'Post-heroic' Europe and the struggle in Iran

The tension between idealistic and self-interested behaviour has long been a focus for those who study the foreign relations of the European Union. Political scientists have proposed that the EU is (or should be) a ‘normative power' which exerts influence on the world through the power of its ideals and its example.

Yet, in reality, when idealism and self-interest clash the latter tends to win out. This is hardly surprising as the European Union is an institution that reflects the nature of the society it governs.

We live in a relatively apathetic and apolitical continent. Turnout for the recent European Parliament elections was the lowest yet and national turnout is not much better in many countries. The most animated forces are the eurosceptics, many of whom seem to want to go back to the 19th century.

Despite these voices, and social unrest brought on by the credit crunch, Europe is essentially stable. Jan-Werner Müller has labelled contemporary Europe a ‘post-heroic' society. It has passed through its violent history of great wars and passions, it has settled political and ideological frameworks, and it is prosperous, individualist, and a little dull.

Maelstrom of history

‘Who would die for Europe?' Anthony Smith famously asked. This is not an entirely bad thing, the EU may be dull but it is safe, and – although society is far too unequal – it offers a high quality of life for most of its citizens. Also, if no one would die for Europe, probably no one would kill for it either.

However, just beyond the EU's borders people are still very much in the maelstrom of history as they try to shape their own destiny. The events unfolding in Iran since the disputed election of June 13th sharply illustrate this reality, and the contrast between their world and what one right wing American called ‘our cosy arrogant community'. People around the world have been struck by the courage of the ordinary Iranians who demonstrated their willingness to struggle to preserve what little democracy they had, and their opposition to an election that lacked credibility.

One striking and under-publicised incident occurred when ordinary members of the army refused to take part in the repression which took place after the Supreme Leader called for a halt to the demonstrations on the 29th of June. Reports have emerged that in Esfahan, Tabriz and Tehran itself over a thousand army regulars either deserted or refused to follow orders to assist the crack-down against the popular protests. As a result the latter were thrown in prison where many still languish.

These people are heroes for taking personal conscience and true patriotism above their own self-interest and their chain of command. ‘I was just following orders' was the famous excuse of Nazi operatives at the Nuremburg trials, where it was rejected. But it has often been a convenient excuse for immoral behaviour, and it takes considerable courage to stand up to authority in any country, especially a state such as Iran. The risks that these conscientious objectors or ‘refuseniks' took were enormous and many of them may pay dearly. Meanwhile low key protests continue in Iran and there are efforts to revive the demonstrations, although the response from the government would be very harsh.

What role for technocratic Europe?

What, if any, role can our post-heroic, technocratic EU play in this drama? In general the EU has tended to be more proactive in promoting human rights and democracy in relatively weak and aid-dependent African countries rather than major geopolitical powers like Iran.

What could it do? It certainly carries less historical baggage than the US and the UK carry in Iran. The EU is also Iran's number one trading partner. However it does not have an institutionalised relationship: there are no trade and cooperation agreements, no joint councils and the only general EU-Iranian dialogue faded some time ago.

Also any action by the EU would be portrayed as imperialist interference and the nuclear question renders the situation even more delicate. In reality there is not a great deal that EU can immediately do, although it can certainly ignore the Iranian Chief of Staff's statement that it needs to apologise for its (very mild) statements of concern.

Members of the United Nations cannot expect to conduct their internal affairs free from any outside comments. While the EU has to continue negotiating over the nuclear issue, and may even offer inducements with regard to energy supply, no broader economic relationship should be offered while the regime is on its current trajectory.

What can ordinary people and civil society in Europe do? They can show solidarity in different ways. NGOs could offer technical assistance to the opposition movement (particularly regarding communications). Iran does have commercial interests in Europe, mostly in the energy sector. While boycotts are a crude instrument, and Iranian imports are not consumer items, if the regime continues on its path the kind of pressure that has been put on Israeli companies and their partners could be applied.

Some may rightly ask why this focus should be on Iran while there are many other undemocratic countries in the region. The point is the difference between countries that have never developed democratic institutions and a regime that is backsliding from the democratic institutions in place.

Most experts argue that the struggle for power in Iran is likely to be a long-term affair. Even if outsiders cannot play a role in this, we must not forget people in Iran and elsewhere who put their lives on the line for the rights we take for granted. We can learn from them what politics, and democracy, are really about. The conscientious objectors in the Iranian army may pay a high price for their disobedience, but they have shown that an authoritarian state cannot always rely on its foot-soldiers to follow immoral orders, and that is real ‘normative power'.

The writer is Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Plymouth, England