What are referred to as incompatibilities and inconsistencies of human rights principles with conditions prevalent in Iranian society are nothing but tools the Iranian regime uses to play with human rights organizations and Western governments, and to engage them in a dialog and ultimately tradeoffs.
Contrary to the assertions that Iranian officials make in the domestic media, the Islamic republic of Iran in fact opportunistically engages foreign governments and human rights organizations to discuss and negotiate every instance of exaggeration or admission of human rights violation that are recorded in Iran. At the talks, it either defends its actions or justifies them, it brings forth fake NGOs to defend the regime, it reports on the individuals whose human rights have been violated and then presents fake justifications for its harsh actions against them. In short, the Islamic republic engages human rights organizations in a tet-a-tet manner to negotiate with them and in this way advance its own agenda.
During the last meeting in Geneva, the Islamic republic used its position of presidency of the non-Aligned Movement to trade off human rights issues to influence the outcome of the human rights session in its own favor. Here, I would like to mention a tool that the Islamic republic regularly uses to justify its human rights violations so that a reasoned solution is found to neutralize it.
Western organizations focus on individuals and individual rights in the realm of human rights violations. To engage public opinion and win its support in forcing their governments to exert pressure on countries that violate human rights, these organizations refer to the imprisonment of political activists in the violating countries. The result is that occasionally a person becomes the focal point of human rights violations and a media exercise is launched that supports the victim of the violations. The tradition is that the victim is continuously supported and the violating governments are asked about the person’s condition and situation.
The Islamic republic knows how this works and therefore acts to neutralize the process and reduce the pressure on itself while continuing its suppressive and oppressive policies and measures. When the regime sees that a person it has arrested gains international focus and attention it does one of two things: It applies pressure on him or her and then releases the person; or, if international human rights groups shift their focus to other issues, Iran’s security apparatus also shifts its focus on another issue while at the same time strengthening its security hold. Many examples of such behavior exist but some better examples are Ms Sakineh Mohammadi who escaped execution, while her defense attorney remains in prison without any international outcry.
In one of the side meetings of the Human Rights Council in Geneva in June/July 2012, we tried to explain Iran’s behavior and approach to some of the delegations, the EU foreign policy committee and others. What is needed is that we all ask international human rights groups and organizations to stress on both an individual’s human rights and those of institutions in Iran. In this regard a number of important and effective civil institutions in Iran should be the focus of attention whose rights to activism should be demanded, as part of respect for human rights in the country.
Some organizations which should be supported in their right to act and activism are the following:
1-Khane Sinema va Taatr (House of Cinema and Theater)
2-Kanoone Senfie Moaleman Iran (Center for Iranian Professional Teachers)
3-Anjomane Senfie Rooznamenegaran Iran (The Association of Professional Iranian Journalists)
4-Kanoone Modafean Hoghooghe Bashar (The Center for the Defense of Human Rights)
5-Nahadhaye Senfie Zanan (Professional Women’s Organizations)
6-Shoraye Omoomie Sandikahaye Kargaran (General Council of Workers’ Syndicate) which provides the basis for organizational trade activities of workers
7-Anjomane Defa az Hoghooge Zendanian (The Society for the Defense of Prisoners’ Rights)
The Iranian regime should also be called to take its hands off the elections to the country’s bar association, to the engineering society and to the medical association. Should this be accomplished, the influence and power of Iran’s civil society will greatly expand.
It appears that the focus of monitoring human rights violations in Iran should shift from individuals to organizations. I would like to quote the words of an interrogator who at one time proudly declared, “We cannot stop the awards that are given to Iranians, but when these opponents gain importance and become prominent, they stop working with others and each other. They become generals without the followers. This situation is to our benefit. Such people become isolated and differences among them actually increase.”
With this said, it appears that it is more beneficial that international human rights organizations should be directed to pay attention to organizations and institutions in Iran, rather than to individuals. It should be noted that individuals come and go, while organizations remain. This is the first rule of democracy. The trouble is that in our country both the individual and the organization go.
Isn’t it time to change this tradition of focusing on the individual for the sake of democracy?
What are referred to as incompatibilities and inconsistencies of human rights principles with conditions prevalent in Iranian society are nothing but tools the Iranian regime uses to play with human rights organizations and Western governments, and to engage them in a dialog and ultimately tradeoffs.
Contrary to the assertions that Iranian officials make in the domestic media, the Islamic republic of Iran in fact opportunistically engages foreign governments and human rights organizations to discuss and negotiate every instance of exaggeration or admission of human rights violation that are recorded in Iran. At the talks, it either defends its actions or justifies them, it brings forth fake NGOs to defend the regime, it reports on the individuals whose human rights have been violated and then presents fake justifications for its harsh actions against them. In short, the Islamic republic engages human rights organizations in a tet-a-tet manner to negotiate with them and in this way advance its own agenda.
During the last meeting in Geneva, the Islamic republic used its position of presidency of the non-Aligned Movement to trade off human rights issues to influence the outcome of the human rights session in its own favor. Here, I would like to mention a tool that the Islamic republic regularly uses to justify its human rights violations so that a reasoned solution is found to neutralize it.
Western organizations focus on individuals and individual rights in the realm of human rights violations. To engage public opinion and win its support in forcing their governments to exert pressure on countries that violate human rights, these organizations refer to the imprisonment of political activists in the violating countries. The result is that occasionally a person becomes the focal point of human rights violations and a media exercise is launched that supports the victim of the violations. The tradition is that the victim is continuously supported and the violating governments are asked about the person’s condition and situation.
The Islamic republic knows how this works and therefore acts to neutralize the process and reduce the pressure on itself while continuing its suppressive and oppressive policies and measures. When the regime sees that a person it has arrested gains international focus and attention it does one of two things: It applies pressure on him or her and then releases the person; or, if international human rights groups shift their focus to other issues, Iran’s security apparatus also shifts its focus on another issue while at the same time strengthening its security hold. Many examples of such behavior exist but some better examples are Ms Sakineh Mohammadi who escaped execution, while her defense attorney remains in prison without any international outcry.
In one of the side meetings of the Human Rights Council in Geneva in June/July 2012, we tried to explain Iran’s behavior and approach to some of the delegations, the EU foreign policy committee and others. What is needed is that we all ask international human rights groups and organizations to stress on both an individual’s human rights and those of institutions in Iran. In this regard a number of important and effective civil institutions in Iran should be the focus of attention whose rights to activism should be demanded, as part of respect for human rights in the country.
Some organizations which should be supported in their right to act and activism are the following:
1-Khane Sinema va Taatr (House of Cinema and Theater)
2-Kanoone Senfie Moaleman Iran (Center for Iranian Professional Teachers)
3-Anjomane Senfie Rooznamenegaran Iran (The Association of Professional Iranian Journalists)
4-Kanoone Modafean Hoghooghe Bashar (The Center for the Defense of Human Rights)
5-Nahadhaye Senfie Zanan (Professional Women’s Organizations)
6-Shoraye Omoomie Sandikahaye Kargaran (General Council of Workers’ Syndicate) which provides the basis for organizational trade activities of workers
7-Anjomane Defa az Hoghooge Zendanian (The Society for the Defense of Prisoners’ Rights)
The Iranian regime should also be called to take its hands off the elections to the country’s bar association, to the engineering society and to the medical association. Should this be accomplished, the influence and power of Iran’s civil society will greatly expand.
It appears that the focus of monitoring human rights violations in Iran should shift from individuals to organizations. I would like to quote the words of an interrogator who at one time proudly declared, “We cannot stop the awards that are given to Iranians, but when these opponents gain importance and become prominent, they stop working with others and each other. They become generals without the followers. This situation is to our benefit. Such people become isolated and differences among them actually increase.”
With this said, it appears that it is more beneficial that international human rights organizations should be directed to pay attention to organizations and institutions in Iran, rather than to individuals. It should be noted that individuals come and go, while organizations remain. This is the first rule of democracy. The trouble is that in our country both the individual and the organization go.
Isn’t it time to change this tradition of focusing on the individual for the sake of democracy?
Taghi Rahmani
Source: Roozonline