Kamal Kharrazi

NEW YORK — In one way or another, Kamal Kharrazi has been the voice of Iran for most of the past two decades. Shortly after the 1979 revolution, he was named president of the Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran’s sole news service. Shortly after Iraq’s invasion in 1980, he became head of Iran’s War Information Headquarters, the primary purveyor of developments in one of the century’s grisliest conflicts. Kharrazi’s impact in both jobs, held jointly for almost a decade, was so profound that he was rewarded with the job of Iran’s voice in the outside world. He became ambassador to the United Nations in 1989.

Last month, the U.S.-educated envoy was rewarded once again. Kharrazi was named foreign minister, the voice of Iranian diplomacy, by Iran’s new president.

In New York last week for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly and to pack up for the move back home, Kharrazi gave his maiden address as foreign minister--a speech watched closely and “somewhat favorably” by Washington, according to Clinton administration officials. “Progress of a pluralistic world with a great and ever-increasing variety of thoughts, ideas, beliefs, traditions and values depends on the promotion of tolerance and moderation,” he told the U.N. The foreign policy of President Mohammed Khatami’s new government “is founded on peace, self-restraint, confidence-building and reduction and elimination of tension.”

So soft-spoken that he is sometimes hard to hear, Kharrazi, 53, has moved into a variety of professions far afield from his doctoral studies in education at the University of Houston--and membership, in 1976, in the American Assn. of University Professors. Yet, he still delves into academe in his spare time, writing books in Persian on everything from the impact of chemical weapons to the strategies of learning, as well as articles in English for Harvard’s Middle East Review.

Pressed about his hobbies, aides say the only activity they’ve ever seen him engage in is reading. “You could travel with him for 24 hours and not notice he was with you, he’s so quiet,” said one colleague. His neat beard tipped white and bespectacled, Kharrazi is also demure in dress. Like his wife, who wears traditional Islamic covering, he adheres to the revolution’s male dress code--a short stand-up collar and no tie, the latter considered a symbol of the West and its imposed culture.

As the voice of the new Khatami government, Kharrazi will be a key man to watch, U.S. officials say, to see if Tehran’s new policy of openness at home translates into foreign policy--and eventually leads to bridging the gap between the world Kharrazi once lived in and his homeland.

*

Question: In May, Iran held a presidential election. Mohammed Khatami upset the front-runner on the basis of fresh ideas--from the formation of multiple political parties to a free press. What does his election mean for Iran?

Answer: It’s a very important point in Iranian political life. The atmosphere in Iran has changed. Over the next years, parties will be shaped and there will be more cultural activities, more newspapers and magazines in the market. As has been clearly said by our minister of culture, the approach he has is quite different from the last minister of culture. He thinks that through engagement, through openness and transparency, the Islamic culture can develop and play its role--not only in Iran, but also in the region and the world. Therefore, he emphasizes dialogues between civilizations and cultures. He encourages openness.

Q: Do you anticipate, as a result of this openness, that there will be greater public debate about ideas, political as well as cultural?

A: Why not? I myself promoted this idea. I had a meeting with the chief editors of Iranian newspapers and encouraged them to criticize the foreign ministry. If you criticize, I learn, and I don’t mind how much you criticize. Feel free and do your best. This is the policy of the government. Hopefully, it will be very helpful for the more successful operation of the government.

Q: Two critical constituencies during this election were women and youth. Do you anticipate the government taking action to encourage the participation of women, perhaps to relax some of the restrictions on women and to bring more young people into government?

A: Yes, that is one of the policies of the new government: to give more roles for women and youth. One of the main principles of President Khatami [is] that women have the right to be more active in Iranian life. That’s why he appointed a woman as his vice president and [why] he supports the activities of Iranian women to acquire their rights in all aspects of society.

If you compared the status of women in Iranian society, it’s much higher than other countries in that region. We have many Iranian women in Parliament. We have Iranian deputy ministers and women reporters, a lot of them. And women have the chance to work in the judiciary, especially in courts assigned to family issues and divorce. In universities, you find lot of women professors, as well as students.

It is true that in the Iranian system, the Islamic dress code has to be observed. It is true some of them don’t like the dress code. But if you ask women, many prefer Islamic dress because they find Islamic identity in that dress and they find it helpful to be respected, not to be harassed.

Q: You spoke in your U.N. speech about “a dialogue among civilizations rather than a clash of civilizations.” Is this your way of saying that Islam and the West, and the ideas of the two societies, can coexist and are compatible?

A: Sure, why not? This has been true all through the last centuries--that there has been cooperation between Islamic civilization and the Western civilization. This has to be continued. Why should there be a clash of civilizations? There should be cooperation and understanding between civilizations. That is really what we promote. President Khatami’s idea about having a dialogue between civilizations, cultures and religions is a serious one.

Q: You also spoke at the U.N. about the “the expansion of relations with all countries on the basis of mutual respect.” At the same time, there is improvement in the way Iran and the United States talk about each other. When you talk about expansion of relations with all countries, do you foresee this, in the not-too-distant future, including the United States?

A: In principle, yes. But it depends if there will be a change of behavior and policy from the U.S. side. We recognize the United States. If relations are based on mutual respect and equal footing and if the U.S. changes its behavior toward Iran and its policies toward Iran, in the new atmosphere, certainly there could be talks, there could be development of relations.

The problem is that [while] it is true that the tone may have been changed, the policies of the U.S. against Iran have not changed. The same hostility against Iran is going on. The sanctions policy is still in place and the U.S. does not miss any opportunity to make problems for Iran, to make obstacles in the efforts by Iran for peace and security in the region.

Q: What steps does Iran want to see from the U.S. to help build mutual confidence? It’s clear the U.S. is not going to lift sanctions as a first step. Are there things Iran would like to see as a way of indicating Washington is interested in a process that might lead to something more substantive?

A: The U.S. cannot deny the strategic importance of Iran in the region, and the positive role that Iran can play in peace and security of the region. Therefore, it depends on the will of the U.S.--if the U.S. wants to recognize this importance or to block the role Iran can play. If they are interested to see Iran play an important and a positive role in that region, they will have to change their attitudes and policies toward Iran. The ball is in the court of the Americans.

Q: The Americans say the same thing about Iran. Are we likely to see, over the next four years, a new kind of stalemate where both sides say ‘I’m not going to act until the other acts first’?

A: They have put sanctions against us. They are making accusations against us. They are blocking us from any positive role in the region. So if they believe in what they said, they have to show that in their deeds, not only in their words.

Q: The Americans specifically talk about Iran’s support for groups that have been associated with acts of violence--Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad. Clinton administration officials say the critical thing they’re watching is whether Iran maintains the same level of support for these groups. Is Iran going to continue its support?

A: First, they have to prove that Iran supports these groups with military assistance or support their violence. We don’t deny that we have convergent ideas with Islamic movements in the region. And we don’t deny that we send humanitarian support to Hezbollah because they are fighting against aggressors. But there is no proof that we have supported the violence.

Q: On that point, the Palestinians recently charged that Iran was ultimately behind the July 30 and the Sept. 4 suicide bombings in Jerusalem, that the suicide bombers had trained in Iran. The person who was injured when he blew himself up in Jerusalem a few months ago claimed he was trained in Iran. You asked for proof. Those are people who make very specific allegations.

A: Traveling to Iran is not a crime if their passports show they have visas. We have to receive any information officially by the U.S. or others to prove that if anybody on Iranian territory has been involved in training these people. So far, we have not received any official information.

Q: Are you prepared to talk to the United States about the specific allegations?

A: They have their own official channels. They can send us this information through the Swiss embassy. But it has to be concrete and to the point.

Q: On relations with the Gulf, you talked at the U.N. about trying to reduce tensions in the region and taking an active role in peace-making. How does this play out in the Persian Gulf?

A: One of the first priorities of the new administration is to normalize relations with its neighbors in the Persian Gulf and other countries around Iran. We believe the Persian Gulf is a very important area, as is the Caspian Sea vicinity. Iran is a bridge between these two important regions. We believe all the money spent on armaments in the Gulf is better spent on economic development of the region, which can create a lot of confidence among states.

If the Americans are sincere in their talk about peace and security in the Persian Gulf area, it’s better to stop showing Iran as a threat and promoting an arms race in that region. Consider if this money, which has been spent on arms, was spent on economic development. We could have heaven in that region. More than $40 billion has been spent on arms since the Gulf war.

That is our philosophy. Let’s be transparent. Let’s sign a pact of nonintervention and nonaggression. Let’s cooperate for economic development of the region, and all countries around the world would be free to invest in this area.

Q: On Israel, are there any conditions under which Iran would recognize Israel’s right to exist?

A: We don’t recognize Israel.

Q: But that is not the same as saying Iran doesn’t accept Israel’s right to exist.

A: I can’t imagine Iran could recognize Israel as a country. This is different from Jews who used to live in Palestine. There can be many ways how peaceful life could be promoted among Jews, Christians and Muslims. But the current situation, in which the lands of Palestinians have been taken by Israel, certainly is not acceptable to us.

But, yes, there is a difference between these two. There may be countries that we do not have any relations, and we have not recognized them. But the case of Israel is quite different, I agree with you.

Q: In your U.N. speech you also talked about the rule of law, and the “scrupulous implementation of the existing body of international law.” In the West, that means no death squads, honoring human rights and no prosecution of minorities. Does Iran’s new government accept that interpretation?

A: We believe international law has to be observed. At the same time, we believe some international laws have to be modified to include new elements of cultural differences. The case of human rights is one of these. It has been based on Western culture. But other cultures have other things to say. For example, individualism in Western culture is the first priority. But in eastern countries, in Islamic countries, social responsibility has its own place as well. There should be a balance between individualism and social responsibility reflected in any international convention.

Q: Let me go back to death squads. There is a huge gap between Iran and the West on the issue of [“The Satanic Verses” author] Salman Rushdie. [Former] President [Hashemi] Rafsanjani tried a formulation to set it aside. He tried to guarantee that Iran would not send death squads. But that has not been accepted in the West. Are there other formulations the new government is prepared to offer so all parties can put this crisis behind them?

A: It’s not a question of the Western countries putting the case of Salman Rushdie behind them. The basic question is why the case of Salman Rushdie was brought up. The case of Rushdie was a clash between Western countries against Islamic countries. It was an assault against Islamic ideology and that’s why Imam Khomeini reacted to that. That’s why the Organization of Islamic Countries reacted in favor of the fatwa. It shows a clash between Western and Islamic cultures that has to be avoided. We are not interested in these clashes. We think that instead there should be dialogue to understand each other. But this was an example of how clashes take shape between two cultures.