State backs Iranian "reformers” who don't exist
National Review - By Mohammad Parvin
June 24, 2004
Recently, the State Department has posted a 15-page document on its website under the title of "Voices Struggling to be Heard." This document has been presented as a "fact sheet," but much of it is more fiction than fact. Although it's a positive step on the part of the State Department to publish such a report in the first place, what is disappointing is that this publication is geared more towards promoting the so-called reformists in Iran than exposing human-rights violations by the Islamic regime.
State Department: "Today the courageous voices of the Iranian people are being stifled as they call for their rights, beliefs and needs to be respected. In response, the non-elected elements of the Iranian Government hierarchy are rebuffing these calls and attempting to extinguish the voices."
Fact: The State Department reference to "non-elected elements of the Iranian Government" implies that some elements of the government in Iran are elected. The State Department is wrong. There are no democratically elected elements in Iran. For example, President Mohammed Khatami, the darling of the U.S. and Europe, was among just four selected candidates by the Guardian Council after 234 candidates were eliminated. All the so-called reformists who were "elected" in the previous parliament were first selected by undergoing the same filtering process.
State Department: "In June 1997 and again in 2001, a decisive election victory ushered President Mohammed Khatami into office under the auspices of a reformist agenda. The realization of this reform movement has been actively stifled by hard-line elements within the government, most specifically by the un-elected Guardian Council, a board of clerical leaders and legal scholars. Reformist and dissident voices within the government and society have been repressed and harassed by government and quasi-government factions under the influence of the hard-line clerics."
Fact: The proclaimed "reform movement" by Khatami did not materialize because he never had the intention of changing the status quo. He used the hollow promise for reform to stabilize the shaky regime and to prevent the escalation of popular unrest. What the oppositionists (not the reformists) want is very different from what the reformists within the government want. The reformists realize that some changes must be made if the whole system is going to be preserved. What the freedom-loving people of Iran want is a fundamental overhaul of the system; they want a separation between religion and state.
State Department: "In a move to diminish pro-reformist reelection chances, the Guardian Council disqualified approximately one-third of the 8,200 submissions for candidacy, including those of more than 80 reformists currently holding Majlis seats, effectively limiting the democratic alternatives available to Iranian voters."
Fact: The Guardian Council follows the rules and laws written into the Islamic constitution. Contrary to the State Department's assumption, all these actions are very much within the law. Those who accept this constitution, including the reformists, have nothing to complain about. Where were they when the other candidates were eliminated in last "election"? These sham elections are not democratic because at best, they only allow regime loyalists to participate, thus eliminating any chance of a real democratic election for Iranians. Therefore, there is no democratic alternative available to Iranians.
State Department: "Students have mobilized to demand greater freedoms and to support reform efforts by the Khatami Government, the Majlis, and individuals willing to speak the truth."
Fact: The Iranian students no longer support reform efforts by Khatami and his government and have repeatedly rejected him. Slogans such as "shame on Khatami" and "Resign Khatami" have been favorite catchphrases in recent demonstrations. The Iranian students are struggling for a secular democratic regime that by its definition cannot include the clerical elements.
In sum, the State Department has used human rights as a tool to promote the reformist faction of the government in order to justify reestablishing relations with the Islamic regime. The so-called hardliners have also started making hollow gestures towards reform. And why shouldn't they? It works. It does not cost them anything and it makes them competitive with their reformist rivals. (The recent move of the hardliners on banning torture in Iran was well received by the entire world. Nobody noted, however, that the Islamic constitution allows torture under the name of tazir and that this has remained intact.)
We believe that the majority of Iranian people does not recognize the Islamic regime as its elected representative and is determined to change the regime of terror by civil disobedience and nonviolent action. If the Islamic regime claims otherwise, it should take up the challenge of a nationwide referendum monitored by the international human-rights community.
Let's hope that the State Department and other U.S. institutions will eventually show respect for the freedom movement in Iran by not legitimizing and promoting its enemy, the Islamic regime of Iran.
Mohammad Parvin is an adjunct professor at the California State University and director of the Mission for Establishing Human Rights in Iran.
The Iranian People Deserve the Free World's Support
By Owen Rathbone
June 27, 2003
Iran is back in the spotlight again following a recent series of student revolts and mass gatherings calling for greater freedoms and an end to Muslim clerics twenty-four year stranglehold on the Iranian people. According to observers and participants, the demonstrations and displays of defiance are the most intense in five years of sporadic protests.
Whereas earlier protests were mainly against the mullahs (the Iranian word for clerics), today "moderate" President Mohammad Khatami is also being denounced for failing to implement meaningful reforms. Although many Western leaders and commentators still pin their hopes on Khatami and the possibility of reform from within, most Iranians have accepted that true change is impossible without a radical transformation of the entire political system.
The desire for democracy is not restricted to students or fringe elements in Iranian society. Disenchanted people from all backgrounds and regions have taken to the streets over the past two weeks to demand an end to the Islamic Republic and the establishment of a secular government based on democratic principles. A Christian Science Monitor poll reveals that "90 percent of Iranians want change" and "70 percent want dramatic change."
Liberal pundits would have us believe that the increased displays of public defiance against the Iranian clerics and government are U.S.-orchestrated and part of a wider plot to destabilize Iran and increase American influence in the region. Such characterizations not only parrot the mullah's party line, but also do a great disservice to the Iranian people, who must endure great hardships on a daily basis.
In the late 1970s, Iran's per capita income stood roughly equivalent to Spain's, but since the time of the Islamic Revolution the country has experienced steady economic decline. Inflation sits at 20 percent, while unemployment has soared to 30 percent. Although Iran is rich with petroleum and natural gas, nearly 60 per cent of the population lives under the poverty line.
Far more disturbing than the dismal economic conditions in Iran is the political repression of the Iranian people. Up to 700,000 Iranians are imprisoned in secret jails, claim dissidents. Floggings, torture, mutilations, public hangings and executions are just a few of the means the conservative mullahs use to terrorize the populace.
In the past several weeks, pro-mullah vigilante paramilitary forces, many of them foreign thugs recruited from Afghanistan and other terrorist hotbeds, have scoured the country intimidating pro-democracy activists. Wielding chains, clubs, knives and guns, the vigilantes have attacked and threatened demonstrators in a brutal bid to quell dissent. According to human rights organizations, the vigilantes have even resorted to driving motorcycles into crowds to break up demonstrations and injure protesters.
In such a repressive political climate, freedom of the press is non-existent. Nearly 100 pro-reform journals and newspapers have been shut down since 1997, leaving the Internet and foreign radio and television broadcasts as the only means to spread democratic ideals. To the chagrin of the mullah authorities, hundreds of tech-savvy Iranians have become expert Internet bloggers, skilled at providing up-to-the-minute commentary on local developments and disseminating information from outside news sources. U.S.-based Iranian satellite TV shows have also become a favorite of viewers ranging from students to housewives.
As Iranians clamor for freedom it is worth noting the outside world's reactions.
The U.S. government, steadfast in its principles, has expressed strong support for the demonstrators. President George W. Bush recently went on record saying that he viewed Iranians' protests as the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran. U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice echoed the President sentiments in a June 20 Fox News interview, stating how important it is to recognize the rightness of the peoples cause and to let them know that there are those in the international community who care.
In contrast to the U.S.A's highly principled response, the United Nations (UN) has been noticeably reticent. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who should be expected to side with the Iranian people, has kept tight-lipped over the pro-democracy demonstrations. Rather than expressing any overt support for greater freedoms and improved human rights in Iran, Annan has only managed to say that "Any change in regime is a matter which only the Iranian people can decide," indirectly chiding the U.S. for rallying behind pro-democratic forces.
For good reason, Iranian political activists have lost complete faith in the UN. For more than two decades, Iranian civic groups have made repeated appeals to the UN's Human Rights Commission only to be rebuffed. In fact, to the great anger of the Iranian pro-democracy movement, Kofi Annan has actually praised President Khatami's accomplishments and the freedoms he has bestowed upon the Iranian population.
The flourishing democratic nations of Western Europe have similarly displayed a marked indifference to Iranians' pleas for democracy. While the U.S. maintains a near total ban on trade with Iran, the European Union (EU) profits handsomely from being Iran's largest trading partner, which means that European support for true reform has been tepid at best.
The EU, through representatives such as External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patton, maintains that engagement with Khatami's moderate government is the most effective means to induce positive changes in Iran. However, seeing that it is business as usual with Europe, the mullahs have unsurprisingly been reluctant to alter their oppressive ways. The bloody clampdowns on dissidents over the past two weeks only confirm that conservative hardliners have no intention of acquiescing to the public's demands for greater freedoms and reveal the EU position as a complete sham.
Russia is another interesting case. Eager to earn cash and curtail American power, the former communist nation has been working closely with Tehran to construct a nuclear plant in Bushehr. As Moscow stands to net some $1 billion dollars from the deal, it has remained aloof and refrained from commenting on Iranian politics. That Iran is using Russian experts and technology to establish a clandestine nuclear weapons program seems to be of little concern to Russia. For Putin and other Russian leaders, profits take precedence over justice and regional stability in the Middle East.
It is indeed a topsy-turvy world we live in. European leaders and UN representatives were quick to vilify the U.S. government for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, one of the greatest human rights violators of modern times. These same objectors to U.S. aggression in Iraq are now turning a blind eye to the Iranian people. As European and other supporters of the status quo donned a false cloak of anti-war morality to further their economic or political gain in Iraq, so do they profit from the misery of the Iranian people by supporting engagement and dialogue with the mullah theocracy in Iran.
Ironically, the country Ayatollah Khomeini once called "The Great Satan" is now seen as a beacon of hope by millions of Iranians. In view of Iranians' experiences with Europe and the UN, the United States is esteemed nationwide for its firm commitment to democratic ideals and reluctance to trade with a repressive regime. Formerly denounced for being evil, America is heralded as the only world power that supports the change Iranians desire.
Now that the Iranian people have taken their lives into their own hands and are striving to throw off the yoke of their Islamo-fascist oppressors, they deserve the free world's support. America, at least, has stood behind the Iranian people. It is high time other privileged nations and the UN did the same.
* Owen Rathbone is a political commentator based in Seoul, South Korea.
Copyright 2003 SMCCDI:
