The re-election victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be disputed, but what is not in doubt is the sheer extent of the challenges that the Iranian leader faces in his second term. In the last four years the economy has languished despite strong oil prices and foreign currency reserves put at some $97 billion. In part this has been due to the inefficiency of state companies that dominate the economy. However, his administration’s mismanagement has gone further. Inflation approached 30 percent last November and constant price rises have hit ordinary people hard. The introduction of a value added tax last year did not ease the burden. The Central Bank has pledged to cut the rate to 15 percent but even local economists predict this will be a challenge without fundamental reforms.
It was widespread dissatisfaction with ever-rising prices that caused Ahmadinejad’s presidential challengers to believe that voter sentiment was swinging their way. In his second term of office, the president, therefore, needs to give the economy his utmost attention.
He also needs to be more forthright on his country’s nuclear energy program. Playing cat and mouse with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the world community has been a misguided strategy. If Iran has, as it says, nothing to hide by way of nuclear weapons program, then the sooner the IAEA can confirm this, the better.
Nor should Ahmadinejad continue with his often-provocative language toward the international community and the United States in particular. The time for standoff has passed. Ahmadinejad should use his new mandate as an opportunity to relaunch his foreign policy in altogether more measured and moderate terms. The series of disputes with Gulf states deserve to be addressed seriously in a spirit of negotiation, not confrontation. Ahmadinejad would do well to reflect that there is already enough tension in the region without his adding to it with inflammatory statements. That he is capable of moderation has been demonstrated by his agreement to help rein in Iraq’s Shiite militias and so help restore some semblance of peace to that shattered country. Now he needs to deploy his statesmanship on behalf of the Lebanese and Palestinians. President Obama’s overtures to Iran were reinforced yesterday by his Middle East envoy George Mitchell in Damascus. Mitchell said that Syria, Iran’s ally, had a key role to play in the peace process. By extension Washington is clear that Iran does as well.
If Ahmadinejad merely uses Obama’s professed “open hand” as an opportunity to make mischief and assert Iranian influence for its own sake alone, he will be sacrificing what seems to be the best-ever opportunity for a just and honorable Palestinian settlement. In every political career there comes a time to take stock and adjust. Both at home, with Iran’s addled economy and in the region as a whole, Ahmadinejad should be thinking how he can use his new mandate not just for the benefit of Iran but for the good of the whole Middle East, which will in turn redound to his and his country’s credit.
Shell settles with Nigerian tribe
LA Times yesterday commented on a dispute between Royal Dutch Shell and a Nigerian tribe, saying in part:
After 13 years of litigation, Shell has agreed to settle with plaintiffs who accused the oil giant of complicity in human rights abuses in Nigeria, the most infamous of which was the execution of prominent playwright, author and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. A member of the Ogoni tribe, Saro-Wiwa was a vocal critic of Shell and the brutal military government of Gen. Sani Abacha. His eloquence brought international attention to Shell’s questionable environmental practices in the Niger River delta and the government’s lax regulation of environmental laws. The oil giant insists the $15.5 million award is a humanitarian gesture
Oil production in Ogoniland started in the 1950s, and what followed is a now predictable pattern in many oil-producing countries: Corrupt government officials enriched themselves; the local population was marginalized politically, and their ancestral land suffered enormous environmental damage. Led by Saro-Wiwa, the Ogoni demanded an end to oil spills and to the clearing of mangrove forests to make way for Shell pipelines, as well as a share of oil revenues. The government responded by burning villages and raping and murdering residents, according to human rights groups. Saro-Wiwa was arrested, tried in secret and, along with eight other Ogoni leaders, hanged. The suit against Shell, brought by the families of Ogoni victims of persecution, including Saro-Wiwa’s son, alleged that the company asked the military regime to silence the activist and that it paid soldiers who carried out human rights abuses. Shell has adamantly denied those charges. The settlement, it maintains, is a humanitarian gesture meant to facilitate reconciliation. Shell casts the settlement as a gesture of goodwill, and the plaintiffs are celebrating what they consider a complete victory. And at least one-third of the money will go to a trust for the Ogoni people.
