An open
letter to Mrs. Hicks following her International Herald Tribune article of
September 18, 2002
You,
Mrs. Elahe Sharifpour-Hicks, are
known to progressive Iranians for your struggle for Human Rights issues in
Iran. I have frequently been pleased while listening to some of the interviews
you have given. However, in addition to respect for your work, it is my deep
astonishment, and sorrow, that are the main reasons for writing these critical,
though nonetheless friendly remarks about your article. ("Iran's
elected leaders are ready to listen", IHT 12
sep 2002).
You
write, "If there is one clear enemy of human rights and political reform
in Iran today, it is the judiciary. So when I recently met Mohammed Javad
Larijani, the deputy head of the judiciary with responsibility for
international affairs and human rights, a newly created post, I expected that
we would vehemently disagree about almost everything."
I
think that you should be aware that this "respectable" man, known
for his very special relationship with UK intelligence services (his 1997
"secret" discussions in England, a few months before the first
election of Mr. Khatami, having since been revealed) has been installed in
this newly created "custom-made" post primarily for just such
occasions, giving a "respectable" face to the most hideous actions
of the judiciary.
In the
next paragraph, you add, "But Larijani, a sophisticated man who speaks
fluent English, made no apologies. He believes that both conservatives in the
past and now reformists have proved to be incompetent to run the country. I
was surprised to find myself agreeing with him."
I find
this particularly disturbing. Why have you gone to visit this man ? For a
general discussion on politics, and the shortcomings of different governments
in the Islamic Republic, or to question him on pressing Human Rights concerns,
such as the unjust fate of scores of political prisoners mistreated by the
judiciary ? To whom did Mr. Larijani speak- Iran researcher for Human Rights
Watch in New York, or rather a commentary writer for the International Herald
Tribune ?
I
believe that Mr. Larijani has a much better understanding and knowledge of
your ideas than you have knowledge of him and the deep struggle going on for
the democracy in Iran. It's a good point that you do not hide your prejudices
before your visit, but these prejudgments reveal your na‹ve attitude in
front of the hard-liners.
Anyhow,
as someone who cares about the days and years passed in prison by the brave
journalists who investigated the so-called "serial killings"[1]
of the intelligence services of Iran, I'm more interested in what the
judiciary representative had to say about this to a representative of an NGO
like Human Rights Watch, than that representative's comments about this or
that personality. Shallow analyses, based on personal feelings about current
developments in Iranian society are flourishing everywhere (including among
Iranian intellectuals). I do not have the willingness, nor the means, to
answer all of them.
For
various reasons, I believe that the current struggle between the two factions
of the Iranian State, is an irreducible ideological battle between death (or
what's "supposed to happen" after our life on Earth) and this
present corporeal life. Therefore, putting these two social forces in the same
sack reveals a profound misunderstanding of historical as well as current
rapidly changing social processes. There are examples of the differences
between the current government and the previous one available.
Among
many cases, Mr. Ganji, the courageous journalist in prison for over a year
because of his investigations into the crucial subject of the "serial
killings", is a good living illustration of the changes that Iran has
undergone in the last 5 years. (Did you try to meet him during your stay in
Iran ?). What made a former "ideological leader" of the "Guardians
of the Islamic Revolution" investigate these "State crimes",
and more than that, in recent months write a "republican manifesto"[2] from prison?
The very fact that he is still alive should give you an idea of some of those
changes!
After
saying that the supreme religious leader is "behind the shutdown of more
than 85 publications in the last two years, the imprisonment of many
journalists, writers and political activists, the crushing of student
demonstrations and banning of political parties, and the imposition of even
more restrictions on everyday life", quite curiously you neglect to
mention that President Khatami has been against all these "pseudo-legal"
actions, and that he has done everything in his power according to the current
Constitutional law to stop them (ex- giving many "constitutional alarms").
In the
few next paragraphs, you try to answer the question "How can the United
States craft a policy toward Iran that is at the same time realistic and
principled?" Before looking at your answers, I'd like to breakdown the
question a bit:
·
After commenting about the outcome of the reformist movement, are you trying
to take a new role, "US
government advisor on Iranian affairs"?
·
What do you mean by "principled policy" ? Can causing the death of a
few hundred thousand Iraqis children, mainly because of an ongoing unfair
embargo imposed since the end of the Golf War in 1991, be considered a "principled
policy" ? What about the
official declaration of
President Bush
asking Congress "to authorize a possible use of force against Iraq"
and warning "that he was prepared to move ahead even without United
Nations backing"? You surely know that this "principle" is not
new at all, it has already been declared by Mrs. Albright before the Bush era.
Am I wrong in calling this principle by its ancient name- "the law of the
jungle" ?
So
before asking "how", we
should first ask "if " the US wants to "craft a policy
toward Iran that is at the same time realistic and principled", perhaps
based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example?
In the
next paragraph you write, "First, Washington must make clear that it
rejects certain parts of the political spectrum. Reformists in Tehran were
shocked that the foreign policy chief of the European Union, Javier Solaña,
met with Rafsanjani during a recent visit to Tehran."
Firstly,
I was quite shocked wondering what Javier Solaña, the foreign policy chief of
the European Union has to do (rightly
or wrongly) in a paragraph which tries to answer a question that starts with
"How can the United States
craft …". Would you be kind enough to make clear to me whether you
consider the European Union to be a
US State, or if whether believe that the entire European Union has to follow blindly the US administration, no
matter what the administration decides,
acting as a US vassal (like Mr.
Blair, for example) ?
Secondly,
even if we accept your role of "US policy advisor", in accordance
with which international laws do you conclude that "Washington must make
clear that it rejects certain parts of the political spectrum" ? One of
the most valuable results of the popular revolution in Iran has been what you
yourself admit a paragraph later : "Clearly, it is hard for Washington to
have much direct influence over internal affairs in Iran." Indeed, in
today's world, there are very few countries to which one may apply such an
assertion.
The
undeniable fact that conservative "death-seeking" rulers (call it
"sacrifice" or whatever you want, this applies of course to others,
not to themselves, their goal being the preservation of their own rule) are
dominant in the Islamic State today is a huge obstacle on the road to Iran's
development and welfare. But this is a deeper basic problem of Iranians
themselves. If we consider only one lesson of the Iranian reform movement, the
tendency to find and as much as possible tackle the internal sources of flaws instead of overestimating the external factors,
then from a historical point of
view, this whole experience has been worth living. A direct consequence of
this lesson is the logical demand of Iranians to let them solve their own
internal affairs internally! It is the most fundamental right of any nation to
choose its own path of development in a free manner. It is my hope and the
right of Iranians, that they move towards a better democracy. Everyone, as
human beings, and based on humanist "principles" ( i.e. that human
lives are equally valuable where they are lived), should denounce violations
of Human Rights. The role that NGOs, such as yours, Amnesty International,
Reporters Sans frontiers, etc., can play everywhere is very much appreciated
and welcomed, including in the US (for example against the death penalty).
If you
consider that the discussion between two countries should be seen and
conducted on an equal-to-equal basis (I do not imagine that you might consider
a "master-pupil" relationship as a model of inter-state
discussions), then one might also advise the Islamic State that "Tehran
must make clear that it rejects certain parts of the political spectrum"
in the United States prior to any discussions! Until future changes take
place, and no matter what you or I may desire, it is obvious that Mr.
Rafsanjani occupies an important place in the Iranian state today. Removing
him from his post is the concern of Iranians. Iranian reformists are of course
"free" to be shocked as much as they want, but they surely can not
dictate to foreign representative whom to visit and whom to avoid.
Several
times you mentioned "the elected leaders of Iran". It's worth noting
that using a strict definition, the supreme religious leader has also been
(indirectly) elected by the Iranian people. In fact, according to the present
Constitutional law, this is done by the "religious Council of
Experts" (who have the power to remove him from his post). And this
Council is elected by universal suffrage. In some ways this procedure is
similar to the two-stage election of US presidents. Knowing that in the last
US elections, the number of votes for Mr. Gore were a few hundred thousand
more than for Mr. Bush, do you suggest that the rest of the world consider Mr.
Bush as "non-elected", or that they boycott Mr. Bush until changes
in American laws permit direct elections?
In
another paragraph you've written that, "President Khatami believes that
change can only take place peacefully and within the framework of the Iranian
constitution. But it is a flawed document that accords absolute power to the
supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei."
Here,
as an Iranian-born humanist, I agree with your characterizing the present
Iranian constitution as "flawed". I might add that I am among the
1.8% of the Iranians who voted against the Islamic republic referendum
proposed by Ayatollah Khomeyni right after the Islamic Revolution's victory.
But this "flawed document" reflects the "flawed state of mind"
of the majority of Iranians at the time, which in turn should be considered as
bitter fruit, the "last gift" of a corrupt and completely
US-dependant regime, brought to power by the CIA-led coup of 1953. At the time
of the revolution, about 65% of Iranians were illiterate, and the huge
majority of the rest did not have any precise idea of what democracy was. Did
you expect that such people, being under dictatorships for a few thousand
years, would produce a perfect constitutional state all at once?
You
write that according to law, the elected president does not have much power. I
view as exaggerated Mr. Rafsanjani's claims that the conservative
establishment would mobilize 2 million people in its support, and would not
hesitate to use its 400,000-strong private army against the people to hold on
to power. After all, the percentage of voters for Khatami among these forces
was similar to the rest of the country, i.e. more than 70% . Let us suppose
however, for argument's sake that the conservative establishment has such a
power, and in a critical case would not hesitate, to use it, costing many
people their lives. Should we then blame the huge majority of Iranians who,
having learned a hard lesson from the last revolution, while ready to vote one
hundred times to ameliorate their "flawed" Constitutional law, are
not at all eager to give their lives, which they can do but once?
Conclusion
The
progression of the Iranian society towards a better world depends on so many
factors. No one can foresee the shape that their struggle may take in the
future. But as a humanist, I will do my best to avoid the bloodshed there (as
elsewhere in the world) and continue hoping that changes take place
peacefully. In this struggle, I am happy to find Mr. Khatami on my side.
Recognizing
his limitations, most of which I would term "historical", this is
not an appropriate place for me to criticize him. I know only one acceptable
source of the legitimacy of any state- the people, each and every one of them,
and without exceptions. So, as a democrat, I have to respect the choice of my
people in electing him. And as a citizen, I judge his deeds according to my
principles, not his nor yours.
As you
should well know, the two main measures that president Khatami announced in
his major speech Aug. 28, are
· A
bill reducing the power of the conservative "Council of Guardians"
(of Islam and Constitutional
Law)
to eliminate "unwanted" candidates from the public elections
· A
bill allowing the president to act with "more prerogatives" so that
he may "better respond to the aspirations of the people".
Even
with the small amount of information presented in this article, one can
clearly see the crucial importance of these two laws for advancing reforms
(for more information, see Agence France Press).
The outcome of this struggle is uncertain. As elsewhere in the world, and as
long as Iranians themselves do not put an end to it, it's the right of the
conservatives and hard-liners to create as many "legal obstacles" as
they can on this long path. But they should not be permitted to violate basic
modern Human Rights.
I
admire your struggle in working for concrete adherence to these principles in
Iran, however, I would draw your attention to the fact that mixing-up the
roles, especially when the analysis of the political situation is incomplete,
will necessarily harm this important task.
If you
have more remarks, or questions, please feel free to contact me (khayyami@free.fr).
Yours
sincerely,
Khayyami
[1] The 4 last killings by the
agents of the Intelligence ministry : the stabbing of a political activist
and his wife, and the choking of two secular writers, are known to all
Iranians (even the officials) as "serial killings". These were
among the "hundreds of Iranians killed by government agents inside and
outside the country because of their political beliefs." After being
convinced of the role of the Intelligence ministry, Mr. Khatami forced the
ministry to recognize these crimes. He undertakes the institution of deep
reforms in this ministry. But the real engineers of these killings were not
bothered by the judiciary. Quite to the contrary, some of the journalists
who played an active role in revealing these crimes are in prisons according
to "Islamic laws" !
[2] Among the strange and unusual
is the fact that a prisoner wrote a book in which, bringing concrete
examples from the Qoran, he explains why a "real republic" is
incompatible with Islam. His 40 pages book was published officially in Iran,
before being banned. It has since been published on Internet. You may download the original, in Persian,
PDF version from here.