Iran Lobbies Over Rights Forum
Mohammad javad Larijani, the Head of Iran's Human Rights Delegation in Geneva
26 Feb 10 -Denying rights abuses could prove costly for Tehran, both economically and politically.
Iranian activists have viewed with anger and dismay the outcome of a United Nations review of human rights in Iran and the country’s rejection of its recommendations.
Iran attracted criticism from the West over a lack of freedom of speech and assembly and the position of religious minorities like the Bahais at the routine session in Geneva on February 15 of the UN Human Rights Council. In its reaction to the session, Iran accepted some recommendations but rejected a range of calls to clean up its record and to allow UN human rights and torture inspectors to visit. The UN has no powers to adopt resolutions or enforce any measures raised at the session, called a Universal Periodic Review, UPR.Already marginalised, Iran appears to have no reason to care about its international image, say analysts. However, some believe that it might not care to be seen next to the governments of some states with notorious human rights records like North Korea, Burma and even China and the path chosen by the Iranian government in Geneva could prove risky.
Analysts say Iran sees human rights as a political and ideological battleground with the West and for that reason puts intensive effort into making alliances to counter the West at the UN forum.
The Iranian delegation led by Mohammad Javad Larijani, secretary-general of state’s High Council for Human Rights, reserved its response on 20 recommendations but rejected 45, mainly those related to the country’s major human rights challenges over the past three decades and particularly since the June 12 presidential elections.
Iran’s reaction to the recommendations, calling its critics an “organised clique”, was predictable.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, western countries have frequently used international platforms to criticise the Iranian government for its human rights record. Iran has framed such criticism as a part of western countries’ political fight with it and has never shown any sign of caring about its international obligations.
It has, however, been putting considerable effort into lobbying countries to side with it in international forums and thus ease the political pressure. This resulted in a number speaking in favour of Tehran at the Geneva meeting, including Venezuela, Kuwait, Cuba, China and Russia, all of which have a close political and economic relationship with Tehran.
An Iranian NGO member who was in Geneva for the meeting, and asked to remain anonymous, told IWPR that Iranian diplomats have done an intensive lobbying job.
“Over the past four months there have been dozens of meetings with those countries which share strategic economic, ideological and political interests with Iran to ridicule the Human Rights Council,” he said. “It was so confusing and even funny to see some countries harshly criticise Iran while others praised its human rights and asked Tehran to share its experience on how to improve conditions in other countries.”
One ambassador who spoke in favour of Iran told IWPR in Geneva that his country’s vote was based on the two countries’ political relationship. “The UN is not like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. Every vote is designed and calculated precisely towards the countries’ national interests, which might be political or economic,” he said.
“This is not just about the countries of the south. Even the United States and some western countries use such calculations and that’s why countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which do not enjoy brilliant human rights, always get a free ride in international venues because of their relations with the United States and western countries.”
Iran’s lawmakers last November allocated 20 million US dollars to investigate what they called “gross violations of human rights by Britain and the United States”, Iran’s state-owned English language Press TV reported.
The bill in the Iranian parliament (Majlis) earmarked the money from its Oil Stabilisation Fund and made human rights a new front in the fight with the West along with the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme and Tehran’s alleged support of terrorism in the Middle East.
Seeking to deflect attention from western countries’ criticism, Larijani in his closing remarks at Geneva referred to the US’s double standards and accused Washington of acting selectively on human rights issues. “We should pay attention to cultural and historical values and the roles these cultures play in human rights,” Larijani said.
Some of the claims made by Larijani and his 32-member delegation were viewed with disbelief by members of the Iranian opposition and human rights activists.
Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement, “Tehran’s response to the UPR session contradicts the reality facing thousands of Iranians wishing to exercise their fundamental rights … The government’s denials show that without strong international pressure on Tehran, human rights abuses will continue.”
The UPR is applied to all UN members in rotation but in Iran’s case comes as it is under the spotlight following a period of unrest since last June’s re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which the opposition says was fraudulent. The Green Movement that arose out of that opposition has been violently crushed by the authorities when it has demonstrated.
Critics say hundreds of Iranian journalists, activists, students and members of the Bahai community are in prison and Iran executes the second largest number of people in the world.
Larijani said in Geneva that no one in Iran is detained or prosecuted for defending human rights and that such cases that were pursued involve charges of terrorism or espionage.
One Iranian delegate, Ali Raeisol-Sadati, deputy minister of justice, in response to criticism of Iran’s excessive use of capital punishment, said the death penalty is reserved “only for the most serious crimes”.
However, just a week before the UN meeting, a 20-year-old student named Mohammad Amin Valian was charged with moharebeh, or enmity towards God, which is punishable by death. According to human rights organisations, the only evidence against him was a photograph of him throwing a stone during protests on the holy day of Ashura last December. In court, he admitted throwing three stones but said he did not hit anyone or anything. He is one of at least 11 post-election protesters who have been sentenced to death.
A member of the Larijani delegation from the interior ministry said that freedom of assembly is fully respected in Iran and annually more than 5,000 demonstration permits are issued.
However, opposition candidates Mehdi Karroubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi have both said they cannot get permits for their supporters to assemble and peaceful protesters have been clubbed, beaten, and even gunned down in the streets since June. The government has admitted to at least 42 deaths on the streets since June not including those killed under torture inside prisons.
Members of the Mourning Mothers who hold vigils on Saturdays in Tehran’s Laleh Park are often detained and beaten by security forces; opponents say this is a clear case where freedom of assembly is disallowed and an indication that the government is actually afraid of its own people by not letting even these mostly elderly women demonstrate peacefully.
Larijani’s presence in Geneva to defend the hardline government’s human rights record was seen by the opposition as signalling to those inside and outside Iran that the country is determined to continue its crackdown and ignore its international obligations and the concern of millions of people around the world.
It will not only deepen the mistrust towards the government in Tehran but could also pave the way for world powers to use Iran’s recklessness in this area as an excuse to push their agenda in other areas like the nuclear issue and Iran’s regional and international role.
If so, Iran’s calculated decision to distort the truth over the post-election violence could prove costly, both economically and politically.
Omid Memarian is an Iranian journalist and blogger based in San Francisco.
February 26, 2010 1 Comment
How to Help the Three American “Hikers” Come Home Soon
HuffPo-The Iranian government has announced that they will try the three American citizens who strayed across an unmarked border into Iran in late July. But the question remains how can the U.S. government help free them? And what should the families do to make this perplexing story be over?Considering similar patterns in the past, it’s almost clear that the three young adventurists are not spies. In fact, if the Iranian authorities had any evidence in this regards, they would have presented it months ago in a public trial to embarrass the U.S. government; something they thrive on.
At this time the families are facing two scenarios.First, the three Americans, Sarah E. Shourd, 31; her boyfriend, Shane M. Bauer, 27; and their friend, Joshua F. Fattal, 27 will be released soon. It’s likely that the Iranian Judiciary will sentence them to a few years in prison, similar to what happened to Roxana Saberi last year in a show trial, and then shortly after, they will release them on a humanitarian basis, showing its good will towards the American people.
The families could push this scenario by making the case a “personal” and “humanitarian case” rather than a political case. That said, the more the families ask for help from the Obama administration, the less they will get from Tehran. In fact, expecting the Obama administration to do any good to this case is like expecting Ahmadinejad to drink apple martinis in his Tehran office.
The more the families push the political button, the more they push the Iranian government to consider the second scenario; using the three Americans in prison as bargaining chips or a mockery of Washington’s vulnerability towards Tehran’s defiance; making the case more perplexing than it is now.
And why should Iran rely on what the secretary of the state Hillary Clinton or President Obama say about those three “hikers”? The Iranian leaders see no difference between President Bush and President Obama, as one hardline newspaper in Tehran put it a while ago; “Obama is George Bush with a black mask.”
Despite Barack Obama’s positive gesture towards Tehran since his 2008 campaign, Washington is getting ready to put more sanctions on Iran, and the possibility of conducting a military strike against Iran’s nuclear plants is increasing. Whether it’s solely to show a strong face to the defiant Ahmadinejad, to bluff, or an actual reality, the idea of stopping Iran’s nuclear program at any cost is being heard more and more in Washington.
Also, unlike the three Americans whose arrests were based on illegal entrance into Iran, in 2007, four Iranian diplomats were captured in Northern Iraq and released a year later without any explanation as to why they were arrested in the first place. If they were terrorists or criminals, why were they released? Remember, those four diplomats never entered into the U.S. illegally.
Moreover, while the U.S. media continuously calls the three Americans ” the hikers“, considering all the continuous post-revolution hostility between the two governments, why should Iranians believe that they are just “hikers” in the first place? Who has ever been picked out of the Iranian-Iraqi border of Kurdistan for hiking; a place that has been the battle -ground of Kurdish opposition with Iranian soldiers and a haven for human smugglers?
A review of Seymour Hersh’s pieces in the New Yorker over the past years suggests that the U.S. sends its agents to the Western borders of Iran, and put their feet into the shoes of the paranoid Iranian intelligence who believes everybody entering Iran, legally or illegally, is a spy until proven otherwise.
There is no doubt that the Iranian government should allow these three young Americans access to lawyers, and more importantly, allow them talk to their parents regularly and release them on bail until the trial; a free and fair trial that meets all international standards. But in order to make the first scenario happen, the families of Shourd, Shane and Fattal, should try to go to Iran instead of Washington to ask for help.
The three mothers should apply for visas, go to Tehran, and stay there until the release of their children. The Iranian government can try those in prison, but cannot prevent their families from seeing them and speaking to them. It will not be surprising if they were to meet Mahmoud AHmadinejad in Tehran, a man who is addicted to publicity, and have him free them immediately, just as was the case with the 15 British sailors in 2007.
The paranoid Iranian government has every reason to keep all three of them for longer than they already have. But let’s remember, at this time, the image of Tehran has been damaged dramatically from the post elections crackdowns. Yet there may be wise people in the Ahmadinejad’s administration who desperately want to show that the government is humane and has good will. If there is a way with the Iranian government that works, this is it.
December 16, 2009 1 Comment
NYTimes: “Top Reformers Admitted Plot, Iran Declares”
Michael Slackman has written a piece about the story of the alleged confessions by the Iranian reformists politicians in the New York Times today. Although, many of these prisoners have not contacted their families for more than two weeks, some of the ranking Iranian officials have claimed that they have confessed to their wrongdoings in the prison. It shows how those people are under a huge pressure. (Read the article here)CAIRO — Iranian leaders say they have obtained confessions from top reformist officials that they plotted to bring down the government with a “velvet” revolution. Such confessions, almost always extracted under duress, are part of an effort to recast the civil unrest set off by Iran’s disputed presidential election as a conspiracy orchestrated by foreign nations, human rights groups say.
Reports on Iranian Web sites associated with prominent conservatives said that leading reformers have confessed to taking velvet revolution “training courses” outside the country. Atef, a Web site of a conservative member of Parliament, referred to a video of Mohammad Ali Abtahi, who served as vice president in the reform government of former President Mohammed Khatami, as showing that he tearfully “welcomed being defrocked and has confessed to provoking people, causing tension and creating media chaos.” …
….The pressure was agonizing, he said, as he was forced to live in a small cell for 35 days with a light burning all the time and only three trips to the bathroom allowed every 24 hours. He was forced to shower in front of a camera, he said. At one point the interrogators threatened to break his fingers.
“They came up with names, and topics,” he said. “They gave me a three-page analysis and said read this and include it in your confession. My interrogator once said, ‘You have written seven years for the reformists; it’s O.K. to write for us for two months.’ ”
Mr. Memarian said that even in 2004, his interrogators were most interested in several leading reformers, including Mr. Abtahi, who at the time was an adviser to the president. When he was finally released, and after his confession was published by Fars, he was asked to testify before a committee led by the reform government investigating confessions, which included Mr. Abtahi. Mr. Abtahi, who has not been heard from since his arrest on June 16, understood even back then just how vulnerable he was, Mr. Memarian recalled.
“Abtahi said, ‘We cannot guarantee anyone’s security,’ ” Mr. Memarian said. “ ‘We know what happened to you guys. When you leave this building we do not know will happen to you, or what can happen to us in this committee.’ ”
July 4, 2009 Leave a Comment
ABC7: “It was an organized fraud”
June 15, 2009 1 Comment
Mousavi’s Supporters in Tehran: Stunning!
June 15, 2009 Leave a Comment
