Speak to the point

For once the International media reported the adoption of the resolution on the human rights situation in Iran, and they even reported a few sentences of the statement of the Iranian Ambassador. However, they omitted to say that rather than trying to respond to the criticism that was included in the text,
Mr. Khazaee, aside from attacking Canada for its widespread (!) human rights violation, went on and on about the Goldstone report and about Israel and Palestine.

Far from me to want here to dismiss the Goldstone report, I just want to point out that Mr. Khazaee, his superiors, and his inferiors (who probably drafted the statement) should listen to the Iranian people.

Things one has to hear -- or say...

There are no juvenile executions in Iran, we are just applying the law of Qisas. Implying what can we do if the families of the victims want the perpetrator to be executed?

I cannot understand why, rather than choosing to remain silent, the government of the IRI chooses to ridicule itself by saying such absurdities (scroll down to find Iran). And also to then have to hear Philip Alston (scroll down to the very end), the Special Raporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions, mock them even further saying: "Iran is is the only country that seems to have this problem, surely, it can find a solution." (implying there are other Islamic countries in the world).

I would not want to be an Iranian diplomat with two bits of sense and some self-respect.

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

I don't know if it is because the situation in Iran has deteriorated, or if his statement was far worse than the usual, or just because I am depressed, but Mr. Mottaki's address to the UN Human Rights Council gave me a bad migraine.

I mean, he started with "I would like to reiterate our firm commitment to work towards making the Human Rights Council a strong, effective and efficient body capable of promoting and protecting all human rights for all on the basis of inclusion, equality and human dignity..."

-- as if all human rights for all, inclusion, equality and human dignity existed in Iran --

and then he ended with: "Our commitment to human rights stems from our firm belief and it is aimed at realizing our goal which is the "inherent dignity of man".

Of course, it is dignified to be beaten so hard that you lose your hearing, it is dignified to have your face plunged into excrement, it is dignified to be flogged...

Just as a footnote, just before the quote, our Minister said that Iran's commitment was based on the Divine Teaching of Islam and in accordance with its International obligations...

Perhaps while writing all this his assistants should have sought help from the Japanese.

Out of the Calif's chest

It seems that our Minister of Foreign Affairs has been learning melodrama: his speech, or rather the opening of his speech at the Human Rights Council last Tuesday was quite well orchestrated: he goes to the Podium, pauses, drinks a glass of water, clears his throat, straightens his goatee, pauses again, makes a reference to the heart-breaking individual case of a six-months old infant and then asks for a minute of silence.

And then he makes yet another bold move: requests that during this minute of silence Muslims in the room recite the "fatehe" and starts reciting it under his breath (and it can be slightly heard in the microphone).

(this year, the webcast is a little less practical, so to watch it, you need to go here, then choose the morning session and then go more than 3/4 into the webcast).

Perhaps he was competing with Mr. Ahmadinejad's halo a couple of years ago.

Aside from his blatant untruthfulness concerning Iran's human rights record in the rest of his speech there are a couple of points that can be raised and are a clear reflection of the behaviour of this government:

Firstly, he uses the Persian pronunciation of an Arab word, and therefore refers to "ghazzeh" (instead of Gaza), so that most people, I am sure, must have been wondering what he is talking about;

but more importantly announces that he sacrifices a minute of his speech and then speaks for 20 minutes instead of the allotted 10, thus, in fact, taking 10 minutes of the time of the following speakers.

In Persian one would say that he is making a donation out of the Caliph's chest.

A little visit

OK, I know, I have not been blogging for nearly a month now -- call it blogger fatigue, depression about the state of the world, rivalry of Facebook, or a combination thereof. So much had been written about the National Intelligence Estimate and so little about the adoption of the UN General Assembly's resolution on the human rights situation that it seemed pointless to blog about either.

But tonight, I have seen one of the best films of the year. It's not about Iran, and not about human rights. It's about Egyptians and Israelis, peacefully. It's poetic, profound, with a great sense of humour. It's a must see.

Next?

There was indeed much of a hullabaloo at the visit of our President, but after all, it can be summed up in one word: denial. We knew about his first denial, now at Columbia he informed us that there are no homosexuals in Iran, and during his UN press conference he enlightened us with the fact that the Baha'is don't have a Prophet.

Clearly, after all that everyone will believe him when he says that Iran is not trying to get the bomb.

Above and beyond Mr. Ahmadinejad's gesticulations, the issue remains what is going to happen to our country. Initially, Mr. Abdi's recent interview made me quite depressed, then today I read Abbas Milani's excellent piece -- remarkably, they are saying the same thing.

An unhealthy (re)visit

A couple of weeks ago, Ms. Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was in Tehran, attending a Conference organized by the Non-Aligned Movement on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity. Those poor diplomats who fought tooth and nail nearly 15 years ago to maintain the universality and indivisibility of human rights at the Vienna Conference, against an Iranian proposal led by no less than Mr. Zarif himself, must really feel let down. One wonders who advises Ms. Arbour. She should know better than allowing herself to be manipulated into what is no small victory for Iran and its likes.

Moreover, I have a question: Did the High Commissioner take this opportunity to condemn the violations in Iran? Well, publicly, she couldn’t really; it would have upset her hosts... However, in her report at the Human Rights Council last Thursday, she indicated that she had raised a few points with her Iranian counterparts (she met with Mr. Mottaki, it seems).

At least the EU (through its Portuguese Presidency) and Canada used the opportunity to say that they were worried about the human rights situation in Iran. Don’t know why it was only the latter who got the brunt of Iran’s response.

Naivete?!

So, the cat is finally out of the bag: Switzerland was working on a proposal to settle the nuclear issue. This explains why it has been turning a blind eye on Iran's human rights. Unlike all other Western countries, it recently abstained on the vote at the Human Rights Council and it did not co-sponsor the resolution at the UN General Assembly.

Trying to be a broker is not a bad thing per se, but not at the cost of human rights, particularly when we know what generally happens to Swiss proposals regarding Iran.

"S" for speech

The Human Rights Council ended its 4th session last Friday, but unlike during the first session, this time the participation of some Iranians went almost unnoticed.

A number of NGOs complained at our dear Minister of Foreign Affairs presence, but aside from that, quite a few Iranians spoke during those three weeks. Altogether four men including Mr. Mottaki (here, here and here for the others) and a women as far as our government representatives are concerned, and two NGOs (Organization for Defending Victims of Violence and Baha'i International Community).

[you will need to scroll down on the list of webcasts]

See and hear for yourselves.

Where do you really stand?

I have just come across Javad Zarif's website, although it must be quite recent, if one looks at the dates of the articles posted. As a good friend of mine remarked, you will notice that there is not one photo with Mr. Ahmadinejad, although we all have seen how Mr. Zarif was dutifully passing notes to the President during the latter's press conferences at the UN GA both in 2005 and 2006.

I have mentioned a few times how unimpressive (to say the least) Mr. Zarif's statements and letters are, and his latest Op-Ed in the New York Times is unfortunately in the same vein.

He is soon to be replaced, I hear, and will no longer be the IRI's Permanent Representative to the UN in New York. I wonder if any paper will publish his pieces after that.

Neutrality or compromises?

Well I've either been too busy celebrating "shabe yalda" or following the adoption of the resolution on the human rights situation in the IRI, but I just noticed this tonight ... to find out that another blogger had posted about it earlier here and here.

However, I also noticed that a Swiss graphic designer spoke at the opening of the exhibition. Hmmm... Switzerland... just a week after her election, it's new President met with one of Iran's Deputy FM... and also, this year, it decided not to co-sponsor the above-mentioned resolution, although it had done so in the past... the rumour is that it hoped to be able to play a role in the negotiations on the nuclear issue. What did the Calmy-Rey quote in the IRNA release say? "Switzerland attaches special significance to bolstering relations with Tehran"? Maybe it also hopes that if the Security Council resolution passes, Iran will replace the dollar by the Swiss franc rather than the euro!

ouch!... ouch, ouch, ouch!

The resolution on the human rights situation in Iran was adopted on Tuesday by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, with quite a large margin: 70 in favour to 48 against.

Of course, it was rejected by the government as "based on biased and distorted information", and it's result only due to pressure by the US and Canada on other governments.

Aside from the fact that I do believe that UN resolutions have an effect -- if not they would not go out of their way to get rid of them -- this year, our government had to face more than one defeat: firstly, the resolution Iran put forward on the human rights violations in Canada faced a humiliating rejection, with 107 votes against and only 6 in favour, but even more painfully, Iran tried to pull-out a procedural motion, called "no-action" before the actual vote and did not succeed, whereas the day before, Uzbekistan (probably still considered by some as our former colony) managed to have a similar motion pass and thus avoided a condemnation.

Iran Human Rights UN Canada

Look who's talking

So Canada has announced that it will once again introduce a resolution on the human situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran at the UN General Assembly. Interestingly Iran has also announced that it will present a resolution on the human rights situation in Canada (unfortunately their statement is not posted, so for those of you who understand Persian and are reading this post today, watch here at 33 minutes into the programme).

It is a little ridiculous, but as was rightly said, the positive part of this action by Iran shows that it still believes that the UN has the right to look into the human rights situation of any given country, therefore that should apply to Iran too...

A few weeks ago, the second session of the UN Human Rights Council took place in Geneva, but this time, since the meeting was not graced by the presence of Mr. Mortazavi, nobody really talked about it... Well, it seems that there were a number of Special Rapporteurs and countries who mentioned Iran.

Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions;

Yakin Erturk, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women;

Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief in a response to a question by the Netherlands;

Miloon Kothari, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing;

and two NGOs jointly, the International Federation for Human Rights Leagues and the Bahai International Community.

No one spoke of human rights violations in Canada.

Iran Human Rights UN Canada

Set them free

Nearly at the outset of his statement delivered on Monday at the UN General Assembly, our president indicated:

"What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them."

The full text in English can be found here and the webcast here.

I have already made a number of references to various reports on the human rights situation in Iran, whether by the UN or NGOs, however, another of those came out just a few days before Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech. In its introduction it says:

"Government actions and rhetoric created a threatening atmosphere for nearly all religious minorities..."

Or maybe the reference to the Almighty was only for some ...

Iran human rights religion Ahmadinejad UN

Yet another inalienable right

Saeed Mortazavi is the IRI's inalienable right. Well, having him as part of Iran's delegation to the inaugural session of the Human Rights Council is.

Much ado about nothing? In some ways, yes. Any sovereign country is allowed to choose the members of their delegations to the United Nations and the host country has to issue a visa and grant them diplomatic immunity. However, I understand that today -- the day that Mr. Mottaki spoke in the Assembly Hall -- Mr. Mortazavi chose to go sightseeing in Bern.

Was it because Canada's Minister had issued a formal statement of "disgust"? Or because the EU had threatened that its Ambassadors would leave the room at the beginning of the speech? Or was it due to condemnations voiced by a number of NGOs ?

Perhaps. Or perhaps it was because the weather, or climate, in Bern was better than in Geneva.

Had he listened to our Minister's speech though, he would have been impressed, as I always am, at the commitment of Iran to human rights, and I cannot but quote him: "My country commits itself in working closely with the international community and the members of the Council in making the human rights aspirations of all peoples in the world a reality."

I hope this includes the people of Iran.

Prejudice

If the idea of having people identified because of their beliefs (and in order to better persecute them) is certainly horrendous, there is still something I do not understand:

- A lot of justified outrage at the news that in Iran Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians will soon have to identify themselves with a specific coloured cloth (subsequently denied);

- Silence when the UN discloses Ayatollah Khamenei's order to the Ministry of Information, the Revolutionary Guard and the Police Force to identify of all the members of the Baha'i faith.

?

Countdown

No, I am not going to talk about the nuclear issue nor the Security Council but just return to my favourite subject: human rights.

Elections to the Human Rights Council are going to take place next Tuesday, 9 June, and as I have previously mentioned Iran is a candidate, although by now I believe it will not make it: there are enough other candidates within the Asian group with either better human rights records (which is not so difficult to achieve, as we all know) or who are more powerful and therefore can secure the votes regardless.

But predictions is not the purpose of this post. Because of this candidature, Iran has had to make commitments to the promotion and protection of human rights standards. The letter speaks for itself, but allow me to indulge in quoting one paragraph:

"The IRI, if elected, will spare no effort to assist the international community to safeguard the HRC from injustice, double-standards and politicization."

In other words, it will do its utmost to prevent Iran from being condemned for its human rights violations, as we can see from this and this, just to mention a couple.

On their websites, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have analyzed the situation of the various candidates. Iran is worth checking... edifying!

(double) Standards

A while ago, another blogger wrote about double standards, or more precisely about various interpretations depending on what suits the argument. His was in favour of the IRI. The discourse was so "nonsensical" (to use the terms of someone who responded in the comments) that my disappointment with the author led me to stop reading the blog altogether, rather than responding.

But the malaise of not having expressed my frustration remained, I guess (although I gladly found today that, in fact, someone did.)

And then, here I am, thanks to Mr. Zarif who had another go at the UN. Surely, he must feel a little awkward at calling upon the United Nations Security Council to somehow protect Iran when, a day or two before, his President had indicated that "Iran does not give a damn about such [Security Council] resolutions", and his main nuclear negotiator had defined them as "not very important".

Fiancé

sorry... candidate. Iran is candidate to a seat in the newly created UN Human Rights Council.

(pause)

I guess being so well versed and experienced in the human rights violations against its own people, it finds itself in a very good position to be able to judge if others are promoters or violators of human rights.

I am not going to link to all sorts of reports, I have done it in previous posts, here and here.

I only hope that other governments will be offended by this candidature, which ultimately shows how little respect the IRI has for the UN, let alone for human rights, to dare make such a move when six months ago, the same General Assembly that will now have to elect it adopted a resolution confirming it is a gross human rights violator by 75 votes in favour.

(So please don't even mention again Mr. Zarif and his nagging.)

Eulogy or legacy?

Yesterday, the UN Commission on Human Rights held it's last session -- ever.

A comment left on a previous post of mine made me feel I needed to say a few words about what the Commission had done for human rights in Iran.

So last night I embarked on a long and tediously chronological eulogy but subsequently decided to refrain from publishing what would have been quite boring.

In reflecting upon the Commission, some might ask whether there had been any difference on the ground after having had the mandate of a Special Representative who reported on human rights violations in Iran for 18 years, and then losing it 4 years ago. Then, a number of other Special Rapporteurs also visited Iran and subsequently reported. Have these made any change?

Whatever response we will come to will only be subjective, because any real assessment will only be possible in retrospect. However, perhaps we may get some insight by listening to the Latin American countries expressing how the attention of the Commission made a difference at a time when they were engulfed in turmoil, countries like Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Peru...

Then we need to ask ourselves a number of questions: if there had not been, year after year, a report by the UN, what would have given accurate information on the situation within the borders of the IRI? The report of the State Department? Some could argue that it is biased... Those of Amnesty or Human Rights Watch? They are more subject oriented and do not give a yearly and comprehensive view of the situation, and the entries for Iran on their annual reports are far too limited.

Furthermore, most of the thematic Rapporteurs that visited the country -- and all gave pretty damming reports -- could not be accused of not understanding "cultural differences" (or was it "cultural particularism", Mr. Khatami?):

1995: Freedom of religion, Abdelfattah Amor, a Tunisian and a Muslim
1996: Freedom of the press, Abid Hussain, an Indian and a Muslim
2003: Arbitrary Detention, Louis Joinet and Leïla Zerrougui, the latter an Algerian and a Muslim
2005: Violence against women, Yakin Ertürk, a Turk and a Muslim
2005: Adequate Housing (and confiscation of properties), Miloon Kothari, an Indian

I also need to highlight a couple of events: those among us who were already around remember the three visits of Reynaldo Galindo Pohl to Iran in 1990-1991, his visit of Evin, his waiting inside UNDP while witnesses were not being allowed to approach the premises...

And had it not been for the visit of Louis Joinet and Leïla Zerrougui, who would have ever officially recorded the existence, thereafter never challenged, of "sector 209" in Evin -- what they called the "prison within the prison" -- and of "prison 59" in the Vali-Asr.

Now some might think "and so what? All this for what result?" I humbly submit that the more publicity is given to the information, the more protection we shed on the victims. The vast majority of those whose names have been in the public are still alive (and many of them are even free) and those who unjustly died often did so before the world heard about their fate.