Genuine human rights activities
By Trita Parsi,
Executive Director
Iranians for International Cooperation
In a world where the importance of Human Rights is increasingly recognized,
the overseas Iranian community suffers from the conspicuous absence of
genuine non-partisan Human Rights organizations. In light of the rapidly
evolving situation in Iran, the need for such groups is greater than ever.
Over the past decade, the concept of Human Rights has gained an unprecedented
legitimacy in International Relations. It is significant that even the
once sacrosanct principle of national sovereignty cannot prevent the pursuit
of human rights. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has championed the idea
that Human Rights know no border, giving rise to what has become known
as the Annan Doctrine. NGO's are closely monitoring and capitalizing on
these developments. Human Rights Watch, for instance, has argued that national
sovereignty is becoming less of an obstacle to curbing serious Human Rights
violations (CNN, December 10, 1999).
Even in long isolated Iran, a country known for its less than flattering
Human Rights record, there is a trend toward the improvement of the human
rights situation, although it remains far from being satisfactory. Maurice
Copithorne, The U.N. Special Representative for Human Rights in Iran states
in his latest report that "significant progress has become evident
in a number of areas" and sums up the report with the following words:
"Overall, progress is certainly being made and, in the Special
Representative's view, it is very likely to continue, perhaps even accelerate."
(E/CN.4/2000/35).
Let us reiterate that this is not to say that the situation in Iran
is acceptable, but rather that a positive trend is discernable. In Copithorne's
own words, Human Rights is a "work in progress". It is clear
that seldom social and political realities change overnight. However, it
is incumbent on fair-minded and non-partisan observers and activists to
acknowledge and even encourage any positive trend, in the hope of seeing
it gain momentum and further narrow the gap between international standards
and expectations and the realities on the terrain. The question is whether
the groups that claim the title of Human Rights Organizations among the
Iranian exiles, have adopted such a non-tendentious approach or not?
Unfortunately, in most cases, the answer is no. The current controversy
surrounding Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi's appearence on Thursday
at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), to give a talk is
a case in point. It is quite disturbing to witness groups that titles themselves
as Human Rights activists, openly and blatantly opposing the freedom of
speech of an individual, no matter how despised he or she may be. No one
would ever expect a true Human Rights organization like Amnesty International,
to engage in such behavior. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human
right that cannot be denied to anyone-including a person accused of violating
other people's human rights or guilty of representing a government that
continues to show inadequate respect for these rights. This is a fundamental
principle, as a tit-for-tat approach to Human Rights ultimately belies
and undermines the very idea of these rights.
It was therefore a sad spectacle to witness the noisy opposition by
these so-called Human Rights groups to Kharrazi's right to free expression
at UCLA. It should be noted, moreover, that these groups are quick to disparage
their critics by labelling them "supporters" or "lobbyists"
for the Islamic Government of Iran. The quid pro quo here seems to emanate
from the inability of these pseudo-Human Rights activists to draw a distinction
between the violation or negation of human rights and its perpetrators.
Unlike genuine non-partisan Human Rights groups such as Amnesty International,
the exile groups tend to focus their ire and condemnation on the perpetrators
rather than on the transgression. Although it may appear trivial, the distinction
is in fact fundamental and clearly sets apart non-partisan from partisan
groups. Needless to say, it is of utmost importance for true Human Rights
groups to preserve scrupulously a non-partisan stance. Otherwise, their
very legitimacy could be in serious jeopardy, as they could easily be dismissed
by human rights violators as simply being hostile political adversaries.
When a political agenda is superimposed on the human rights agenda, the
legitimacy of the organization becomes tainted.
An example of this type of mixing is provided by the call, often voiced
by exile Human Rights groups, for the overthrow of the regime in Tehran,
alongside with demands for an end to human rights violations. Some of the
pronouncements of these groups are further indication of their politicization.
For example, one of these groups has written that the "Islamic Republic
of Iran is the oppressor of the Iranian people and its National Anthem
is not ours. Help us fight the oppression. Don't respect the murderers.."
The question here is not whether the above views have merit or whether
the claims are well-founded or not. The point is whether the national anthem
is an issue that should be addressed by Human Rights organizations or by
political opposition groups? Should there be no distinction whatsoever,
then what is the difference between Human Rights organizations and political
opposition groups? Further, the statement gives the impression that the
group opposes the regime in Tehran more than it opposes its Human Rights
violations. In denouncing the regime, these groups reveal more shared characteristics
with political opposition groups than with Amnesty International, which
scrupulously avoids political partisanship. After all, many people can
gratuitously claim to work for human rights- even Stalinist groups such
as the Mujahedin portray themselves as Human Rights activists. However,
to strive to improve the Iranian people's human right predicament is another
matter altogether.
One would like to think that these political groups would seize the
opportunity offered by Kamal Kharrazi's appearance at UCLA to confront
him verbally and voice their condemnations of the Human Rights violations
that are routinely taking place in Iran. After all, arguments carry the
most weight when they are developed in the context of a peaceful dialogue,
rather than lost in the clamor of a shouting match. Articulated reasoning,
based on sound logic, when put forth firmly and unequivocally, yet without
resorting to intimidation and disruption, are likely to achieve the objectives
of Human Rights much more effectively than noisy demonstrations. Indeed,
threatening and disruptive behavior is essentially inconsistent with the
embrace of Human Rights values and principles. Dialogue and respect for
the rights of others to express their views- however unpopular, constitute
the very foundation of a society that is respectful of human rights. When
Human Rights organizations engage in undemocratic behavior, they not only
discredit themselves but they also tarnish the very values that they claim
to uphold. In this process, our nation's hopes and its rightful expectations
are sacrificed on the altar of partisan political interests.
It is a recognized fact that the absence of political freedom in Iran
has led Iranians, over the course of years, to avoid political involvement.
Human Rights activity, insofar that it manages to preserve its independence
from political influence, offers an avenue for people to engage in laying
the foundations of democratic rule. The only result of confusing political
activity with Human Rights activity is to ultimately cause people to shun
Human Rights activity as well. This will, doubtlessly, constitute a serious
setback for the cause of Human Rights in Iran. Since the culture of Human
Rights needs time and effort to take root, it is imperative that advocates
of democracy nurture and protect it, rather than weaken it by their reckless
behavior. As Copithorne stated, Human Rights is a work in progress, and
its proponents should increase their efforts to advance and consolidate
this work in progress, especially given the much precious time that has
already been lost.
In sum, and to conclude, the need for non-partisan Human Rights organizations,
within the Iranian exile community, is more pressing than ever. Genuine
Human Rights activists are needed to actively search for opportunities
to put Human Rights on the agenda in as many circles as possible. The appearance
of Kharrazi at UCLA was precisely one such occasion to promote the cause
of Human Rights in Iran. These opportunities may be few and far between;
hence, we can ill afford to lose them in the future. We need to de-politicize
Human Rights and make sure that it is more than a slogan or a front used
by opposition groups for political gain. We need to implement and nurture
a culture of mutual respect and dialogue, and, once and for all, turn our
backs on intimidation, verbal aggression and intolerance. We strongly believe
that, today, this is a pivotal issue in Iran as well as among Iranians
living outside of Iran, and we call for a wide exchange of ideas on the
topic.
* I would like to thank Dr. Farid Sadrieh, Dr. Mohammad Ala, Javad
Fakherzadeh and Dr. Brad Hernlem, for assistance and guidance.
Links