United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

In Tehran on Wednesday, 2003 Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi and about seventy other human rights advocates, intellectuals, academics, acitivists, and dissidents launched the National Peace Council (translated elsewhere as "National Council of Peace"), Agence France-Presse reported.[1] -- "We not only are against military action on Iran but are also against economic sanctions," she said in a speech. -- Among the National Peace Council membership are Ebrahim Yazdi, who leads the Freedom Movement, dissident Hashem Aghajari, film director Jafar Panahi, and Iran's leading female film-maker, Rakhshan Bani Etemad. -- The Associated Press said that Ebadi "also stressed that the issue should not be left to only politicians. -- 'Decision-making about peace and war is not a restricted right of governments anymore. People also have the right to discuss it,' Ebadi said at the meeting of activists in northern Tehran."[2] -- In a Jun. 20 interview with Inter Press Service, Ebadi called on Iran to stop enriching uranium and stressed that the only "rational" approach to the U.S.-Iran standoff is dialogue and compromise on both sides, and she stressed the mutual interest both sides have in a peaceful solution: "About two million Iranians live in the U.S. They are good citizens for the U.S. and in their trade, commerce, and education, they comprise a successful minority group in the U.S. If each one of these people has five relatives in Iran, you can easily estimate the number of people interested in normalized relations between Iran and the U.S. The relationship between the two nations has always been peaceful. We can forget our governments and continue our friendship."[3] -- On the web site Iran Nuclear Watch, Carol Ong posted a statement from the Nobel Women's Initiative supporting the council; the statement said that "military action will not resolve any of the outstanding and far-reaching issues between the U.S. and Iran" and affirmed, against "the Bush administration's posturing towards Iran," that "[m]ilitary action against Iran will only exacerbate the situation, bringing further chaos to the region and worsening the situation for human rights and democracy."[4] ...

TEHRAN -- Nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi warned the West on Thursday against launching a military attack against Iran or imposing economic sanctions over its contested nuclear programme.

"We not only are against military action on Iran but are also against economic sanctions," Ebadi said in a speech in Tehran.

"They would spread destitution in Iran and we will do our best to prevent this disaster occurring," the 2003 Nobel peace prize winner said, according to a transcript of her speech.

Her address marked the formation of a "National Peace Council" of around 70 dissident Iranian politicians, social activists, and intellectuals.

The list of people who signed on as founding members of the council included figures like Ibrahim Yazdi, head of the outlawed but tolerated Freedom Movement and Hashem Aghajari, who was sentenced to death but pardoned for apostasy.

Also included is the film director Jafar Panahi, winner of the top prizes at the Berlin and Venice film festivals and Iran's leading female film-maker Rakhshan Bani Etemad.

"We must have a society with a sustainable peace and we should avoid being in a situation where there is no war but also no peace," Ebadi said.

Ebadi's call and the formation of the council come at a time when U.S. President George W. Bush has said that "military options remain on the table" in the five-year nuclear standoff with the West.

Iran has rejected Western charges it is seeking a nuclear weapon and has warned any military aggression against its soil will be met with the fiercest response.

[PHOTO CAPTION: Iranian Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi delivers a speech at the launch of a new anti-war group that she helped to create in hopes of averting an Iranian-U.S. conflict, Thursday, July 3, 2008, Tehran, Iran. Ebadi called on Iran and the United States on Thursday to find a peaceful resolution to the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, warning that military action would harm both countries' people.]

[PHOTO CAPTION: Iranian Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi attends the launching of a new anti-war group that she helped to create in hopes of averting an Iranian-U.S. conflict, Thursday, July 3, 2008, Tehran, Iran. Ebadi called on Iran and the United States on Thursday to find a peaceful resolution to the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, warning that military action would harm both countries' people.]

TEHRAN, Iran -- Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi urged Iran and the United States on Thursday to find a peaceful resolution to the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, warning that military action would harm both countries' people.

Ebadi, who won the peace prize in 2003 for her work advocating greater rights for women and children in Iran, spoke at the launching of a new anti-war group that she helped create in hope of averting an Iranian-U.S. conflict.

There have been growing worries that the conflict between Iran and the West over Tehran's nuclear program could broaden into a more violent crisis. Speculation also has mounted in recent days that Israel may be considering a unilateral military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Ebadi warned against any military action and further economic sanctions against Iran, saying both would just hurt ordinary people and accelerate the flight of Iran's most educated and skilled professionals.

"We expect Iran and U.S. to settle their disputes through negotiation. This is in the interests of both the Iranian and American people," she said.

Ebadi, who [became] one of Iran's first female judges before the country's 1979 Islamic Revolution, also stressed that the issue should not be left to only politicians.

"Decision-making about peace and war is not a restricted right of governments anymore. People also have the right to discuss it," Ebadi said at the meeting of activists in northern Tehran.

Ebadi, who is now an attorney, helped form the National Council of Peace in response to the possibility of a strike on Iran over its nuclear program. Iran says that program is for peaceful purposes, but Western powers claim they suspect its true aim is to develop nuclear weapons.

Last month, the U.S. and its partners offered a package to Iran that included assistance for its civil nuclear program and development aid in exchange for an agreement by Tehran to end nuclear enrichment. Iran says it is still reviewing the package, but it has repeatedly refused to stop enrichment.

Though the U.S. says it favors a diplomatic solution, both Washington and Israel have refused to rule out the use of force.

In 1981, an Israeli air attack destroyed an unfinished nuclear reactor in Iraq, while a strike on a suspected nuclear facility in Syria in September added to the concern that Israel is planning action against Iran.

Iran's top diplomat Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki predicted Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk the "craziness" of attacking his country and possibly provoking a wider Middle East war.

During the group's meeting, one of the activists, Ataollah Shirazi, said the war in neighboring Iraq has added to the fears of military action in Iran.

The European Union last month imposed new sanctions targeting the country's largest bank, Bank Melli.

Iran says it is still reviewing an offer of trade and economic incentives by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council as well as Germany. The package is meant to persuade Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

"NEGLECTING DEMOCRACY IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS"
By Omid Memarian

UNITED NATIONS -- While the United States and Britain are talking about tougher sanctions on Iran, including sanctions on its gas and oil industry -- Tehran's major source of revenue -- Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Noble Peace Prize laureate and international human rights defender, argues that this tactic has not weakened the government, but the Iranian people.

Last week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown assured U.S. President George W. Bush of the European Union's intention to review new sanctions, adding to pressure on Tehran to halt enriching uranium.

Iran has not yet responded to the incentives package offered by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and has ignored U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that it suspend enriching uranium.

In an interview with IPS correspondent Omid Memarian, Ebadi said that Iran should respect the U.N. resolutions and stop enriching uranium to gain the international community's trust. However, she also believes that any preemptive military strike against Iran by the United States would be a violation of international law.

IPS: As Iran's most prominent human rights advocate, what are the options regarding Tehran's insistence on enriching uranium and the United States' precondition of halting enrichment to start negotiations?

SE: Both the Iranian and American governments should respect United Nations Security Council's resolutions and international laws and act according to those directives. This means that Iran should heed the UNSC's resolutions and suspend uranium enrichment to receive international trust. The United States must also be aware that preemptive strikes are against international laws. The U.S. government cannot use any excuse for a military strike against Iran, such as was done in Iraq. We constantly hear from U.S. officials that "all options, including a military attack on Iran, are on the table," and this really worries the Iranian people.

IPS: How far do you think the Iranian government will go to pursue its nuclear program?

SE: I don't reject the right to peaceful nuclear technology for any country, including Iran. The question, however, is whether we can put a wall around Iran and say we want nothing to do with the rest of the world. The answer is no. We have to cooperate in the international arena and this cooperation demands us to respect international laws and to accept U.N. Security Council resolutions.

IPS: Would accepting the West's proposed incentives package help build trust between Iran and the West?

SE: I believe accepting the UNSC's resolutions will help Iran to improve its relations with the U.S. and Europe on an international level. I believe this will eliminate dangers posed by warmongers.

IPS: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has tried to make Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear energy a matter of national pride. On the other hand, the West looks at Iran's program as a threat to the world's security. How can this crisis come to an end that satisfies both sides?

SE: The Iranian people are paying for the costs of persistence on the nuclear program, not the government. Economic sanctions have affected Iran adversely, hurting people in the process who are tired of economic pressure. Without any desire to take sides in U.S. politics, I would like to say a war and military threats against Iran will not solve the U.S-Iran crisis. A rational conclusion can only be reached through dialogue and diplomatic negotiations.

IPS: So far, two options have been discussed by the Republican and Democratic candidates: direct talks with Iranian leaders and increased economic sanctions, and if this fails, a military attack on Iran. Which option do you believe realistically addresses the prevailing conditions of Iran and the Middle East?

SE: I believe negotiations must be conducted directly and publicly at the civil society, parliamentary, and heads of state levels, aiming to reach a comprehensive compromise on Iran's nuclear program and defend human and democratic rights as well. It appears that the United States is preoccupied with its own security concerns in addressing the nuclear issue negotiations with the Iranian government, ignoring human rights in Iran. This forgotten element has caused a serious regression in the situation of human rights in Iran over the past years.

IPS: To what extent will direct talks with Iranian leaders put an end to the West's concerns, or it will be an irrational and futile effort?

SE: It all depends on whether the leaders of these countries have reached the point of rational decision-making about whether a war would solve their problems or not. When signs of rational thinking are visible among the leaders, a peaceful resolution will be found.

SE: Rational thinking is measured at a given moment. I mean that in one moment everything can change entirely. To borrow a soccer analogy about the question, I should say politics has a 90th minute, too. It is possible for things to change in favour of both nations in the 90th minute. I hope this to be the case, but if things continue on the same path as they are going today, I don't anticipate pleasant results.

IPS: When you talk to people, do you hear that Iranians want a normalization of relations between the U.S. and Iran?

SE: They believe this will [positively] affect their livelihood. About two million Iranians live in the U.S. They are good citizens for the U.S. and in their trade, commerce, and education, they comprise a successful minority group in the U.S. If each one of these people has five relatives in Iran, you can easily estimate the number of people interested in normalized relations between Iran and the U.S. The relationship between the two nations has always been peaceful. We can forget our governments and continue our friendship.

IPS: What do you think will happen if Iran does not accept the Europeans' incentive package?

SE: If the Iranian government does not obey the UNSC's resolutions, they will naturally have to withstand the international legal ramifications, one of which is intensified economic sanctions, and this is not in the best interests of the Iranian people.

IPS: Are Iranian people aware of those options vis-à-vis the Iranian nuclear issue and how much each of those options may cost them?

SE: One of the problems with Iranian politics is that decisions are made in closed rooms and away from public scrutiny, and this is why I say neglecting democracy is a lot more dangerous than owning a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, with the severe censorship at work in Iran, they lack the knowledge and don't know what consequences await them. They can only know when they are privy to the negotiations and decisions. Over the past 29 years, Iranian people have experienced a revolution and a bloody eight-year war with Iraq. They are tired of bloodshed and violence and want a peaceful life. Therefore they would welcome any means towards a peaceful resolution of problems.

IPS: Are you fearful of freely expressing your views? Do you face any problems in view of the threatening phone calls you have reported recently and the prevailing censorship?

SE: Human rights defenders all over the world are exposed to risk, because they can't belong to any political parties or groups and they must address governments while they have no political supporters, representing the silent people. They face risks anywhere in the world. But I must say having lived with these risks for many years now, I have learned not to let such threats affect my direction. I will say what is in the best interests of people and they can be offended or advised by my words.

SE: Death threats are nothing new to me. They started about 12 years ago and they are not only limited to me, as other intellectuals also face it. But as I said, it is our duty to say what is in the best interest of our people.

--Omid Memarian is World Peace Fellow at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism and a regular contributor to IPS.

The National Peace Council was formally launched on July 3, 2008 in Iran by Shirin Ebadi and more than 60 other prominent intellectuals, academics, dissidents, and human rights defenders to advocate a peaceful solution to the current standoff between Iran and the United States.

Below is a statement of support from the Nobel Women’s Initiative. The *International Herald Tribune* and Associated Press also ran articles on the launch of the National Peace Council.

We six women Laureates of the Nobel Women’s Initiative (NWI) express our support for the National Peace Council in Iran. Spurred by increasing concerns over the possibility of military attacks on Iran and the consequences for the human security of the Iranian people, the National Peace Council was founded by prominent Iranian intellectuals, academics, dissidents, and human rights defenders to advocate a peaceful solution to the current standoff between Iran and the United States. We join with the National Peace Council in opposing any military action or threats of military action against Iran and in demanding a negotiated resolution to the crisis.

With the threat of war more imminent than ever, Nobel Women’s Initiative believes it is imperative for the international community to support the National Peace Council and efforts of the peace movement inside of Iran as they take a more visible and vocal stand against those both at home and abroad who threaten or advocate military confrontation.

We believe that military action will not resolve any of the outstanding and far-reaching issues between the U.S. and Iran. Military action against Iran will only exacerbate the situation, bringing further chaos to the region and worsening the situation for human rights and democracy. Nobel Women’s Initiative shares the concerns of the National Peace Council that military attacks would have staggering humanitarian, economic, and political consequences for the peoples of Iran and the U.S.

We believe U.S. threats of military attacks, regime change, isolation, and sanctions against Iran are counterproductive to the cause of democracy and human rights in Iran. Iranian authorities have used the Bush administration's posturing towards Iran as a pretext to clamp down on Iran's civil society with extensive arrests and prosecutions. Scores of women's rights activists and human rights defenders in Iran have been summoned, arrested, and sentenced on charges for threatening “national security.” A military attack on Iran would only further deteriorate the situation for women’s rights activists and human rights defenders.

Instead of threatening military action, sanctions, and regime change, we urge the U.S. to drop all preconditions and engage with Iran in comprehensive negotiations on the broad range of outstanding issues between the two countries. Nobel Women’s Initiative also supports the National Peace Council as they call on their own government to engage with the U.S. in comprehensive negotiations for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.