Bush Enters Iran 'Freedom' Debate

In choosing Freedom House as the venue for a foreign policy address this week, President George W. Bush has stepped into an intense debate among democracy activists in the US and Iran on how US dollars should be used to carry out the administration's policy of promoting freedom in the Islamic republic.

Few in the Washington audience on Wednesday realised that Freedom House, an independent institution founded more than 60 years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, the former first lady, is one of several organisations selected by the State Department to receive funding for clandestine activities inside Iran.

Peter Ackerman, chairman of the board of trustees, who introduced Mr Bush, is also the founder of a separate organisation that promotes non-violent civic disobedience as a form of resistance to repressive regimes. His International Center on Non-Violent Conflict has organised discreet "workshops" in the Gulf emirate of Dubai to teach Iranians the lessons learned from east European movements.

A separate organisation, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre based in New Haven, Connecticut, has also received US funding and organised a Dubai "workshop" for Iranians last year that was not made public.

Mr Ackerman, who is very wealthy from an earlier career as a financier, says he does not accept government money. Questioned by the FT, Freedom House confirmed it had received funding from the State Department for activities in Iran. It declined to give details but said it was not involved in Mr Ackerman's work in Dubai.

Freedom House also disclosed that it received $100,000 (€83,873, £57,500) from Mr Ackerman last year and a further $100,000 from his organisation.

In a research study, with Mr Ackerman acting as chief adviser, Freedom House sets out its conclusions: "Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance - which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders."

"The danger is that this is a move towards covert political warfare that will completely stymie the whole idea of democracy-building. This kind of activity endangers nearly 20 years of democracy-promotion," said Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, a UK founding governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. "Getting crowds on the streets to overthrow regimes can backfire badly," he said. He and other academics reject the notion that the east European experience can be applied to Iran.

There is concern in Europe too. Diplomats say the Bush administration's request this year for $85m in pro-democracy funding - and its refusal to hold talks with Iran - will be seen as tantamount to a policy of "regime change". They say this risks efforts - continuing with a Berlin meeting of foreign ministers yesterday - to resolve the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme.

The State Department told the FT it would not disclose recipients of funding for pro-democracy activities inside Iran because lives would be placed in danger. That was also true for funding in Cuba, Iraq, Syria and other repressive regimes, an official said. Some members of Congress are informed, however. While the activities are not made public they do not amount to "covert action" which requires a specific presidential directive.

Mehrangiz Kar, a prominent Iranian lawyer and human rights activist, has issued an impassioned plea to Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, to drop her funding plans. The money would tarnish Iranian human rights organisations, turn them into businesses, stoke corruption and play into the hands of the security forces, she said.

Several Iranians were recently detained briefly for attending the workshops, say friends and relatives.

"Dubai is crawling with Iranian intelligence," said Ray Takeyh, analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, criticising State Department plans to transform the US diplomatic mission in Dubai into a listening post on Iran. "Every Gucci-wearing Iranian exile without a day-job is for democracy now," he added.

Michael Ledeen, analyst at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, rejects criticism of Mr Ackerman's efforts. He told Congress it was hard to find a revolution, including America's, that did not have an outside base of support.

That's hard to argue with.

He told Congress it was hard to find a revolution, including America's, that did not have an outside base of support.

Especially if that support comes in the form of a surgical strike to take out the current Iranian leadership, leaving the door open to those influenced towards democracy via covert operations.

3 posted on 04/01/2006 6:15:56 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Many women will support Hillary based solely on her gender -- and it will be praised by the MSM.)

Using politic over Iran is bad idea. Mullah know what to do. As long, they catch more Freedom type person and dump them into Jail. Nobody know what is happen to them. They are history. I believe Mullah putting more strictier rule over Iran state. Worst, they collect VCD abt USA life how a guy sex with mother whom husband not around. As you know, people believe Mullah coz' they are Angel. It happen in Iraq when USA pilot helicopter down. All the Iraqi catch them and woman use their finger peel off USA pilot skin coz' they saw the film abt USA life having sex here and there. I pity the two pilot coz' i know how they feel suffering.

Yes, Dubai has a large Iranian community which has been a concern as a fifth column, and Iran has effective intelligence services. [It is interesting to note that the CFR made no mention of these during the discussion of port security and Dubai's control of P&O.]

Some academics, activists and those involved in the growing US business of spreading freedom and democracy are alarmed that such semi-covert activities might damage the public and transparent work of other organisations, and will backfire inside Iran.

And if the Bush administration didn't fund this sort of thing, they'd complain that America really doesn't want to see (real) democracy flourish in Iran.

The Democrats say that the United States has had its days in the sun, that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems, that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. -- Ronald Reagan

"Getting crowds on the streets to overthrow regimes can backfire badly," he said."

Seems to be working here in the US, with some help from within the regime.

How can anyone take this business about 'spreading democracy' seriously, when you look at the current illegal immigration fandango going on in the US? ( I don't mean to turn this into another illegal immigration thread, but I think the issue is topical ).

"How can anyone take this business about 'spreading democracy' seriously, when you look at the current illegal immigration fandango going on in the US?"

Not quite sure what you're saying?

In other words, how can one get behind the purpose of sending our military overseas to free people, when the same group sending those soldiers overseas is enabling/encouraging an invasion over the Southern border, contrary to the electorate being overwhelmingly against said invasion.
Also, how can one take the idea of 'Homeland Security' seriously when nothing is being done to secure that same border?
Perfectly rational questions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.