By Leigh Catherine Miles
Editor, Iran Election Bulletin
Dear Reader,
Earlier today Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of the Assembly of Experts and Expediency Discernment Council, led Friday prayers for the first time since the June 12 elections. Rafsanjani has become increasingly aligned with Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who claims to be the rightful victor in the presidential elections, and has appeared to be leading a faction within elite circles challenging Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Grassroots activists and the ruling establishment alike listened closely to his remarks to discern how far he would go in criticizing the regime.
The tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iranians who gathered at the prayer service and outside Tehran University heard Rafsanjani, rather than directly challenge Khamenei, strike a middle ground. He became the first senior Iranian leader to call the post-election unrest a “crisis” for the Iranian Republic and spoke directly to the need to resolve public doubts about the election outcome. Invoking the founding principles of Ayatollah Khomeini, Rafsanjani criticized the violence against protestors, called for the release of those arrested and urged the relaxation of press restrictions imposed post-election. He further invoked the Islamic and republican foundations of Iran in an implicit jab at those who are accused of pushing Iran toward dictatorship.
However, Rafsanjani’s frequent references to the revolution and founding of the Islamic republic indicate that, as an establishment figure himself, he is not likely to support the sweeping changes the grassroots opposition may want. Rather, he advocated resolving political disputes within the confines of the existing system and called for consensus and unity among the people and the government. As predicted by analysts in past weeks, Rafsanjani seemed to be angling for the position of kingmaker – able to adjudicate disputes and rise above politics – as he spoke in support of protestors while at the same time not pushing too hard on the regime. Nowhere in his speech did he propose concrete solutions for resolving the crisis.
It is too early to know what grassroots activists will take from Rafsanjani’s speech. Initial reactions indicate that some were heartened by his statements in support of protestors and understood the motivation for his cautious critiques. Others were clearly disappointed by his measured words and reticence to go further in supporting reformists.
What is clear is that the basij and security forces did not heed the calls to end their violence. Police used tear gas and batons against protestors during and after the Friday sermon. In one well publicized event, prominent human rights activist Shadi Sadr was beaten and arrested on her way to hear the sermon. The ongoing violence coincides with further moves to restrict public access to information through a new media law that increases limits on criticism of state affairs.
This issue of the Iran Election Bulletin explores the state of human rights in Iran following the elections, what the crackdowns may mean for the future of a grassroots movement and how foreign policy stances around the world may contribute toward improving or worsening human rights. As always, I welcome your feedback and comments.
Sincerely,
Leigh Catherine Miles
Editor
–
Published on July 17, 2009
By Ramin Jahanbegloo
The unrest in Iran, which began as a protest against the June 12 election, caught the Iranian authorities by surprise. These protests have presented serious challenges not only to the political credibility of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the future president of Iran, but also to the moral status of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his legitimacy as the Supreme Leader of the Revolution. The protests have been the most serious challenge to Iran's clerical regime since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 that saw the downfall of the Shah. Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a moderate challenger to Iran's clerical establishment, has frequently appeared to be following the protestors rather than leading them, and it is not clear that he can satisfy them if he opts to try to compromise rather than challenge the present political structure.
Today, more than a month after the presidential elections, no one can be certain about the outcome of this unrest. But what is more or less certain is that Iran will never be the same again. Whatever happens in the weeks and months that follow, for sure the events of the past 30 days have shaken the Islamic Republic. However, as the days pass, the intensified crackdowns on journalists, intellectuals, students and women activists indicate how determined the Iranian regime is to secure its political future.
The country is often described as the biggest jail for journalists in the Middle East and harassment of activists is a routine part of the political scene. Yet in recent weeks, state pressure on protesting activists and dissidents has reached new heights. The dominant methods of the regime to quell the unrest are intimidation, censorship, arrests, forced confessions and, of course, warnings to other nations not to interfere in Iran's "internal affairs." The same tone was part of the standard rhetoric of all communist dictatorships and the military dictatorships in Latin America back in 1970s.
More than 240 prominent Iranian lawyers, activists, journalists, professors, human rights defenders and students have been arrested without warrants at their homes or places of work by unidentified agents and taken to undisclosed locations. These detainees, who are mostly charged with “endangering national security,” are being held incommunicado and the authorities have refused to provide their families with any information regarding charges against them or their condition. Apart from Evin prison, those arrested are often taken to very old prisons that have been out of use. Due to a serious lack of space in the prisons, many of the interrogations take place in cells or corridors and not in an interrogation room. Prisoners are beaten and tortured at the time of their interrogation. They are also now facing poor food and health conditions.
The authorities in Iran have been trying very hard to drive protestors from the streets by deploying police and basij militia in almost every major square in Tehran and other cities. The violent interventions of the militia – one of the regime's bases of brute force armed with bicycle chains, batons and Kalashnikovs and dressed in a mixture of civilian clothes and fatigues - is a significant factor in the increase of repression and militancy. The popular demonstrations in Iran have confirmed people’s great bravery as they confronted the basij militia. They have also shown the willingness and capability of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the security forces to crack down violently on peaceful protesters.
The emerging power dynamics leave protestors with tough choices. If they continue informing the Iranian rulers of their lawful rights through nonviolent demonstrations, they would certainly increase the influence of the military and security forces and risk bloodshed. But if they put an end to their movement of civil disobedience because of the harsh repression, they might lose the support and sympathy of the outside world. For the Iranian authorities the question is whether a huge crackdown would succeed in putting an end to the popular quest for democracy or provoke a wider challenge to their rule. For Mousavi and fellow reformist Mehdi Karoubi the choice is whether to accept a humiliating deal that would greatly diminish their moral and political stature. In short, the competing factions are hesitating before they make irrevocable choices that could change their political destiny or the future framework of Iranian politics.
Meanwhile, the potential for a far broader struggle for democracy is apparent. The recent protests commemorating the 10th anniversary of attacks on the dormitories of Tehran University clearly showed that Iran's turmoil is not over and that many are still serious about their objection to the authoritarian turn they think the country has taken since the disputed election. The fact that so many people came to the streets – despite the crackdown – indicates that the protests are not going to be easily controlled by the establishment. However, since Khamenei's June 19 speech, there has been a significant drop in the number of protesters and, even more alarming for the anti-regime opposition groups, an even sharper drop since Mousavi announced that he will pursue his case through legal means and not on the streets. Assuredly, the diminishing number of protestors could indicate that the protest movement could fade away if opposition leaders lose steam.
While low key protests and efforts to revive the demonstrations continue and as the number of arrested students, activists and intellectuals increases daily, the European Union and the United States have declared that the door is open for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Political leaders in Europe have responded more critically than those in the United States to the continually evolving situation. In contrast to President Barack Obama’s measured tones, European leaders have forcefully condemned the violence in Iran, openly questioned the legitimacy of the election, and called for a full recount of the disputed results.
In other words, President Obama faces a particularly fraught series of decisions as his previous policy of engagement confronts violent repression in the streets of Tehran. President Obama’s cautious tone in referring to the protesters could be to leave the door open to seeking Iran’s help to solve the supply chain problem that the United States and its NATO allies have been facing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any settlement between the United States and Iran will also involve an understanding regarding Iranian interests in West Asia and in the Arab Middle East. Just as Iran’s proxies in Iraq worked with the United States to forge a post-Saddam Iraq, Iranian allies in Afghanistan worked with Washington to shape a post-Taliban Afghanistan. It goes without saying that a judiciously pursued dialogue would enhance the chances of internal change in Iran.
The majority of the Iranian population would welcome the restoration of friendly relations with the United States, which is certainly better liked in Iran than in any other Middle Eastern country. As such, the Iranian regime’s ideologically-driven hatred of the United States and Israel finds more traction outside Iran than within the Iranian population. Iranian politicians are acutely aware that there is no support for a government in Iran that is forever at odds with the United States. That is to say, Iranian observers agree that it is time for Iran to step beyond the stereotypes and misinterpretations that have characterized U.S.-Iranian relations, especially because they realize that the candidate that can bring an improvement in bilateral relations with the United States would be certain to have support from the Iranian population.
Improved relations between the two countries would have immediate consequences for the United States, Iran, the Middle East and the international community, but they certainly need to take into consideration the immediate interests of Iranian civil society by emphasizing human rights in Iran. On the American side, there will be ardent voices in Washington arguing against any compromise with Iran and some even arguing for military action. A U.S. or Israeli attack would undermine moderate and pragmatic voices and revive Iranian nationalism. It would also produce a wave of patriotic solidarity with the regime in Iran, even among those young Iranians who are fiercely critical of Ahmadinejad’s government, and provide incentives for the Iranian government to continue violating human rights.
What role, then, can the EU and the United States play in regard to the recent crackdowns in Iran? Most analysts agree that the process of democratization there is likely to be long-term and gradual. Even if outsiders cannot and should not play a role, they can show solidarity in different ways.
First, they can condemn the violence used against the protesters without cutting off all chances of talks with Iran should Ahmadinejad remain in power. Second, President Obama should have an integrative approach toward Iran that addresses on the same level the nuclear situation and the violation of human rights. This dialogue should be structured to encourage constructive Iranian involvement in solving the nuclear enrichment crisis while protesting the crackdown on dissidents. This is not interventionism but merely a modicum of solidarity in support of human rights. Last but not least, a political boycott of the Iranian government in order to stop the crackdown might be helpful, but without a broad international effort that includes Russia and China it will do little to halt the repression.
During 30 years of Islamic revolutionary rule, Iran has changed and continues to change. Change might be a slow and often uncertain process, but it can be done only by Iranians themselves. As such, perhaps the first step to help Iran’s quest for democracy is to acknowledge and encourage dissident voices inside and outside Iran while keeping human rights issues high on the agenda.
Ramin Jahanbegloo, one of Iran's best-known dissidents, headed the contemporary philosophy department of the Cultural Research Center in Tehran until his arrest in April 2006. He was released that August and now lives in exile in Canada, where he teaches at the University of Toronto.
–
Published on July 17, 2009
–
By Sophie Bordbar
A reported three million Iranians participated in a peaceful protest march from Enghelab (Revolution) Square to Azadi (Freedom) Square on June 15. Basij militia shot into the crowd, killing seven protestors, according to official reports. Sohrab Arabi, a 19-year-old who was to enter university in the fall, was one of those killed.
Parvin Fahimi, Sohrab’s mother, spent 26 days searching for her son. She went to Evin prison, police stations and the Revolutionary Courts, where she was assured by officials that her son was being held in Evin prison. Every night she went to the prison to talk to those released in the hope they could confirm that her son was inside. Videos of Fahimi holding a picture of her son at Evin flooded the Internet.
Finally on July 11, Fahimi was told by officials to go to the police station to search through pictures of the unidentified deceased. Sohrab’s brother weeded through almost 50 pictures of unidentified bodies, among which he sadly found his brother. A statement issued by the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran calls for an investigation into the death of Sohrab Arabi. “Aarabi died of a gunshot wound to his heart,” it said, “but it is not clear if he was first injured and taken to a hospital and died later or that he died on the street on 15 June.” Sohrab’s family is angry they did not receive information in a timely manner, that the courts and officials at Evin prison were non-responsive and that they were led to believe that Sohrab was still alive.
The Arabi family is but one of many that are forced daily to search for their loved ones at Evin prison and the Revolutionary Courts. The judicial system in Iran is neither transparent nor accountable, and lawyers often are not able to get answers through the system. So family members who go to the Revolutionary Courts or to Evin prison often rely on each other to figure out the cumbersome and complicated process.
The Revolutionary Courts post the names of those scheduled for release from prison, and relatives of those being released can post bail. Bail ranges from personal guarantees, guarantees in the form of business licenses to financial amounts, with collateral often a property deed. Once bail is posted and accepted by the courts, the prisoner is released, though it may take a few days.
A section of Evin prison that usually processes inmates and receives visitors has recently become a branch of the Revolutionary Courts. Family members wait in two rows of plastic seats to find out about their missing or imprisoned relatives. Endless lists starting from June 13,the day after the election and containing prisoners’ names are pasted on office doors. The lists for June 14 and 15 are especially long. According to one man who was following up on his son’s case, “Those arrested on the first few days of protests will not be released anytime soon.”
In the afternoons, family members go to the prison for a long night of endless waiting. Prisoners are released in three shifts, according to Elham who waited for two nights for her husband’s release after posting bail. “He was on his way home from work when he was arrested. He was not in any protest. He was supposed to be released last night, but was not. I am hoping that he will be released tonight.”
But some family members are not so lucky. Fereshteh has been coming to Evin prison for nearly two weeks to gain information about her son who has simply disappeared. “He has been missing for over two weeks. We don’t know where he is.” Other family members outside Evin have told Fereshteh that it may take a while for the name of her son to appear on the lists.
According to the Head Prosecutor of Iran, 2,500 people have been arrested since the start of the protests, with 500 still in prison. This figure does not include the nearly 200 people arrested on July 9 during a protest marking the 10th anniversary of a basij attack on student dormitories. The names of those who are imprisoned in other locations do not appear on the lists outside Evin prison, nor do the names of those classified as political prisoners, including an estimated 200-300 political, human rights and student activists who have been arrested since the elections. Though it is believed political prisoners are being held in Section 209 of Evin prison, which is managed by the Intelligence Ministry, there is no way to verify that information. Others are believed to be held by the Revolutionary Guards, and the location of that prison is unknown.
The case of Sohrab Arabi serves as a warning to families whose relatives have disappeared or are believed to be in Evin prison, but have not called home. However, according to human rights activists, these families are often too frightened to press their children’s cases with officials or through the media. They are often told that making a fuss will make it worse for their loved ones. Further, human rights activists claim that families whose children have died in recent clashes or in prison have been threatened by government officials. To receive their children’s remains, they are forced to sign statements agreeing not to publicize the cases. According to one activist, “It is difficult to gain credible information on the number and conditions of those killed or missing, because families are so fearful or because family members have been threatened into silence.”
Several political groups, including the reformist Participation Front, have issued statements objecting to arbitrary arrests, lack of transparency and accountability in the security and courts system and urging the release of the high number of individuals arrested. Mehdi Karoubi, a reformist cleric who ran in the presidential election, has also issued several statements. He has urged Ayatollah Shahroudi, the head of the judiciary, to respect the civil rights of those arrested and to release those held in prison. Karoubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the leading reformist candidate in the June election, have also established a joint committee to follow up on the status of those imprisoned or missing and pressure the judiciary and security officials to release prisoners.
Meanwhile, the body of Sohrab Arabi was put to rest on July 13 among a crowd of hundreds at Behesht Zahra Cemetery (Zahra’s Heaven) on the outskirts of Tehran. Those in attendance included family and friends and social and political activists, as well as ordinary citizens. Heart wrenching videos of the funeral service have been shown on Facebook and YouTube.
The heavy presence of security forces at the funeral prevented Sohrab’s mother from addressing the crowd. According to those present, her microphone was turned off by security officials. The family has also forgone the custom of holding memorial services on the third and seventh day after burial under pressure from security officials. Parvin Fahimi, herself a social activist and a member of Mothers for Peace, however has vowed not to remain silent in the face of the unjust murder of her son.
On July 13th, over 500 residents of the Apadana residential complex gathered outside the apartment of Sohrab Arabi, where for nearly an hour they chanted slogans of protest, including “Allah o Akbar (God in great),” “Death to Dictator” and “our Sohrab has not died, it is this government which has died.” According to reports published by Gooya News, Mousavi and his wife Zahra Rahnavard also paid their respects to Fahimi on July 14th.
A casualty of the post-election crackdown, Sohrab Arabi, like Neda Agha Soltan – the woman whose violent death was captured on video – has quickly transformed into yet another symbol of the Iranian struggle for freedom and self determination.
Note: In some cases full names and identifying details have been removed to protect the identities of those interviewed.
–
Published on July 17, 2009
–
By Massih Alinejad
In the wake of June’s highly contested election, speculation in the streets of Iran was that a post-election fight was taking place within the regime between former president and chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council Hashemi Rafsanjani and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The infighting discouraged many from becoming involved for fear of being demolished by the powerful forces. The dynamics, however, have changed. A new round of internal tensions within the Islamic regime may determine the fate of Iran’s old guard.
During a speech following Friday prayers on June 19, Khamenei declared that his vision as the leader of the Islamic Republic was aligned more closely with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than Rafsanjani. After this decisive announcement of support for Ahmadinejad, traditional supporters of the president and the Supreme Leader were re-energized. High-ranking officials such as Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel, the former speaker of the Iranian parliament, who were considered critics of Ahmadinejad up until the election, lined up in support of the president and his allies. Rafsanjani for his part became quiet, retreating into his respective corner and periodically making ambiguous statements.
To the public, the quarrel between Rafsanjani and Khamenei evolved into a larger conflict between conservatives in power and reformists on the sidelines. As the conflict called into question the legitimacy of the current government, the regime was discredited internationally and consequently applied more internal pressure on Iranian citizens. The number of detainees and casualties soared, the methods used to silence voices of dissent increased and threats were everywhere. Everyone feared detainment and illegal seizure. As a result, Iran has become a country of countervailing forces: the people are not going to ease pressure on ruling conservatives and the government will continue to act forcefully against citizens.
While the massive crowds have subsided, one cannot tell from the relative calm what tomorrow will bring. Iran appears to be a raging fire hidden under ashes – all it takes is a breeze to set it ablaze.
Iranians need a calm period to re-energize. The challenges to the government have dropped slightly, and one cannot hear “Down with the Dictator” as much anymore, though Iranians still chant “Allah o akbar” (God is great) from their rooftops. Much like 30 years ago, they write slogans and draw graffiti on walls, hold secret meetings, and instead of distributing pamphlets at night, they communicate through emails, Facebook and Twitter – preparing for what comes next.
Meanwhile, reformist leaders Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi invite people to show their dissent through civil protests and strikes and to pursue their case through legal means. Mousavi has expressed an interest in founding a political movement to lead and organize the grassroots movement. However, in a similar pattern, following the 2005 election that was also plagued with allegations of fraud, Karoubi founded the Etemad-Melli party but quickly encountered opposition from the government. Agents from the Ministry of Information shut down his TV station before it could begin broadcasting, and the goals and mandates of his party are still unknown and undefined. Currently, the police, security forces and judiciary refuse Mousavi’s and Karroubi’s requests for permits for peaceful assemblies or to print their pamphlets, accusing their efforts of having roots in the West.
Mousavi and Karoubi have consistently objected to government accusations that the reform and protest movement is somehow driven by the United States, Great Britain or other Western governments. In retort, they have asked the government to clarify the role of Iran’s northern neighbor and tell the nation how Russia has trained the Islamic Republic in how to violently crush protestors.
Iranians – who are bombarded by one-sided, heavily censored government controlled media – are concerned by a lack of information on Ahmdinejad’s foreign policy plans. Traditionally, when Iran faces a domestic crisis, the government chooses either to take an aggressive international posture or, in a clever move, begins to give countries lucrative contracts. Both sacrifice Iran’s national interests for the personal interests of a government that aims to silence and repress dissent.
The ruling government is concerned about public consensus, and is well aware that the masses could rise up again if the government makes another unwise step. In such an atmosphere, the government is only watching out for itself. Foreign policy becomes a tool not to empower Iran on the world stage, but to stabilize the administration’s position. Iranians are wondering if Ahmadinejad will open another round of aggressive language against the international community, putting the country in danger, or if he will try to paint a poor and miserable picture of Iran to gain the sympathy of countries like Russia.
–
Published on July 17, 2009
–
The recent violent crackdown against Iranian activists intensified after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei stated that public protests against the disputed election must cease. Tehran’s prosecutor general publicly announced that more than 2,500 people were detained in Tehran alone, with over 500 still in detention. In addition, 242 people have been detained at their homes or places of work by unidentified agents and taken to undisclosed locations, including 25 journalists and 87 students. Tehran’s police chief admitted 20 fatalities, but other estimates have put the number at more than 30. Foreign media or foreign officials were not exempted in the crackdown, and technologically savvy students were especially targeted in dormitory raids, which killed at least two students. Saeed Mortazavi, a prosecutor of the Islamic Revolutionary Court who is reputed to use coercion and torture to obtain confessions, is leading the investigation of detained activists, creating fears that many of the activists will be tortured or detained indefinitely.
This unrest exemplifies long-standing human rights concerns in Iran. Although political and social restrictions were eased under President Mohammad Khatami, since 2005 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has increased the power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which renewed a clamp down on human rights citing national security concerns. The following provides a brief overview of human rights conditions in Iran.
Political Opposition
Although Iran has over 200 registered political parties, only a few are active and all are required to work within the limited government framework. Activists who advocate views outside of what is officially accepted can be subject to beatings, imprisonment and prosecution. Similar to recent events, more than 1,000 students were arrested during protests in 1999 and 2003. Officials have limited the ability for groups to assemble by cutting off national SMS service, labeling activists as pawns of foreign entities and calling protests acts of treason.
Freedom of Expression
Freedom House ranks Iran 181 out of 195 in global press freedom and 17 out of 19 in the Middle East region. The government controls radio and TV broadcasts; satellite receivers can be confiscated. Government officials regularly issue gag orders and close independent newspapers that publish critical comments on the government. They also prosecute journalists in a special press court for using words offensive to Iran or Islam. Since Ahmadinejad came to power in 2001, over 570 newspapers have been closed.
While Internet penetration is estimated at about 25 percent, Iran utilizes sophisticated technology for censoring the Internet and other digital medium. All Web sites and blogs that originate in Iran must obtain licensing from the Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance, and external Web sites are filtered to block subjects such as democracy and human rights. Social networking sites, such as Facebook, Okrut and Twitter; video sharing Web sites, such as YouTube; and certain blogs and blog aggregators are also often blocked. Iranians have been able to circumvent the restrictions by using proxies and other technologies to access the sites.
Religion
The Iranian constitution protects specific minority religious groups, such Zoroastrians and some Christians and Jewish populations, as "people of the Book." The Baha'i faith is not recognized by the Iranian constitution, and Baha'is have been forcefully repressed and denied the right to practice or even acknowledge their religious beliefs, which are routinely castigated in the official media and state sermons. Security services have imprisoned many Baha'i leaders, who are charged with being mofsed fil arz, or corrupt on earth, a crime punishable by death.
Sexual Orientation
Iran’s official stance is that there is no homosexuality in Iran. International human rights organizations have long documented acts of persecution and violence committed against homosexuals. Punishments for acts of homosexuality range from lashes to execution. Late last year, the Iranian judiciary formed the Special Protection Division, a new institution that empowers volunteers to police moral crimes, such as homosexuality, in the private domain.
Worker Protection
Although a member of the International Labor Organization, Iranian workers are denied many established labor standards protections, including: the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, abolition of forced labor, abolition of child labor, prohibition of employment and occupation related discrimination, standards regulating wages and conditions of work. While Iranian workers have actively sought to form independent unions, they are only allowed to join carefully regulated associations, such as the Islamic Labor Councils.
Women’s Rights
Despite women’s active role in the Iranian Revolution, systemic gender discrimination permeates Iran. Women do not have the same legal rights as men, especially in cases of divorce, child custody, inheritance or judicial processing. While women represent 63 percent of college students, they face significant economic and employment barriers, and have difficulty obtaining public sector jobs. The state forcefully represses the women’s movement, evident in part by the arrest of women leaders of One Million Signature Campaign, a petition that seeks a reform of gender discriminatory laws.
Legal Access
Iranians can be detained without legal council and their cases can be tried without access to the evidence against them. Confessions are often coerced using torture and other ill-treatment. Stoning and honor killings are still permitted, and executions, including of minors, are carried out at high rates. To date, 257 executions have been carried out this year, with 52 in July alone.
This brief was prepared by NDI’s Kristin Kooiman
–
Published on July 17, 2009
—
Links:
[1] http://www.ndi.org/node/15632