government’s rationales are sufficient to adopt such a measure, or whether any rationale is enough to abruptly end diplomatic relations; it would also be reasonable to ask whether cutting all diplomatic connection to Iran will effectively punish the regime in Tehran for the reasons that the Canadian government has put forward.
Firstly, there seems to be some sort of confusion over maintaining diplomatic and consular relations on the one hand, and granting legitimacy by so doing on the other. The mere fact that two states maintain diplomatic relations does not connote that they agree on anything except that they consider one another as states that are in diplomatic relations. The fact that throughout the Cold War the United States and the USSR had embassies in Moscow and Washington with relations at ambassador level did not automatically signify that they approved of one another, nor that either thought the other to be legitimized by the sheer existence of diplomatic relations.
Moreover, cutting diplomatic ties has not proven to be the most fruitful strategy. For instance, the United States has not had diplomatic relations with Cuba for decades without that having an impact on the way Cubans rule their island. It goes without saying that the inexistence of US-Cuban diplomatic relations has made life difficult for Cuban-Americans who have family and relatives in Cuba. The United States has also not had an embassy in Tehran since the Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 but that has not changed things in Iran either. Chances of Canada’s decision giving fruitful results seem to be even slimmer as Canada’s economic interactions with Iran are not remotely similar in quantity and quality to that of the United States prior to the Hostage Crisis. In fact, Canada currently has close to zero trade or economic relations with Tehran, and thus cannot cause any genuine economic shock in oil-rich Iran by blocking the channel of diplomacy.
Therefore, those who are most adversely affected are not the Iranian Theocracy but several hundred thousand Canadians of Persian origin. Thus, the decision to cut ties and close down embassies punishes Persian-Canadians and countless Iranian students in Canadian universities who have nothing to do with the regime in Tehran. For instance, one of the grievances of Canada has been Iran’s unwillingness to take a step toward releasing the Iranian-Canadians who are being held in Iranian prisons. Now, however, that diplomatic relations are completely severed, these Canadians, and those who will find themselves in a similar situation in the future, will have little chance of receiving aid or protection from Canada even if things were to take a turn, however small, for the better. Also by further antagonizing the Islamic Republic, Canada has exposed Iranian-Canadians to greater risks of retaliation which might potentially land more of them behind bars over unfounded allegations.
Last but by no means least, Baird said after announcing the decision that “Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security today.” Similar as this is to the rhetoric we heard before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, one cannot help but look at Iraq today (9 years of war and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties later) and one is bound to wonder whether shutting down the route of dialogue and opting for easier but far costlier solutions is the wisest idea. Like Iran and its nuclear program, Iraq was also once said to be the most significant threat to global peace and security because of the weapons of mass destruction that it turned out not