Women Against War Participated in a September 24, 2008 Meeting With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Arranged by The Fellowship of Reconciliation.

Report from Priscilla Fairbank, Women Against War.
Report from Joe Lombardo, BNP & MSC
Article by Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation
Article by Allie Garcia, Metroland
Report from the Friends Committee on National Legislation

Report to Women Against War on Sept 24th meeting with President Ahmadinejad

WAW and other peace groups received the invitation from Fellowship of Reconciliation (www.forusa.org) on behalf of the Iranian Mission to the United Nations to participate in a gathering of the peace community to meet with President Ahmadinejad when he was in NYC for the annual start of the UN General Assembly. I had the privilege to attend the meeting as the WAW representative.

The invitation framed the goal: The meeting is being held in order to introduce President Ahmadinejad to the peace community in the United States and to illustrate how this sector of civil society works to oppose war and the use of violence to resolve differences.

We were each asked to send, in advance, the story of how our organization was formed and how we "work to advance the agenda in practice" - again, to illustrate the power of civil society and nonviolence to effect change.

We were also given the opportunity to submit statements of concern about the current relationship between the US and Iran that would elicit a response from President Ahmadinejad.

The question submitted by WAW was carefully written by Mickie Lynn. It asked how can the vital dialogue between Iranian citizens and US citizens desiring peace with each other continue if the Iranians who seek cooperation with US non-governmental organizations are then accused of trying to bring about the overthrow of the government of Iran? It stated our strong opposition to the covert efforts of the US government to overthrow the Iranian government. It next emphasized the importance of building bridges between Iranians working for peace and groups like our own and asked, "How can your government support Iranians working to build bridges with us?" The more specific part of the question asked about Dr. Kamiar Alaei and Dr. Arash Alaei, respected HIV/AIDS researchers, who were arrested in Iran in June 2008 and are still being held. It expressed our shock; Kamiar Alaei is known in our community as part of the SUNYA School of Public Health and had attended the send-off for Barbara Spring and me before our trip to Iran last December.

All of the 100 questions submitted and the descriptions of the 45 organizations represented were compiled in a 50 page document. A committee carefully selected 10 questions that covered the range of issues, to be read in person at the meeting. Twenty-four hours before the meeting, I received a call from FOR asking if I would be willing to read the WAW question, and if I would be first. The part of our question that had been chosen was the more general one about the role of dialogue and the place of citizen involvement.

The experience was very exciting. The meeting was held at the Grand Hyatt in Manhattan. We were asked not to share news of the meeting with any press until after it concluded. Even in the hotel lobby, there were no notices about the meeting or where it was being held. The hope was not to attract attention or potential protest. There was a great deal of security, including NYC Police, Iranian national security, and US Secret Service.

It was great to see 3 other members of our FOR December '07 delegation to Iran. It was a pleasant surprise to see Joe Lombardo of Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace. It was also very humbling to be in such an impressive group of 150 peace activists. Many of the organizations were familiar to me and a number of the individuals' names I knew and respected for their work: Jim Fine, Joe Gerson and Joe Volk of FCNL, Robert Dreyfuss of "The Nation", Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, Rev. Sinkford of Unitarian Universalist Association, Doug Hostetter of Mennonite Central Committee, and members of Pax Christi, Granny Peace Brigade, CASMII, Just Foreign Policy, and many others.

I felt there was an interesting tension for each of us between all the issues in Iran that we protest against and this opportunity to meet with President Ahmadinejad; after all, we were "meeting with the enemy". Before the dignitaries arrived, Mark Johnson, Director of FOR, suggested we hold 3 thoughts in mind: hospitality, trust, and welcome the stranger. (I have known Mark for a year and continue to be fascinated by his vocabulary of peace and reconciliation.)

President Ahmadinejad was accompanied by Foreign Minister Mottaki and Ambassador Khazaee. They were given the packet of questions and background information when they arrived; they had not seen them prior to that. (This document is available on FOR blog www.FORpeace.net - look under Mark's post of 9/28, attachment: PC Statements and Questions.) Leila Zand gave a welcome in Farsi, the Ambassador gave a welcome on behalf of the Iranian Mission to the UN, and Mark Johnson, Director of FOR, gave the opening speech, setting the tone of respect, openness, and directly addressing issues of concern. (His Letter to President Ahmadinejad can be read in full on the FOR blog www.FORpeace.net - look under Mark's post of 9/27, the attachment.)

President Ahmadinejad looked up as each of the ten of us went forward to read our questions. He took notes. The questions covered the role of dialogue and citizen involvement, role of diversity, role of youth in political process, citizen diplomacy - visa process, people to people projects, nuclear energy and nuclear arms, alternative energy, position on Israel and Palestine, possibility of negotiations, and next steps of cooperation, trust, and regional stability.

At the end of our questions, President Ahmadinejad gave a speech about the evils of war and the need to address the root causes of war. (We had the benefit of headsets with simultaneous translations.) He identified selfishness, expansionism, and not respecting laws and justice as basic causes. He said it was a failure of those who have lost their morality and that politics and morality must walk "hand in hand".

In responding to our 10 questions, he addressed each of us by name, and then gave an answer, always communicating pride of positive things in Iran and willing cooperation with us. I felt very excited about how encouraging all his responses were. Upon reflection over the next several days, I realized that he is a skillful politician and had avoided answering the more difficult points of some questions, while generally pleasing his audience.

On the issue of women, he spoke with animation and humor. "Let me tell you the truth about women: they're about to replace me", he joked. He said he has two female vice-presidents and "when they say something, no one dares oppose them." He further explained that women are very active in all fields and that 70% of university students are women. The majority of the employees of the Iranian Central Bank are women; Ahmadinejad joked that if the US Treasury had had more women, we might have avoided the current fiscal crisis. He then sounded quite poetic as he spoke of how womanhood is defined in a different way in Iranian society; the mother has higher status and respect in the family; and a woman is seen as sublime beauty, kindness, and joy of society. Any harm to a woman's heart, he said, is harm to society. All of this sounded good, but where were the answers to questions about women's rights abuses?

On the issue of exchanges and visas, he stated that he would prepare the Iranian side so that we can have more exchanges. He said right then to the Ambassador that he wanted visas to be made more available. But there is a rule of reciprocity, he explained, and called on us to do what we could to pressure our government to allow more Iranians to visit.

On the nuclear issue, he reminded us that, 40 years ago, the US signed a nuclear agreement with Iran because the US wanted Iran to develop its nuclear industry. If the US were serious about lessening nuclear tensions in the Middle East, we should have disarmed Israel. He stated that the time for an atomic bomb has passed; no one should be talking about making bombs. He said although nuclear energy is important in Iran, they are spending three times more on solar and wind than on nuclear.

When asked whether Iran would accept an Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution, he responded that it was not up to Iran to decide. He emphasized that it was a decision for the Palestinian people: whatever they choose, if they have a fair referendum, must be accepted by all other nations. He said Iran is against war, and it is war when people are forced from their homes and their land.

The President said Iran is a friend of all nations around the world. He said, "We are ready to have positive dialogue and exchange". He joked that they could suggest that the next US administration work with our peace organizations to learn how to have positive relations. There was little in what he said that one could argue with. He had been invited to a meeting based on respect; his demeanor had none of the bellicose aspects that receive so much play in mainstream press. From the two hours I spent in this meeting with Ahmadinejad, he appeared respectful, not loud, thoughtful, and sometimes humorous. He is a good politician, speaking well and knowing what to say to please his audience. We also have to remember that he is not the most powerful decision maker in Iran and that he is facing a presidential election next June.

I don't expect immediate changes as a result of this meeting, but I think it was very significant. It demonstrates the value of respectful dialogue. I appreciate that the Iranian President, Ambassador, and Foreign Minister were all willing to take the time to meet with us and to face difficult questions. Can you imagine President Bush or even Secretary Rice meeting with peace activists in another country, especially Iran? I have great respect for Fellowship of Reconciliation and the thoughtful, patient manner in which they brought about this historic meeting.

President Ahmadinejad did not answer many of the specific questions that I still want to have addressed; but he came and he listened. I believe the conversation will continue. That is what is important.

Respectfully,

Priscilla Fairbank

8 October 2008

Click here to return to the top of the page.

On Wednesday evening, September 24, I was one of over one-hundred activists who met for two hours with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran. President Ahmadinejad was in the US for a General Assembly meeting at the United Nations. Leila Zand, an Iranian woman from the Capital District who is the Iran Program Director for the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), organized the meeting. The next morning, anti-war group members who had attended Wednesday's meeting met again to discuss how to organize against an attack on Iran.

I attended both meetings as a representative of Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace and of the Muslim Solidarity Committee. Also at the meeting was Priscilla Fairbank from Women Against War (WAW). Over 100 different anti-war organizations from across the country were represented, including, the Syracuse Peace Council, and Rochester Against War from upstate, NY.

After welcome addresses from FOR and the Iranian ambassador, eleven people, including Priscilla Fairbank of WAW, asked questions of the Iranian president.

President Ahmadinejad's started his formal address by thanking those who were gathered for their work on behalf of peace. He observed that World War II took the lives of over 60,000,000 people, more than the number killed in all previous wars combined, and was then followed by additional wars in Korea, Vietnam, Granada, and elsewhere. He had determined, therefore, that it was not enough to fight against a single war; rather, the peace movement must address the causes of war in general and work towards ending all war.

He stated that, in his opinion, war has two major causes:

1. Greed, or the desire of one country to take the resources of another; and
2. Geographical expansion, or one country trying to take over the territory of another.

He said that the only war that modern Iran was involved in was the eight-year war with Iraq, which was started by the "professional criminal," Saddam Hussein. Saddam, he said, started that war with the encouragement and support of the US. As a result, over 200,000 Iranians died, including many killed by chemical weapons supplied by the US.

President Ahmadinejad stated that the reason Iran is against war is because, in Iran, politics and religion are not separate. He said that all the great religions have a common moral code and that unless politics is based on a moral code, war will continue. He also said that Iran is against nuclear weapons and implied that nuclear weaponry violates the religious beliefs of Islam.

One of the questions asked of President Ahmadinejad involved the recent demonstration at the national political conventions and the number of arrests (over 800 were arrested in St. Paul including legal observers, medical helpers and reporters). The questioner asked about similar political repression in Iran. President Ahmadinejad replied that they have demonstrations in Iran, including two annual demonstrations that attract millions of people. He said political demonstrations are allowed in Iran. However, one Iranian women at the meeting the following morning stated that there have been non-government sanctioned demonstrations in Iran that have been broken up by authorities.

Another questioner asked about the role of women, youth, and gays in Iran. Ahmadinejad replied that Iranian youth are very involved in politics and that a national youth organization advises him. He said that people can vote in Iran at the age of 15.

President Ahmadinejad said that two of his vice-presidents are women and that women make up 70% of the university students and perhaps a majority of all professions. Women can work at all jobs , including taxi driving and truck driving. He noted, however, that he did not think it was a good thing for women to be taxi drivers and truck drivers, as he believes women should not do hard labor and represent beauty and the finer things in society. (I also noticed that all the dignitaries who came with him were men.)

He did not answer the question about gays although he did answer that question on Democracy Now the following morning. He stated that although he does not approve of homosexuality, gays are not discriminated against in Iran. What people do in their own homes is their own business, he said. Amy Goodman had a picture of two gays that she said were hanged in Iran. President Ahmadinejad responded that he did not believe that; people in Iran are only executed for murder or rape.

He was asked why Iran supports nuclear power instead of renewable energy. He said that he thought it was strange that the U.S., Britain, and other countries supported Iran's nuclear power programs under the US supported dictatorship, but that once Iran had elections, these same countries no longer supported it. He said that they spend three times as much on renewable energy than they spend on nuclear power. He felt that both renewable and nuclear energy were necessary for Iran's energy future.

Medea Benjamin of Code Pink asked why it is difficult for Americans to get visas to visit Iran. She said that they had sponsored tours of Iran but she herself had been denied a visa. President Ahmadinejad said that he did not know and instructed the Iranian ambassador to open up the process for Americans. He then told us that we should now go to our own government and ask why Iranians can't get visas to come to the US.

President Ahmadinejad stated that the demise of the old Soviet Union started with their protracted war in Afghanistan. He believes that the US is going through a similar process. He said that the $700 billion bailout of US financial institutions could be better used by the poor around the world and that the $700 billion was more than the budgets of over 100 countries in the world. Because of the crisis, the US would not be able to have another war for perhaps a decade, he said. He also stated, "Iran will not seek war with anyone, ever."

After meeting with Ahmadinejad, I had the opportunity to hear Bush's televised address on the economic bailout. The contrast was clear: Bush spoke with the expressionless face of a psychopathic liar. Ahmadinejad spoke with expression and emotion, like a normal person. Although I disagree, at times strongly, with many of the points Ahmadinejad has made, I believe the U.S. campaign of vilification against the Iranian president is designed to build up a case for war against Iran.

The most important human right is the right to live. Any movement toward war by the U.S. against Iran would bring mass destruction and death. The role of the peace movement in the U.S. is to strongly oppose a war against Iran. As long as the US continues to threaten Iran, the Iranian people will band together to defend their country, and all their other progressive struggles will have to be postponed

At the meeting the following morning, over 60 people representing a wide array of the national peace movement met at a church in the East Village. FOR has many ties to the religious peace movement ,and so a number of religious peace leaders were there along with most of the secular peace groups. Ahmadinejad's comments about religion and politics became a topic of discussion at the meeting. Most people clearly disagreed with Ahmadinejad's perspective, although some thought that his perspective comes from Iranian traditions where there is not a concept of separation of church and state.

One Iranian woman mentioned that she spoke to the Iranian ambassador during the meeting and he asked her if some of the people who attended the meeting would be arrested for attending. Perhaps this comment says a lot about the real political situation in Iran

There was discussion about legislative initiatives and about the importance of people to people contact between the two countries. There was not a lot of time for strategizing; however, FOR plans to keep us in contact with each other as a national network opposing an attack on Iran.

The meeting with President Ahmadinejad was filmed. FOR will let us know how we can get copies of the video.

Peace,

Joe Lombardo

Click here to return to the top of the page.

Ahmadinejad Meets US Peace Movement
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 09/25/2008 @ 10:22am (on the Dreyfuss Report)

Yesterday evening, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spent a couple of hours taking questions from representatives of the American peace movement. He appeared in a ballroom at New York's Grand Hyatt hotel, at an event facilitated by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. The questions to Ahmadinjead weren't softballs: What about Iran's crackdown on human rights and dissidents? Iranian policy toward Israel? Treatment of women? Iran's foot-dragging on issuing visas even to peace movement representatives? And, of course, the big issues: What about a Grand Bargain with the United States? And will Iran accept a compromise on its nuclear fuel enrichment program?

The answers were, well, less illuminating than the questions.

In his preliminary speech, Ahmadinejad adopted the role of gentle, lecturing professor. Dressed in a gray jacket and off-white shirt with an open collar, wearing glasses and sporting his trademark, unshaven look, the Iranian president also drifted from professor-like to cleric-like.

The solution to the world's problems, including war, is religion, he said. Sounding not unlike Rev. Pat Robertson, Ahmadinejad said: "When religious values are removed from society, there is no hindrance for war. We must promote morality, ethics, and religious values." In case anyone was wondering what he meant by "religious values," the fundamentalist Shia politician said explicitly that he is talking about a return to the prophets. "We have to go back to the methods of the divine prophets," he declared, who were "sent by God to guide people." He expressed regret that for the past several decades many people have implied that adherence to fundamentalist religious beliefs is "equivalent to backwardness."

In response to the questions, Ahmadinejad happily endorsed America's invasion of Iraq. "Finally, [US leaders] were able to make a good decision for once," he said, referring to the 2003 war. But now, he said, America has overstayed its welcome, in an effort to dominate the Persian Gulf and secure access to oil. Having eliminated Iran's enemy, Saddam Hussein, it's time for the United States to get out. "We have friendly ties with both the government and the people of Iraq," he declared. "The best help the United States can provide to people in the region is to withdraw troops from the region. Leave the region alone!"

Joe Volk of Friends Committee on National Legislation asked Ahmadinejad about the 2003 back-channel offer from then-President Khatami's government to the United States to settle all outstanding issues in US-Iran relations in a Grand Bargain that would cover nukes, Israel, Iraq, terrorism, etc. In response, Ahmadinejad said that the main problem was that there was no response from the United States. "When the back channel became front channel, everything went awry," he said. Rather than comment further on Khatami's offer, he talked about his letter to George W. Bush, a rambling, religion-infused epistle that he called "an historical opportunity." It wasn't -- but Khatami's was. "There's no need to go back channel," said Ahmadinejad yesterday.

"We're ready to have positive dialogue" with the United States, he said, suggesting indirectly that he'd be receptive to Barack Obama's offer of diplomacy. But he seemed overconfident in regard to America's military threat to Iran: "The American government is no longer able to start another war for decades to come. This is good news for the rest of the world, believe me!" True enough, America is overstretched in its two ongoing wars, but his belief that Iran is therefore safe from a US attack seemed dangerously misguided to me. During my visit to Iran in March, many Iranian officials seemed to underestimate the potential for the United States, with its $600 billion Pentagon budget and vast Persian Gulf firepower, to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

Perhaps Ahmadinejad's worst moments came in relation to human and women's rights. Everything is fine, he said. Repression of dissidents and youth. "It is not the case in Iran," he lied. "Young people are very active politically." (Astonishingly, as evidence of young people's involvement in politics, he cited the recruitment of Iranian young people to the paramilitary Basij militia. In 60,000 mosques acorss the country, he said, young men are attaching themselves to the Basij, which is an adjunct force to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. In all, ten million have signed up, he said, though most estimates say that the Basij is about one million strong.)

On women, the Iranian president waxed poetic about the precious beauty of women, in a rambling, stream-of-consciousness description of what he said is the growing role of women in society. It's gone so far, he said, "To tell you the truth, women are about to replace myself." (As unlikely as it is for a woman to become president of Iran, real power rests with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a woman cannot become an ayatollah or, therefore, the Supreme Leader.) "In Iran, the way women are looked at is different than here. They enjoy more respect at all levels, and they work less .. A lot of times, we don't want women to do hard work. Cab drivers! I don't really like it for women. It's a tough job, really. ... Women are the reflection of sublime beauty. Women are the reflection of all that is beautiful in society."

He didn't give any hint of a diplomatic opening on the nuclear issue. He ridiculed the United States, the UK, France and Canada for cooperating with the pre-1979 regime of the Shah on nuclear technology, and he got off a zinger: "When there were no elections in Iran, they wanted us to be a nuclear power. As soon as there were elections, they didn't want us to be a nuclear power." He specifically said that Iran is opposed to nuclear weapons, adding: "The time for nuclear weapons has come to an end. Those who want to build a new generation of nuclear bombs are politically backward, period!" Of course, the idea that Iran would risk world isolation, sanctions, UN Security Council actions, and the threat of war in order to have a peaceful nuclear energy program seems quite ludicrous to me. Clearly, Ahmadinejad is one of those "politically backward" ones. He refused to say that Iran would welcome a deal of the sort proposed by Thomas Pickering, for international guarantees for a nuclear enrichment program for Iran. Overall, no daylight there.

Click here to return to the top of the page.

Meeting With "the Enemy", by Allie Garcia in Metroland October 2-8, 2008
Local peace activists share their experience with the president of Iran

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a popular figure in the United States. Last September, when he spoke at Columbia University, the university's president, Lee Bollinger, introduced him as a cruel, petty, and uneducated dictator. He has been dismissed by the Bush administration several times, and continues to be viewed with mistrust and hostility by the American government.

"So much of the news we hear is dangerously superficial," said peace activist Priscilla Fairbank of Poestenkill. "It creates an image that is not accurate and that is very dangerous." The self-described "active citizen" was one of more than 150 American peace activists who were given an audience with Ahmadinejad while he was visiting New York City on Sept. 24, in an event coordinated by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Representatives from more than 100 peace groups attended, including Women Against War (the group that Fairbank represented), Muslim Solidarity Committee, and the Syracuse Peace Council.

"There will be no Earth-changing decision as a result of [these talks]," Fairbank said, "but the very fact that he was willing to spend two hours with 150 peace activists from around the country. . . . I can't even conceive of our president [doing that]!"

Fairbank said she aimed to show Ahmadinejad the way peaceful protest is done in America, and the ways Iran could benefit from similar "openness and dialogue."

Representing Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace, Joe Lombardo noted the difference between President Bush and the Iranian president. "Ahmadinejad really wanted to engage us," he said. "He looked people in the eye, he had a softer face, he had expressions on his face. And I looked at Bush - it just struck me - his face was like a mask. There was no emotion."

The meeting was very formal. Ten questions were preselected for the president, and heavily armed guards stood at the ready, prepared to take action against anyone who so much as stood up. While Ahmadinejad did not read from notes and had no prior knowledge of the questions, Lombardo did note that certain issues, including Israel and Ahmadinejad's controversial comments about the Jewish state, were conveniently left out of discussion.

However, the activists were not trying to get into a political squabble. They were more interested in making a point: that most Americans no longer support the conflicts the United States wages around the world.

The two seasoned advocates got a new, completely different image and feel for Ahmadinejad than the one generally put forth by the media. Both said it was made clear that he had no intention or interest in starting a war. He also said he could not, for religious reasons, ever use a nuclear weapon, because it is capable of much more destruction than humans should have control over.

Fairbank said that she felt welcomed by the dignitary, and had the opportunity to see him as a regular person. The meeting was important to her because it focused on a particularly inflammatory person and a nation that has a spotty history with the United States.

"If people can talk to other people, it opens up endless opportunities and understanding," Fairbank said. "When you demonize the other, you aren't thinking of them as human beings. I've spent a great deal of time trying to put a human face on Iran for the people here."

Click here to return to the top of the page.

Special Note: FCNL Meets Iranian President in New York

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met twice with U.S. peace and religious groups in New York last week. FCNL participated in both meetings, as well as in previous meetings with Ahmadinejad in New York in 2006 and 2007 and in Tehran in 2007. In response to a question from FCNL, President Ahmadinejad provided the first public confirmation by an Iranian official that the United States and Iran had engaged in unofficial negotiations until May 2003, when the United States cut off contact after Iran proposed a comprehensive agenda for official talks.

At the meetings Ahmadinejad repeated some of the more conciliatory statements that Iranian leaders have made in the past. He said Iran wanted a "positive dialogue" with the United States, that a compromise solution to the nuclear impasse involving an international consortium to enrich uranium in Iran merited discussion, and that if a representative Palestinian government agreed to a two-state solution with Israel "everyone should accept their choice."

The Iranian president also expressed openness to engagement with the United States in an interview in the New York Times and kept to a relatively positive tone, but in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly he again descended to crude stereotypes, speaking of "a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists... dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers" of the West.

We at FCNL are talking with the Iranian president not because we agree with him but because it is the people and nations who don't agree with one another that have the greatest need to engage in dialogue. Unlike the U.S. president, Iran's president is not the decision maker in matters of defense and foreign affairs. We are not engaging publicly with President Ahmadinejad with the expectation of changing Iran's policies, but rather to underscore the possibility and the importance of direct negotiations between the United States and Iran.

Click here to return to the top of the page.