Carl Gershman has been President of the National Endowment for Democracy since 1984.  Mr. Gershman oversees NED’s grant programs in various countries from Africa to the Middle East and Eastern Europe.  Before taking the job at NED, he held various posts at the United Nations, served as the U.S. Representative to the U.N.’s Third Committee that deals with human rights issues, and as Alternate Representative of the U.S. to the U.N. Security Council. NED was formed after Ronald Reagan took office in 1983 to “promote democracy around the world.” NED has not been without controversy. It has critics from both the left and the right who claim that NED supports certain organizations and political parties and candidates with a specific agenda.
 
At a recent event NED offered the Green Movement in Iran an award. Rooz interviewed Carl Gershman in his office in Washington, DC.

 Q-What does NED represent?

-We are both a publicly funded and a non–governmental institution. There was a NED act passed in 1983 by the US congress. It represented a desire by the American people to assist people around the world who share our values regarding human freedom and democracy.

 Q-In your statement in the NED Annual Report, you speak about the Green Revolution. How is NED helping the Iranian struggle for democracy? Don’t you think that this is not a revolution but rather a movement?

 -I agree with that. This is obviously not a revolution because the same government is still in power. This is more like the Solidarity movement that arose in Poland in 1980 as a result of the Gdansk strike. It did not bring about democracy and its rise was followed by a period of repression and turmoil. But it was a mass movement, as is the Green Movement, and eventually it did bring about democracy in Poland as I believe the Green Movement will in Iran.

 Q-Can you compare the two examples of Poland and Iran?  

-Of course there are some similarities. Both countries have experienced the rise of mass movements towards democracy, movements seeking to give people a voice, to have dignity. These are movements that are demanding a more open and democratic society.

 Q-A lot of Iranians might say, well we had a democracy between 1951- 1953 and foreign powers, namely the US and Great Britain interfered and brought down a democratic government. What would you say to that?  

-That was before my time. I think the Iranians are asking for democracy today. And they hope to receive moral support from this country, and they should.

 Q-People who read this interview may want to know what the scope is of the work NED is doing around the world. NED, as I saw in your booklet, funds many organizations and NGO’s in different countries. As an example in Kyrgyzstan where according to news reports, there is civil and a thousand people have been killed so far. Do you think it is possible to attain democracy in countries without a functioning civil society or where oppression and sectarian divisions and corruption are rampant?  

-Democracy is not a single end state; some kind of idyllic state that somehow people achieve. Even in our own country, when we started with the revolution against the British in 1776 followed by the adoption of our constitution in 1787, women didn’t have the right to vote and we had slavery. It was a long struggle for full democracy. We had a civil war in the 1860s. The county had 30 million people at the time and almost a million died in that war. And though slavery was abolished, it took another hundred years for blacks to achieve equality. In seven of our states in the deep South there was a system called Jim Crow where blacks were segregated and effectively denied the right to vote. Then the Civil Rights Movement took place which led to the voting rights act in 1964 and the equal employment opportunity act in 1965.  But even after that we had race riots, the worst riots in our country’s history. What does that say? It says that the struggle for democracy is a long and a difficult process. We were able to do it, so why can’t other countries do it? Why can’t people in Kyrgyzstan do it?

 Q-You mention that in Russia, autocratic tendencies are very much alive. There is corruption, alcoholism, its economy is dysfunctional and diseases such as AIDS are widespread. We also know that anyone who speaks out against the government and especially against Putin runs the risk of being imprisoned or even murdered. Do you believe that Russia is better off today than it was under communism? Why or why not?  

-Under Stalin?

 Q-No I don’t mean under Stalin; let’s say under Gorbachev?  

-Of course it is better. Gorbachev was the last phase of communism, but the period of the collapse of the communist system was not a permanent condition. Frankly, at that time Gorbachev was not wanted by the people. He was tied to a system that could not be reformed and that eventually collapsed. Are they better off? Ask the Russians. Change has been difficult, and there may be some people who yearn for the ancien regime. But is it better that Russia is no longer a totalitarian system? Yes, I think it is much better. But again it is part of a process. It’s one step at a time. Russia is a country that had an authoritarian system under the Tsars.  Before the 1917 Revolution there was the beginning of a movement toward a more open society and closer ties to the West. They freed the serfs. They were beginning to develop a more modern economy.  And then came the 1917 Revolution that closed all that off, like the Iranian Revolution closed off a possible opening in 1979.   In the Soviet Union the 1917 Revolution was followed by a horrendous period of Stalinism when millions of people were killed, sent to the Gulag and millions more were murdered. It was a disastrous period, but gradually they came out of that. The 1960’s saw the rise of the dissident movement and eventually communism collapsed. Again, this is part of a historical process. Russia is going through a serious crisis today. It is not just a social and political crisis it is also a demographic one. Russia is a country that is losing its population, 700 to 800 thousand people a year. There are problems of alcoholism and health. They have a very low birth rate. It can’t even replace its population. My view about Russia is that if they concentrated on addressing their internal problems and stopped focusing so much on eliminating any kind of opposition in the Caucasus, they would be better off. Instead of making the problems worse and fighting these nasty wars, they should focus on their own internal problems.
 
 Q-In an editorial in Time magazine, Joe Klein was critical of Senator McCain for his lack of knowledge of Iran and making baseless statements. Up until recently McCain called for an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. Now, he is more for peaceful change. Do you believe that many US policy makers are not aware of the complexities of a country like Iran and in fact are projecting Israel' official line?  According to Klein, even under Ahmadinejad, the Islamic Republic has done some positive for the poor.  

-I have not seen the article. I did not know that Joe Klein was such a specialist on Iran. Does he have a deeper knowledge of Iran than Senator McCain?  Maybe this is just a political disagreement with McCain. My point is that Senator McCain gave a strong speech in embracing the Green movement and calling upon the US to give it more moral support. Obviously Joe Klein differs with that. It is not who knows Iran better. He has a different point of view and this has to do with internal US politics.
 
 Q-My impression is distinctly different when I traveled in Iran five years ago.  I saw a lot of improvement for the poor, from bringing electricity to remote areas to building schools and roads in small villages.   

-That is the line of the Islamic Regime. They give a lot to the poor in order to bring them out to political rallies, but they are not addressing the problems of poverty and corruption. When the Revolution took place, the level of per capita income was the same as in Turkey. Today Turkey is four times ahead of Iran. That is what they have done for the people of Iran. The people of Iran are suffering.  The system of government is corrupt; they are not doing anything for the poor. Obviously they have a populist line and they provide money to the poor, especially during political rallies, but in terms of a systematic effort to help the poor, I don’t think so.

 Q-Do you think Israel influences US policy towards Iran?  

-I don’t even know what you are talking about.
 
Q-Well, the line has been that if need be Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
 
-That is the decision Israel has to make. The United States and Israel are two separate counties.

 Q-This goes back to Senator McCain that at some point he was for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.  

-McCain may have that view. I don’t know. He did not address that in his talk here at NED. But if he has that view that is his own. Why can’t he have a view as a US senator about US foreign policy?

 Q-Wouldn’t that be disastrous for all parties involved?  

-Well, Americans can debate that. There are people with different views on that. I don’t think the Administration shares McCain’s view.

 Q-You mention in your message "George W. Bush’s second Inaugural address and the elevation of the promotion of democracy to a central place in US foreign policy. For a number of reasons, President Obama seems to have stepped back from this expansive vision." Do you believe that the Obama administration is not doing enough to help the democracy movement in Iran?  

-We were gratified that the President sent his representative Samantha Power to the meeting and that she read a statement from President Obama at the award ceremony. She gave a strong statement herself, and she read also a statement from the President.

 Q-The Islamic Republic is sensitive to NED. Your organization just awarded a prize to the movement. Do you not believe that it puts the human rights defenders at risk? They are the ones who are suffering persecution, torture, oppression, etc?  

-Who received that award on behalf of the Green movement?

 Q-I was not there but I think it was Simin Behbahani.  

-Is she a legitimate person in Iran? Is she respected? Obviously she thought it was a good idea.

 Q-Yes of course, absolutely. She is more than respected.  But I think she is one of those people whom you can call untouchable.  

-In other words, she was free to say what she thought.  If she thought it was a bad idea, she would have said so. But she didn’t. She sent a beautiful acceptance statement, and there was also a taped message from her.  My experience over many years in this work is that people want moral support.  During the time of the Soviet Union there were always people here who wanted closer relations with the USSR and who therefore said that supporting human rights was hurting the dissidents. But I never encountered a single human rights activist who said that and who did not want this support. Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Bukovsky. They all wanted our support. And it’s not hard to understand why. The only people who were against it were apologists for the regime.

 Q-Which country has NED been most successful or had the greatest impact?  
-NED is active all over the world. If you look at the Annual Report, which you have, it is hard to pinpoint one place. It is hard to determine what is success? Sometimes it is enough to help stop people from being killed, to help prevent a country from moving in a backward direction. It’s important to support people who are exposed to danger, who are in vulnerable. This coming Wednesday we will hold a memorial forum for Floribert Chibeye, one of our friends from the Congo who was murdered last month. We had been supporting his human rights organization for 20 years. He was our friend. He was called into the police station and shot soon afterwards. He was the most important human rights activist in the Congo. We have supported journalists in Somalia and Russia who are risking their lives.  These are heroic people who have great courage, and I think to support them is important.  Of course we have supported movements of historical significance, like the Solidarity movement in Poland and the Charter 77 movement in Czechoslovakia, and we have also supported the democratic movements in Chile, in South Africa, and in the Philippines.

 Q-In Chile after Allende?  

-Yes, NED only came to existence in 1983, a decade after Allende’s fall. In the 1980’s there was a democratic movement in Chile, and under the Chilean constitution there was a provision requiring a referendum on whether to continue with the Pinochet regime or to hold a free election. We were supporting democrats in Chile, and in the referendum in 1988 they voted for having a free election. We supported groups that monitored that referendum and later the election. In Nigeria, during the period of dictatorship in the 1990s, we supported a lot of NGOs. We kept a lot of people alive during that period -- NGO’s that were supporting human rights and free media, promoting civic organizations and women’s rights, groups that were trying to engage young people as citizens -- so that when the opening came after the death of Abacha they were ready to take advantage of it. In countries around the world you have genuine movements towards democracy at the grassroots level. You have such a genuine movement in Iran today that is now part of the global movement towards democracy. There is now an Iranian partner. I think that is very important.

 Q-This is a two-fold question. A few days ago, I saw a young man in an elevator with his family. He was in a wheel chair having one leg amputated and the other one in a bandage. I saw signs of shrapnel all over the legs. I asked the sister, was he in the war? She nodded yes. According to NPR, the rate of suicide has doubled among the soldiers who return from the war. Millions of Iraqis are refugees or have had to deal with the enormous destruction of their country. The Washington Post reported that mental illness due to continuous violence is on the rise in Iraq. Was it worth it?  

-Look, the NED is not a policy making institution. As you know we are a bi-partisan or non-partisan institution.  We don’t get involved in policy discussions. But of course the loss of life is terrible. But remember that there was an enormous loss of life in Iraq under Saddam Hussein as well. There were hundreds of thousands of people who were murdered. We should be concerned about that as well.

 Q-I know NED is not a policy making institution but don't you think that the situation in Mexico is much more urgent with all the murder, mayhem and corruption that are taking place on a daily basis. Don't you think that it is much more pressing for the US and an organization such as yours to address this, being so close to home than a place like Cuba where there is relative stability even if there is no democracy?

-As our neighbor, Mexico is of course a gigantic issue for the US. It is a country that has serious crime problems and it is one of many countries with drug problems. The US tries to be helpful through the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example, and in its own way, NED supports groups that are active in opening up the society, in monitoring the government and corruption. For seventy years, until the 1990s, Mexico had a one-party system, and the groups we support have helped Mexico make a transition to a more pluralistic system. Cuba is a harsh dictatorship, and they are very tough with dissidents. But there is a real democracy movement there now. The Varela Project led by Oswaldo Paya is a case in point.  The Cuban Constitution says that if 10,000 people sign a petition calling for a particular action the National Assembly has to act upon that. Even though Cuba is tightly controlled, Paya was able to get 30,000 citizens to sign a petition calling free elections and the release of political prisoners.  But the petition wasn’t accepted, and immediately after it was presented 75 dissidents were arrested. Most of them are still in prison. As we speak, the Cardinal Jaime Ortega, the Archbishop of Havana, is negotiating with the government to secure the release of these prisoners. In April, Cardinal Ortega gave an interview in which he said Cuba is suffering a deep economic crisis and a crisis of civil society. Cuba needs to find a way out of this crisis.  And there is now a movement at the grassroots that is fighting for change: workers and young people, the Damas De Blanco (Women in White), who march every Sunday to secure the release of political prisoners. They are being harassed, as such people are in Iran. They send out thugs to harass these women. But there is a process that is beginning. Believe me, people in Cuba don’t want dictatorship anymore than they do in Iran. In both cases the government says, “We have stability and change will bring about instability.”  But the people who rule such dictatorships always say that.  People want freedom and dignity. Sometimes dictatorial regimes make a deal with the people and say, “Look we will give you economic growth and opportunity if you will just accept slavery.” But that arrangement doesn’t work because people want freedom and dictatorships tend not to be economically successful.  As Lord Acton once said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” These dictatorships become deeply corrupt.  People want voice and dignity, and slavery does not give people dignity. The only question is whether people who are struggling for freedom should receive moral support and some modest technical support, or should they be abandoned. The NED exists to give that support.  We share their values, embracing freedom and working for it through non-violence.  If you want a different kind of system which is based on human rights, pluralism, the idea that nobody has access to the full truth, then the only answer is democracy. It gives people a peaceful way of resolving their differences. Democracy is based upon the notion that nobody has the full truth. And I regret to say that the Islamic Republic is based upon the notion that the rulers have the whole truth. I think the dissidents in Iran have proven otherwise. They remind me of what Vaclav Havel said when he was a dissident, before he became the President of Czechoslovakia.  He said that the dissidents were living in truth because they were challenging a system where the center of power was also the center of truth.  The Iranian dissidents are living in truth because they are challenging such a system in their desire for pluralism.
 
Q-You don’t think democracy should try to eliminate poverty?  

-Studies have shown that countries that have democracy tend to do better in lifting people out of poverty than countries that are not democratic. As Amartya Sen has said, democracy does have this instrumental purpose.  It requires leaders to adopt intelligent policies if they are to retain the support of the voters. This doesn’t automatically mean that democracy will produce economic equality. But it introduces the principle of accountability.

 Q-What about the current crisis in the US?  Don’t you think that a democracy such as this can face major crisis both socially and economically if it does not pay attention to detail as we see today?  

-The advantage of democracy is that with a free press, independent judiciary and civil society, free elections and all the other aspects of democracy and democratic accountability, it has the capacity for self-correction when crises occur.  Autocratic systems don’t have that capacity, which is why there is a greater likelihood that they will break down as crises intensify.
 
 Q-As President of NED, what would you like to see happen in Iran? How can the US and Iran find common ground?  

-The US has much better relations with countries that are democratic than with countries that are not democratic. We had awful relations with South Africa when South Africa was lived under Apartheid because Americans couldn’t accept Apartheid.  It was an obstacle to a close relationship with South Africa.  During the Pinochet regime in Chile, there was great tension between our two countries because there was a large part of our country and congress that was very much against the dictatorship in Chile. Once Chile became a democracy we had wonderful relations. If Iran becomes a democracy I have absolutely no doubt that Iran and the US will have friendly and close relations based on shared values. This will make it possible to have much deeper people to people contacts.