 |
| 2025 is an important year for both Justin Trudeau (L) and Olaf Scholz (R) (Image: South China Morning Post) |
It has been interesting reading all the tributes to former US President Jimmy Carter, who died at the age of 100. Many have highlighted his human rights track record and his campaign for peace, which led him to being a recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. They also provide examples of foreign policy successes such as a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt which has been respected by both parties ever since, though recent years has seen diplomacy tested.
But from a personal standpoint, as an Iranian, I have analysed his legacy somewhat differently. Towards the end of his presidency saw huge change in Iran. When he was inaugurated in 1977, Iran and the US were considered allies, though not completely rosy according to a 2016 BBC investigation. By the end, we'd seen an almost total 180-degree shift in relations: in 1979, the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, got ousted by staunch anti-American Ayatollah Khomeini who, during this transition of power held 52 Americans hostage from November 1979 and later embarked on an eight-year conflict with Saddam Hussein's Iraq from September 1980. Between these two events, in April 1980, seen as unprecedented at the time, Carter started getting friendly with Iraq and cut diplomatic ties with Iran. Then he lost to Ronald Reagan in the November 1980 election. Reagan accelerated these policies in a way where there was no easy return to neutrality. It can be argued that this enabled the Iranian government to do what it wanted and therefore began funding terror groups like Hamas and Houthi who now have strongholds in Arab nations like Palestine and Yemen.
Combine this pivotal period of history with damaging Middle Eastern policies by US Presidents that followed, it's hard not to look back at this time 45 years ago and wonder how much Carter knew about what was going on before things came crashing down. The 'changing of the guard' in Iran wasn't planned overnight and the moment a campaign was launched in 1979, the Shah left with little fight. Not that we welcome US interference in most cases, however, knowing he and the Shah were on decent speaking terms, one wondered if an effort was made to discuss this drastic change as a true possibility. On the other hand, with the Shah reportedly wary of Carter to begin with and he being in denial over the impact of the protests years prior to this change, I'm not so convinced he'd have listened anyway if an effort was made.
Events in 1979 and 1980 are still felt today. Iran is considered a feared nation with dangerous nuclear ambitions by the US, and its enemies aren't countries with small military budgets. It's added a complex component to Israel and Palestine's volatile relationship, which has dated decades before. Iran's government has positioned itself in a way that very few successive US Presidents after Carter wanted to handle. With Donald Trump set to begin his second term at the White House, it'll be difficult to inspire a total 180-degree change of fortune in relations, even if the Iranian people were to be successful at another change in leadership in the next four years.
Trump won't learn from Carter's legacy, but we can hope other world leaders do so from 2025. Globally, the past year has been turbulent. Israel and Iran have now acted on their threats to each other. The damage has been minimal and isolated, but they're symbolic and has made the rest of the world very nervous. Meanwhile, Ukraine's military entered Russian territory, though damage there has been minimal compared to Russia's continued relentless bombardment of Ukraine.
And most recently, Syrian rebel groups managed to spectacularly oust Bashar al-Assad as Syria's leader and he has found refuge in Russia. While many of us are glad to see that his brutality is no more, I'm not overly convinced that what's replaced him will be any better. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the main group behind the ousting, has been designated as a terrorist group by governments in the US, UK, Canada, Russia, EU and at least a dozen more, and we've seen 'revolutions' like this in Afghanistan in 2021 and, yes, Iran in 1979 - neither of which have benefitted respected nations. No election is planned in Syria until 2028, so even if people there are happy now, they better remain so for another four years. I dare wonder what the consequences would be otherwise.
The world just needs calm and one hopes that we see signs of this by the end of 2025, as we soon reach the second quarter of the 21st Century. With the current crop of world leaders, we're unlikely to get it, but voters will be key here. Germany has a big election in February which is likely to see the Christian Democrats return to power, but with significant influence from Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) considered far-right. Canada has an election which may spell the end of Justin Trudeau's ten-year reign, if the rumours are to be true. Iraq also has an election with the last one resulting in 'eleven months of violence and upheaval'. Goodness knows what's going to happen to Georgia with the outcome of its recent election meaning closer ties to Russia, a setback for Ukraine and other neighbours.
To achieve this sense of calm, it's so important that leaders come together and agree on a tangible approach. It's been felt that Syria's transition to significant change has been done alone, just like in Afghanistan, which is a big lesson to learn from especially as there will inevitably be other countries looking to follow suit. Dialogue with 'enemies' is just as important as dialogue with allies. Heck, leaders are doing well to communicate with Benyamin Netanyahu of Israel despite everything he's doing to destabilise the Middle East through his political gain.
The problem we have is that the governments we rely on to aid these dialogues lack the stability, gumption and willingness to take this important step. They're tied up in internal battles and second guessing its electorates who are busy shouting about their own first world problems. My message to them is break out of that cycle, ignore the tittle-tattle and get on with the job at hand. I'm looking at the UK and French governments here, who have the same governments for the next 2-3 years. It's important that Germany and Canada votes for stability, a government that can balance improving fortunes at home and come up with peaceful and practical solutions beyond their borders. If that means change of Chancellor or Prime Minister, then so be it. But if people are thinking of voting for a party advocating for isolationism championed by Trumps of the world, this is only going to be seen as a tragic retrograde step. These governments have created this mess, time is long overdue for them to break deadlocks and ensure positive transitions of change in Eastern Europe and Middle East.
Comments
Post a Comment