Evidence of meeting #27 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was iran.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mark Dubowitz  Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Ali Alfoneh  Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

No. You talked in your statement about front groups that operate out of Iran. Negative people would ask, okay, are you a front group, and how are you funded?

I'm just giving you a chance to clarify the record.

1:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mark Dubowitz

First of all, if you want an exposition on Iranian front groups, I'm happy to provide that. I don't think I actually have provided that in my testimony, but—

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

No, I think you missed my point.

1:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mark Dubowitz

I hear your point.

The organization that I head as executive director is a non-profit organization based in Washington. It's a non-profit and it's funded by private North American donors. We don't get any money from foreign governments. We don't get any money from corporations. We get money from individuals.

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Good. You've put that on record.

You also spoke extensively about nuclear ambitions in Iran. Do you see a direct link between those nuclear ambitions and the mistreatment and the human rights violations within Iran?

1:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mark Dubowitz

I do. I think there's a fundamental link. This is a regime that depends for its survival on fear, creating fear abroad and creating fear at home. The nuclear weapon is the ultimate weapon of fear for creating fear abroad. The vast system of domestic repression that the Iranian regime has set up to abuse its own people is the instrument of fear and torture at home. You join those together and the regime is a formidable and fear-creating government.

I think the lesson is that once a country has a nuclear weapon, the rest of the world is even more reticent about holding that country's feet to the fire on human rights issues.

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

That's where my next question would go. Some have said and believe that the U.S., in chasing and trying to stop the development of that nuclear weapon, has started to turn a blind eye to the abuses within the country.

1:35 p.m.

Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mark Dubowitz

I think that's exactly right. I think the Obama administration's conception of these negotiations is these are arms-control negotiations. They're not even arms control; they're nuclear negotiations, because ballistic missiles seem to be increasingly taken off the table.

In light of that, the administration has been very reluctant to hold the regime to account on human rights issues. The most classic example of that was the democratic counter-revolution in 2009, where millions of Iranians were on the street yelling, “Death to the dictator. President Obama, are you with us or are you with the dictator?” The Obama administration made the decision that instead of standing with the Iranian people, it would stand with the interlocutors back in Tehran, who it believed were sincere about reaching some kind of nuclear compromise, or at least testing their sincerity.

I think it was a big mistake. I think the administration has acknowledged that it was a mistake. I think Canada can really play a fundamental role in ensuring, like in our arms control negotiations during the Cold War, that human rights and arms control are inextricably linked.

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

Mr. Schellenberger, you have five minutes and 45 seconds.

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Thank you. I get extra time.

Should the U.S. not realize that you cannot trust all countries and governments the same as you do your allies? I don't think they can all be trusted the same. Take a look at what's happened with Russia, Syria, Iran. Do you feel the U.S. has to change the direction that they seem to have taken lately?

Either one of you can answer.

1:40 p.m.

Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mark Dubowitz

I'm a supporter of always talking to your enemies. I think it's important to talk to your enemies. I think that Reagan's dictum is an important one, which is “trust but verify,” although I would argue that in the case of the Iranian regime, we shouldn't trust and we absolutely need to verify.

I think the administration doesn't trust the regime. I think the administration understands that it's dealing with a mendacious regime that has a decades-long record of duplicity. I think the administration believes that there is a technical algorithm that can solve a strategic problem. The strategic problem is the nature and conduct of this regime.

I think that is where we disagree. We don't believe that some technical compromise on centrifuges is ultimately going to deal with the fundamental nature and conduct of this regime, which has spent decades lying about its nuclear program, decades brutalizing its own people, and decades sponsoring terrorism abroad, that all of a sudden a verification inspection regime of limited duration and limited scope is going to stop this regime from ultimately pursuing its long-standing objective of building a weapon.

May 13th, 2014 / 1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Various communities within Iran are known to have been victims of persecution or serious human rights violations. Can you identify these communities and elaborate on the types of human rights abuses they face, stressing the differences and similarities of treatment? In particular, can you elaborate on the situation or treatment of the Baha'i community, other religious minorities, minority ethnic groups, who are, I think, being persecuted primarily because of sharia law?

1:40 p.m.

Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Ali Alfoneh

Yes, sir, particularly when it comes to the Baha’i community. The Baha’i community is the most persecuted religious minority in Iran ever since the revolution of 1979.

The religious leadership of the Islamic republic believes that the Baha’i faith is a direct challenge, a theological challenge, to Shia Islam. They have the support of many members of the Shia clergy and even some parts of devout Iranians. This is why the Baha’i community has been suffering most.

However, 35 years after the revolution there are many Iranians who are questioning the right of the Shia clergy to rule Iran. After all, they promised the Iranian public justice in this world and salvation in the next. Of course, nobody has returned from the next world to tell us if there was salvation for them, but if there is one thing that the Iranian public knows very well, it is that there is no justice for them.

There is particular injustice for those members of Iranian society who do not belong to the Shia faith. There are particular hardships for members of the Sunni community, and again, within the Sunni community, the Sunni Arab community is persecuted because it is accused of receiving funds and political support from Iran's regional rivals. In some cases that may even be true, but there is absolutely no excuse for discriminating against members of those communities.

Among the religious communities there is one success story, and that has nothing to do with the government of Iran, and that is Iran's Jewish minority. The Jewish minority is not persecuted because of its faith. You cannot credit the government of the Islamic republic for that. Iran hosts the second largest Jewish community in the Middle East after Israel, and that is not because of the government. That is because of the generally tolerant nature of Iranian society. It has nothing to do with the government.

Other violations of human rights are usually directed against human rights activists, against lawyers who defend victims of human rights abuses in Iranian courts, against unions, particularly student unions and labour unions. In other words, the government on the one hand tries to dominate the union structure and infiltrates them by agents of various intelligence services, but at the same time also wants to crush them to the degree that is at all possible.

These groups are all overrepresented statistically among the list of political prisoners. I think a very good list of that is Dr. Shaheed's report, which was published recently.

1:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mark Dubowitz

If I could very quickly add to that, there's a certain amount of irony when President Hassan Rouhani claims that the international community is practising nuclear apartheid, when his very regime practises human rights apartheid. There's a certain amount of irony that should be appreciated there.

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

Mr. Schellenberger, that actually is the end of your time.

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Was that the end of five minutes, or five minutes and 40 seconds?

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

Five minutes and 37 seconds.

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

I'm sorry. I had one really good one left. Thanks.

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

I'm sorry about that.

Professor Cotler, it's your turn.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to commend both of the witnesses for their comprehensive and fulsome testimony. You both have spoken of Iranian terror at home and abroad and Iranian human rights violations at home and abroad. Yet as the nuclear negotiations resume this week, they run the risk of overshadowing, if not sanitizing, both the human rights violations and the terrorism as really a matter of Iranian principle and policy.

How do we change this groupthink in the U.S. and Europe? There's this disconnect between the preoccupation almost exclusively with nuclear negotiations and the more than benign neglect, but almost sanitizing, as I say, of the human rights and terrorist violations.

I'd like maybe, Mark, you on the human rights and Ali on the terrorism.

1:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mark Dubowitz

Professor Cotler, it's exactly the right question.

The joint plan of action is very specific that there should be no new nuclear sanctions while these negotiations are taking place, but the administration is on record as supporting new human rights sanctions and new terrorism sanctions. The problem is, like diplomats everywhere, they become very invested in the process, and the Iranian regime has been very adept at using the scare tactic that they will walk away from negotiations if there are any new sanctions on any front.

I think it's actually incumbent upon the Canadian government and the Canadian Parliament to encourage an atmosphere through Canadian leadership that human rights and terrorism—terror at home or terror abroad—should be on the front burner, not on the back burner. I think you will find willing and committed members of Congress on a bipartisan basis who support that approach.

I would recommend that the Government of Canada, if there is a final nuclear deal on acceptable nuclear terms, accept that deal with the qualification that any enforcement of that deal has to start depending on Iran finally addressing the vast system of domestic repression in its country and the use of the Quds Force, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations in its terrorist activities abroad. In Canada, again, if you have an Ottawa equivalent of the Helsinki Accords, we could all meet back in Ottawa in a year's time and really put that on the front burner.

1:45 p.m.

Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Ali Alfoneh

Recently one of the commanders of the Revolutionary Guards stated, “In Syria we have managed to create a new Hezbollah”, which I think is a very interesting statement because it tells you that they believe they are on the winning side of history. They believe that they have managed to deter the United States from getting more engaged in the Middle East. They believe that western European countries do not have any appetite for engaging in the region, and they fundamentally believe that acts of terrorism and economic and military support to terrorist organizations in the Middle East region has, in reality, paid off. It has been a good investment, seen from Teheran, and that, of course, is very unfortunate.

Any nuclear deal should have other components as well. One part of the components could be the human rights violations issue. Another one could be terrorism. I believe that in reality most Iranians would tell you that the nuclear issue is the smallest of the worries of the Iranian public. The Iranian public is much more concerned about human rights violations inside of Iran, but also the fact that the Iranians are now being depicted in the entire Middle East region as supporters of terrorism, and that is very unfortunate.

1:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

You still have one minute.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Okay, I have maybe a longer question than its answer.

Mark, you mentioned the joint plan of action, but it always appears to me that there was no real joint plan of action because of the disparity in the two positions. Can either of you maybe itemize some of those disparities?

1:50 p.m.

Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mark Dubowitz

Well, the joint plan of action seems to be one of those agreements that's in the eye of the beholder. It's being interpreted very differently by the U.S. government and its P5+1 allies on the one hand, and in the Iranian government on the other.

It is clear from the public statements of Iranian officials that they have no intention of dismantling their nuclear program. It is clear from the public statements of Iranian officials that, while they promise so-called transparency in their nuclear program, that transparency will not extend to cover the entire territory of Iran; in other words, providing the kind of unfettered, anywhere, anytime IAEA inspections that are vital to ensuring that Iran is in full compliance with its nuclear obligations and is not building, as it has in the past, clandestine nuclear facilities.

It is clear that there is a fundamental difference in interpretation on questions of the kind of sanctions relief that Iran should be entitled to. You know, it's worth actually saying this in Canada. I mean, you have a banking system that you rightly should be proud of. You should also understand that the Iranian banking system in the entire territory of Iran has been declared by the U.S. government to be a jurisdiction of primary money-laundering concern. The U.S. government, Canada, and Europe have designated Iranian banks, because those banks have been involved in illicit finance supporting WMD, terrorism, money laundering and sanction circumvention.

It is absolutely incumbent that banks in Canada understand that right now there's no such thing as a good Iranian bank. The entire Iranian financial sector has been designated because it poses a threat to the integrity of the global financial system. A notion that we're going to have a nuclear agreement and allow all of these bad Iranian banks to be provided access to the global financial system really flies in the face of good banking practices and undercuts the very rationale for why those banks were designated. There is a fundamental misinterpretation and disagreement between the U.S. Department of the Treasury on the one hand and the Iranian regime on the other about how quickly those banks should be allowed back in.

Professor Cotler, I could take hours to illuminate the differences in understanding. My fundamental point is and my concern is that we are setting ourselves up for a bad nuclear agreement, because Iranian expectations about what they should be getting as part of this agreement stand at odds with yours, not only U.S. policy but with multiple UN Security Council resolutions that are clear in what Iran has to do in order to satisfy international obligations.