Exactly when we are about to mark the international day against stoning – July 11 – and we could expect my home country to show its opposition to the barbarism of the Iranian authorities, Teheran announced that Manouchehr Mottaki, main responsible for the Iranian diplomacy, was visiting the Iberian peninsula, passing by Lisbon.
After holding a conference in Brussels on June 2 titled “Europe seen from Iran”, conference promoted by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation [main cultural institution in Portugal, NT] (whose cultural activity in this city I had so far never noticed) the responsible for the Iranian diplomacy comes back to Europe, once again under the sponsorship of Portuguese institutions. Throughout last year the Iranian theocracy has hardened substantially the internal war it wages against its own people at the same time that it has continued its expansionist policy, policy where the reinforcement of its nuclear programme accompanies its policy of creation, financing and armament of fanatic organizations in the region.
Although later than it should, a great part of the international community – namely the U.S., the EU and some countries of the Great Middle East – realised the failure of its endless attempts of appeasement throughout the last decades.
In the 26th June meeting organised in Paris by the Iranian Resistance, several Western and Middle Eastern political figures gave their open support to the Iranian opposition. Even Bill Clinton – under the Presidency of whom the main organization of Iranian opposition was classified as terrorist at the request of the Iranian authorities – praised the event.
But, at the same time that in vast areas of the world the support to a policy of containment of the theocratic fanaticism takes shape, in other areas, those that for one or other reason want to question the principles and rules of the international order, saw in the Iranian challenge a chance.
Among these last ones, and for several reasons, Brazil assumed the most important role. A young but respected democracy, with a decade of successful economic and social policies, with a gradual respect for the human rights, it was for most observers a surprise to see Brazil so engaged in the support to Iran and, namely, to its nuclear programme.
The position of the Brazilian political leadership seems to be dictated by its nuclear ambitions – which apparently survived the fall of the dictatorship – by the aim of seeing oil expensive in the world market, as well as for the neglect of human values.
In Portugal, where the gestures of deference and co-operation with the Iranian authorities have multiplied throughout last years – coming from the political establishment as well as from others layers of power such as the press – this Brazilian position appeared as an argument of weight to justify, and even to strengthen, the policy that has been followed.
But if the rationality of the Brazilian position is debatable but understandable, it is more difficult to understand the Portuguese alignment with the dictatorship.
Whoever looks at Portugal from outside feels that there is an invisible but ominous constitutional rule that makes those countries using oil as a weapon as sacred, and as a crime any criticism directed against them.
The real benefits for Portugal of its hydro-carbon deals with Iran, Libya or Venezuela are yet to be seen. The costs of the policy of amorality and political opportunism on the credibility of our country and its institutions are, however, far too evident.
I wish that in Portugal one would be conscious that the absence of scruples or consideration for the human rights of Iranians and the victims of the theocratic expansionism does have internal consequences (and it could never be otherwise) in weakening our democracy.
The French Socialist Party (PSF) theoretical magazine (Revue Socialiste) of last spring is dedicated to the question of Moral (La Morale en Questions). Among other texts of great value, it published an article of Vincent Duclert titled “Charles Péguy: le socialisme, la morale et la politique” where the devastating effect of the Amorality doctrine (disguised as a criticism of the “bourgeois morality” or the “catholic morality”) had on the PSF of the end of the XIXth century in the Alfred Dreyfus affair.
I believe that the lessons from this episode remain fully important in our day.