|
Interview with Mehrangiz Kar
Gozaar
Mehrangiz Kar: The Chaos in Human Rights Organizations is Rapidly Becoming a National Threat
Editor’s Note: Taking stock of the influence that civil society activists have had on the state of human rights and democracy in Iran is a critical step to ensure the movement’s future. According to domestic and international observers, the country is experiencing a period of repression, and assessing the effectiveness of Iranian political and social activists could lead to the adoption of strategies that might be useful in promoting human rights and accelerating the country’s process of democratization in the future.
By definition, totalitarian rulers tend to ignore human rights and thwart the public’s efforts to enact a representative government. They can be forced to open up to a democratic rule that respects human rights, however, as a result of persistence by civil society activists and the public, as well as transformations within the international community.
From this perspective, by publishing the views of Iranian civil society activists and observers, Gozaar tries to identify new ways to accelerate the process of democratization and recognition of human rights, while simultaneously providing a snapshot of advocates’ achievements and identifying obstacles on the path to democracy.
To better achieve this objective, Gozaar has presented two questions to experts in the field:
1. Have the efforts toward establishing human rights and democracy in Iran—made by Iranian activists—been successful? Do you consider such efforts worthwhile, given the present conditions? Have the achievements in this area been significant or negligible? Which groups have achieved the greatest successes and why? Do you consider working with the ruling powers an effective means of fulfilling civil objectives?
2. What method or methods do you propose to advance the campaigns for democracy and human rights inside Iran? What role can Iranian activists outside the country play in seeking democracy and promoting human rights?
Gozaar will publish other expert opinions on a continuing basis, as they are received. Gozaar invites civil society activists and others who are interested to take part in this survey.
If you would like to participate in this debate, please send your answers to info@gozaar.org.
***
Mehrangiz Kar, Human Rights Activist
The Chaos in Human Rights Organizations is Rapidly Becoming a National Threat
First Question:
In general, I believe it is beneficial for activists involved in civil and human rights in Iran to remain in contact with the political establishment. However, when the regime in power is not facing any sort of pressure from inside or outside the country, improving the condition of human rights is more complicated than it might appear and requires a great deal of deliberation and caution. The international community is not the least bit concerned about the present human rights crisis in Iran.
In order to clarify my answer, I will define the international community’s position in relation to the Iranian government. This is a broad outline of the situation and while it makes no claim to having scholarly or scientific pretensions, just the same, it is a tragic story of the age we live in. We had better recount this tragic story instead of sweeping it under the carpet, out of sight and out of mind.
I see the international community as having two different perspectives on Iran. One view sees the country as part of the international community, which is not necessarily Muslim but is against U.S. policies, and does not have the slightest feeling of sympathy towards human rights victims in Iran. The presence of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the international political scene, and the unpopular position of the U.S. in its deadlocked local and foreign policies, have disturbed the international equilibrium in a way that is not conducive to improving human rights in Iran. In my extensive travel to different countries around the world, I have experienced the human dimension of this imbalance. Since my family and I are victims of human rights violations in Iran, I have become intimately familiar with the distinctive treatment meted out by the anti-American half of the world to victims of violence in Iran. How astonishing to discover that this anti-American part living inside the U.S. does not have the smallest objection to the human rights violations going on in Iran, and that its chief concerns are centered around local and foreign policies of the U.S. In Iran, I have also witnessed that victims of human rights violations are at times treated with scorn and contempt by other Iranians. They are judged to be American government sympathizers. Fingers point to them in an accusing manner as if asking questions like: “Why are you opposed to the anti-American government of Iran?” Why don’t you just work with this government? Have you become the Iranian Chalabis? Even during my stay in Washington, D.C., the capitol of the U.S. of all places, I have been subject to this harsh indictment. I have also read it in weblogs and websites of exiled and immigrant Iranians.
The victims of human rights violations, and the activists and writers both inside and outside Iran, are in dire straits. It comes as no surprise when these opponents of U.S. policy, who, no one knows why, have turned into propagators of anti-human-rights policies of Iran without bothering to inform themselves on the subject, that human rights activists who live in Iran find their position jeopardized and must be on guard lest the government jump to conclusions and pronounce them as agents and accomplices of the enemy based on its ill-informed, one-dimensional understanding of the international community.
Now let’s talk about the other part of the international community that has only focused on Iran’s nuclear program, and turned a blind eye to human rights violations, completely removing the topic from its agenda. The precondition of suspension of uranium enrichment, which is the burning ambition of this part of the world, makes for a situation in which the Iranian people are dehumanized no longer subject to universal laws of human rights until this precondition is met. Let us not be fooled by the prizes that are occasionally given to activists. These prizes are granted by institutions that do not have the power to alleviate the serious dangers threatening human rights of Iranians, no matter how important they seem. We all have such prizes sitting on our mantle. But we cannot harness that honor for the benefit of human rights in Iran in a world where suspension of enrichment is taken as a precondition for our humanity. The part of the world that calls itself the champion of democracy and development of Iran, and asks the Iranian people to overthrow the government, has turned into a disruptive force in the area of human rights.
Therefore, there is not one sympathetic ear in the international community willing to hear and understand the tragic story of the life and frustrations of the victims. Institutions violating human rights in Iran are aware of this, and they also know that if relations between Iran and the U.S. are normalized, the international community will revise its prerogatives. Meanwhile, human rights activists are left unsure how to navigate this difficult path with danger coming from every direction.
The two perspectives that have been briefly sketched are not confined to geographical boundaries. Nor are they necessarily Muslim or Jewish or Christian. Some members of the global community outside of Iran—those who know very little about civil activists in Iran—claim that they themselves have been hurt by U.S. policies. They pay no heed to the agonies of civil activists in Iran and that the activists in Iran are the ones who are honestly committed to supporting a pro-independent state. A group of citizens within Iran, which has turned into the brake pedal for Iranian human rights activists and victims of human rights violations, is publishing statements against human rights activists for unclear reasons.
The result is the same and this brings us back to your main question as to whether staying in contact, and working with the ruling power in Iran, is beneficial in improving the human rights situation. According to the conditions described above, such a proposition is futile in the present political situation. While the ruling power is basking in false pride, and as long as the conditions for this pride remain in place, activists who make contact with the ruling power will continue to get the cold shoulder. Again, the profits from making contact flow directly into the pocket of the human rights violators who are for the time being, sitting back and congratulating themselves on their good fortune. They have power in the palm of their hands, and for them, the international situation continues to improve minute by minute.
I will give one example before moving on to other matters.
Recently, when the Family Support Bill was, amidst much noise and protestation, submitted to the Majles whereupon it provoked the protest of women activists, it was disputed and discussed as an inner-party issue. Various conservative layers, each of which dominates the Executive, Judiciary, and the Legislature, started to hold confidential and non-confidential meetings counseling each other. Under pressure exerted by certain brave and wise women activists, each of these gentlemen took to addressing the issue on a different conservative news site from, and conceded to remove two controversial articles from the bill. This determination produced tangible results. After this, these women activists acted rashly, and it is possible unknown agents of the ruling power actually encouraged them to appear in the Majles so that what the state had already agreed on would be announced before the eyes of the world in a way that made it appear democracy was thriving in Iran. Women went to the parliament. They were welcomed in every way. Tea and sweets were served and the Family Support Bill, which was concocted by the Ahmadinejad administration, was deleted. When this happy event is studied, the conclusion drawn is that attempts made by women activists were impressive until a certain rift was created. Up to the point when they started achieving results, everything was fine until they decided unnecessarily to stray in other directions, which turned out to be beneficial for the regime. In the meantime, the government was censured by opposing inner-party members for adding two articles to the bill. The bill is in opposition to the rights of women in principle and in general, many of the articles and clauses are no less offensive than the two controversial articles. The bill had been drafted by the Judiciary. Therefore, with the appearance of women in the Majles and their "achieving" what they had desired, that is removing the two articles from the bill, the Judiciary, which was and is one of the main agents arresting active women, was seemingly subjected to a shake-up and cleansing.
As mentioned in the news, the government takes advantage of the activists’ acts, prohibiting women’s demonstrations in front of the Majles. Again, members of the Majles talk about keeping article 23. The Legislature, not to be outdone by the Judiciary, not only became the knight in shining armor for these protesting women, playing host to them in the Majles, but also managed to bring the attention of the world to the fact that in Iran, the Legislature takes meticulous care when dealing with bills and, to protect the rights of women, valiantly shields them against the government. I’m not saying that it was a complete show or a charade. But it was not very serious either. It was a crisis management tactic and not done out of sympathy with the women.
Contact with the ruling power becomes beneficial for human rights purposes provided that:
a) The stage has not been decorated in advance by the ruling power.
b) The result of the ruling power's review of the issue that is being disputed does not appear in the media in various forms in advance.
c) The ruling power does not send out its mediators to prevent demonstration and avoid crises, or launch a propaganda campaign on its own benefit ahead of time.
In any other scenario where the ruling power is allowed to gain the upper hand and exclusive access to channels of propaganda, contact with the ruling power is beneficial for the ruling power alone, and not for the development and flourishing of the civil society or for the improvement of human rights conditions. Of course, given the conditions in which civil activists are working, it may not be right to be so picky from outside the country. The activists themselves should be able to choose their own methods.
On the other hand, observers who keep silent are not doing anyone a favor either, and one should speak to that. As suggested above, activists engaging with members of the Majles—a small flicker of hope—can lead to a big success provided we whole-heartedly believe in it, and it might be possible to build a high tower starting from one tiny mosaic. However, one condition must be met. A success should be stated as no more than it is. Exaggeration, which is the biggest enemy of small successes, should be avoided by activists at all costs.
Let me now return to the most important part of the first question. If what you mean is immediate results, of course, not many results have been achieved at all. Laws violating human rights are still in force. Unfair administrative methods and unjust trials and such continue as before. Under frustrating political conditions, the track record of human rights activities cannot possibly be something to brag about. A few efforts have been made and although no matter how much they may or may not seem to be under control, they offer bright prospects. In the future, these efforts might be able to attract the attention of those sections of society that are severely depressed, apathetic, cynical, negative, and paralyzed by unemployment and inflation. This has not yet come to pass, and of course, the global atmosphere and problems within the regime itself have their own influence on the future course of the movements. If a political incident like a military or quasi-military coup d'état or military attack from abroad does not occur, these movements will continue. Otherwise, there will remain no trace of whatever has been achieved -the product of the work of a few generations since 1979 - just like it has always been in the contemporary history of Iran. If normalization of relations between Iran and the U.S. is facilitated, more opportunities will open up for development and the atmosphere for taking action will become safer.
The most important benefits that we have achieved so far include: informing the world about the human rights situation in Iran and establishing a wide human rights dialogue, despite the fact that Iran does not have any sample of such dialogue in its history. I should excuse myself from answering the question about which human rights groups have been more successful. It is now seven years since I was driven out of Iran, and I will defer judgment on this issue to domestic observers. But I have a number of concerns. Human rights groups are sprouting like mushrooms. The only means of communication with them is the emails received and their blogs. To tell you the truth, I have no idea what is going on. I don't know which one can be trusted. I don't know which one is supported by the ruling power, and which one by the opposition that is feeding them in order to recruit more people and achieve their own political objectives. And it is not clear whether these objectives are necessarily to our benefit.
At the moment, the ability to collect information from reliable sources should be the most important attribute of news-delivery for human rights purposes. Increase in quantity does not result in increase in quality. There is a quantitative increase in news delivery sources replacing political societies but they may not necessarily be independent and might be aligned with some political line, so their success does not guarantee that they will be beneficial for Iranians. Therefore, the many groups bearing the phrase 'human rights' in their titles are becoming overwhelming. We do not know which political program is covering and supporting their operation, in the name of human rights. They are often shooting up from inside Iran and we cannot identify their make-up. We either operate blindly, or turn a blind eye to them. Neither method is good. We do not have any knowledge about them. It is dangerous to follow their suit. It would be better for everyone if they made known their political affiliations so that they could find their real followers. They often make some sort of show in support of human rights. What they are like beneath the surface, I do not know! You can’t just throw a few crumbs out and call it human rights.
Iranians like that the shape of the country of Iran resembles a cat on a map of the world. They want this sleek, adventurous, sinning, trapped cat to remain in its present shape. Iranians do not like, say, some limb of the body or head of this cat to be severed. When misfortune strikes, it affects all, Shi’ite and Sunni, Muslim and Baha'i, man and woman, religious and non-believer, all suffer. Of course, there are people like those living on the margins who are more deprived and more vulnerable. But what is certain is that except for a special, privileged class consisting of the thieves' accomplices, everyone else is in agony. They do not like to follow groups who are masquerading as human rights organizations. So we do have the right to be worried.
Chaos in human rights organizations is a big danger that is rapidly turning into a national threat. True and false information about them goes right to the brain of foreign security organizations, which do not have any relations with Iran, and do not receive direct news from original sources. As a result, members in the international community plan and organize work labeled as human rights based on information they believe is from inside Iran. In reality, however, their information from within the country may, in fact, be from non-credible sources. There is no way to tell which organizations in Iran collect credible information. Human rights organizations who select particular victims in keeping with their political objectives are not human rights institutions. In human rights activities, you cannot pick and choose what you do or do not support. The autocratic regime has come up with this conclusion, but if they would leave the political environment open, we would not be in this situation.
Where can you find an independent political party? Prison is not the right place for civil activists. A country cannot be managed through such practices as exorbitant bails, conditional leaves and suspended punishments. A country that is critically dependent on the price of oil could pop like a balloon in the right economic condition. Why shouldn't we have access to other experienced and alternative political opinions? Why has the most promising talent been nipped in the bud for thirty years now? The present chaos in the human rights situation is a result of this devastation.
The human rights movement is endangered by harm from the inside, and it could suffer the same fate as many other worthy movements that have briefly shone in the contemporary history of Iran but were quickly snuffed out when the governments acted rashly.
Second Question:
In my personal experience-- however much I am now a world away from those experiences-- I believe the conditions in Iran are not always as desperate for activists as is felt and believed outside the country. Activists inside the country are fitted with a natural barometer that works in relation to the political atmosphere. They analyze the political air with their special antennae, and they discover many openings and immediately put them to good use. This is the best method to suit the prevailing conditions. The internet and newer communication facilities are of vital importance for the noble and honest activists who love Iran. But in order to take advantage of these facilities, they need money, skilled forces, volunteer forces, and above all, security. They need to deliver news properly to be able to attract the attention of the international community toward the unfavorable conditions that were described above. Building trust is not just indispensable for the government to save face; civil organizations should also be able to build trust. They should remain aware of their responsibility, and weigh any piece of news they receive for validity. Contact with victims and their family members is their most difficult and critical duty. Otherwise, they will lose people's trust by delivering news that is mixed with exaggeration.
The wheel of human rights does not spin through email bombardment, which is sometimes carried out by only one person. But this way, the wheel of news chaos and the version of human rights that the ruling power benefits from will spin. Projecting small movements as large-scale detracts from the quality. Gradually, genuine activists who refuse to indulge in exaggerations will become marginalized and pretenders will dominate. We should think of a solution. I do not know what the solution is. I feel the human rights capital is being wasted away. Human rights are applicable to all humans. The victim's identity card is all that matters to human rights; the victim's beliefs are irrelevant.
In the U.S., human rights groups have been defending for years the rights of those who are accused of terrorism and imprisoned in Abu Ghrayb and Guantanamo. This kind of defense does not mean they are defending terrorism but that they want to remind the world that even the most dangerous criminals are entitled to rights and these rights should be defended. These activists have not been put in prison so far. So the journey begun in Iran has a long way to go to touch the tip of basic human rights. Activists cannot or do not want to believe that this is a perilous journey, despite serious disagreements, say, with Mojahedin-e Khalq. Iranian activists should even be worried about the fate of members of the Mojahedin-e Khalq when they are given to the Iranian government because of the grim experiences they may undergo in captivity. This alleged support of the Mojahedin-e Khalq may seem forced, but, if you do not defend these people and their basic human rights, you are picking and choosing which victims to support. Fundamental principles of human rights do not allow them to remain silent about a large group of individuals in danger of being turned in to Iran and having to bear great suffering; yet still, they keep silent. For years Baha'is had to suffer this silence. Baha'is broke the taboos with the help of their own perseverance, and their international peaceful behavior, emphasizing that they do not support violence and their decisions are not based on politics. Although the Mojahedin-e Khalq have been remiss, and are proud to use violence, activists’ hands are tied. Therefore, the situation remains tough and in crisis. The fundamentals of human rights are not strong enough; we just remain hopeful.
Iran is pregnant, like always. Maybe this time the baby that is due will not turn out to be a freak of nature and this hope gives this downtrodden people something to which they can cling. Hopefully a new being will be born, and grow to play a vital role in human rights, acknowledging fundamental rights of the religious, the dissenters, women, men, Baha'i, Communist, nationalist, liberal, ethnic identity-seeker, non-believer, non-Muslim and all others. For the time being, the chaotic human rights situation, and the absence of means to distinguish authentic organizations from false ones, have made things very difficult. We cannot trust any organization that uses the title “human rights organization.”
|
