|
|
|
Using Human Rights to Better
Serve a Dictatorship By Mohammad
Parvin The founders of the
National Iranian American Council (NIAC) made a fundamental mistake when
they established an organization to lobby for the Islamic Regime of Iran (IRI).
In order to be able to promote a friendship with a terrorist regime, NIAC
had not only to be silent about the human rights violations in Iran but to
undermine its validity. When questioned on the human rights issue, NIAC
has always placed the blame on U.S. pressure and has lectured that
recognition of the IRI would improve the human rights issue in Iran . Due
to this strategy, they have never condemned the human rights violations in
Iran . Currently, not a single trace of the term “human rights” can be
detected in their goals and mandates. This calculated ignorance,
and the statement made recently by NIAC’s president, Trita Parsi, played
a major role in unveiling the true face of this organization. When NIAC
went out of its way and tried to influence organizations like Amnesty
International (AI), their liability regarding the absence of concern for
human rights violation in Iran and lack of any condemnation of the IRI for
its daily abuses became the focal point of human rights groups in general
and the Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran (MEHR) in
particular. MEHR challenged the AI as
to how and why they promote an organization that has nothing to do with
the human rights issue in Iran . When questioned in a meeting held in the
Congress (01/18/08) as to why NIAC does not take any meaningful position
against human rights violations by Iran , Mr. Trita Parsi’s reply was:
“NIAC is not a human rights organization. We do not have expertise
in that area.” After MEHR’s single announcement of Parsi’s quotation
and AI’s event, several hundred Iranians supported MEHR’s petition in
objection to AI for promoting NIAC. NIAC – an organization
that announces its major goal as stated on its website: “Promoting
Iranian American Participation in American Civic Life” – has focused
most of its effort on re-establishing normal relations with the religious
dictatorship in Iran . In doing so, NIAC has tried hard to discredit all
opposition to the Islamic Regime of Iran, disregarding thousands of human
rights activists who fight against the IRI for a secular democracy and
have paid dearly for it. The discredited NIAC has
attempted a comeback by trying to correct its strategy, in words but not
in deed. In a recent
article posted on an Iranian site, Trita Parsi begins with the
usual allegation that due to “The Bush administration's Iran Democracy
Fund…Iranian authorities have clamped down on Iran 's civil society with
thousands of arrests.” Parsi further speaks for
“human rights defenders” in Iran by stating that: “Human rights workers
argue that the "regime change slush fund" has facilitated the
Ahmadinejad government's latest wave of abuses… While they recognize
that the absence of diplomacy between Washington and Tehran - and the
ensuing tensions - enable the Iranian government to intensify human-rights
abuses, activists also fear that U.S.-Iran talks might result in a
relationship that mirrors America 's relationship with Saudi Arabia ,
Egypt or Iran under the shah. That is, one in which geopolitical
objectives trump concerns about human rights and democracy.” As Parsi continues: “There is a solution to
this dilemma…Washington must restore its own standing on human rights,
and put the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran on the table in
its discussions with Tehran. A foreign policy contingent on human rights
will create a balance between America 's relationship with the people of
Iran and its relationship with Iran 's unpopular government.” He then concludes, stating
that “the next president of the United States must recognize the
necessity of reducing tensions with Tehran through diplomacy.” If this statement was in
fact a genuine alteration of NIAC’s policy, nothing would have been more
satisfying than to witness the evaporation of one of the main pillars of
support for the Islamic Regime. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Being exposed and on the run, NIAC has discovered that to remain an active
promoter of IRI, a little lip service to human rights doesn’t hurt.
After all, there is a Persian proverb to this effect that: “Human Rights
is a chicken served in both funeral and wedding.” Khomeini, the founder
of the system of terror in Iran , hardly missed the reference to human
rights in Iran in numerous speeches made before the Islamic Revolution. NIAC’s new position is
not genuine and remains nothing more than an empty gesture made for the
sake of “record.” It is not a coincidence that this article has only
been published in an online Iranian site (IPS)
and was never posted on NIAC’s website. Human rights violations in
Iran are not an arbitrary action of this or that faction or something
practiced by hardliners. It is the law of the land. Article 4 of IRI’s
constitution makes every single article contingent upon observation of the
Islamic laws: “All civil, penal
financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and
other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This
principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the
Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and the fuqaha'
of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter.” In sharia’s law that is
amended to the constitution, torture, stoning, and body mutilation are
considered lawful acts of correcting the sinners. There is no reform
possible in this system. You touch it and it collapses. That was why
during the presidency of Khatami, NIAC’s darling, and during the era of
“reforms,” the number of individuals being stoned was at its highest.
Neither he nor any other so called reformer dared to condemn this ultimate
form of an inhumane act. Mr. Parsi is well aware of
these facts, which explains why his reference to human rights is a
deceitful act aimed to further cover up his true intentions. His goal is
to put human rights on a table to make the digestion of a terrorizing
system possible. MEHR has been advocating for inclusion of the human
rights observation as a precondition for any negotiation with the Islamic
Regime. This precondition is not warranted by lecturing the notorious
regime or by issuing statements and reports on human rights violations.
These gestures have been made by the U.S and Europeans repeatedly in so
many years. Each year, State Department and EU States as well as all human
rights organizations and UN publish reports in condemnation of the Iran
for human rights violations. Yet, at the very same time, lucrative deals
have been made with the very same regime with no conditions whatsoever. If one truly cares for
human rights, it would be made a precondition for any negotiation, and the
release of all political prisoners would be a first step. Mr. Parsi cannot
afford taking such a position because he knows that the IRI would never
accept these conditions and friendly relations with the Mullahs would
become history. For him, human rights are only good as a decoration of
negotiations that would compromise and betray the Iranian struggle for a
secular democracy. 
Mohammad Parvin is an adjunct professor at the California State University and director of the Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran (MEHR) - http://mehr.org
MEHR
has no affiliation with any political or partisan group. MEHR Tel: (310) 377-4590 MEHR
is a tax-exempt, 501 C (3), organization and
|
