In response to your question about the difference between the previous generation and the new generation largely born after the 1979 revolution, there is a book I read whose title captures very adequately the sentiment of this generation. The book is called Lipstick Jihad. The youth of Iran are launching their jihad through lipstick, through iPods, through weblogging, as Ms. Afshin-Jam explained, and through satellite television. I think there is an overwhelming desire on their part to lead normal lives, to be part of the international community—and the youth in Iran are very technologically savvy.
I should explain that our centre has issued highly detailed reports on the death of Zahra Kazemi and on the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, which we believe are part of a truth telling process. Just as we've had truth commissions in other societies, I think Iranian youth need to go through this transformation by knowing the truth of the crimes that have been committed, which the state-controlled media, of course, does not tell them.
We have a listserv of 40,000 people in Iran. We know for a fact that the 40,000 people we send these reports to then send them on to numerous other people, so there is this very informal but highly effective network.
Once certain truths and facts are made known and certain taboos are broken, this does have a profound effect in terms of emboldening people to ask for change.
In 1999 there was a student revolt in Iran, which could have been Iran's Velvet Revolution if it had been supported by President Khatami. One of the problems with this generation is its profound disillusionment. People are disillusioned because they believed in 1997 that President Khatami would finally deliver the goods and he didn't. We don't need to get into the reasons now, but the point is that the international community, just like the anti-apartheid movement, needs to inspire and encourage the youth that they are fighting for the right cause and will ultimately prevail.
In this respect, the indictment of Saeed Mortazavi, the symbol to most Iranian reformists of what is wrong with the regime, as it was he who threw hundreds of webloggers and journalists and dissidents into prison, would send the message that this seemingly untouchable, ominous figure is not untouchable and invulnerable after all. It would create tremendous encouragement among young people. These people need to understand that the international community stands in solidarity with them
But in more practical terms, one can once again engage them through track two diplomacy and encourage informal exchanges between Canadian civil society and Iranian civil society.
In terms of the diplomatic embargo, as I said earlier, I think it is a bad idea to sever the lines of communication. But the message has to be sent that we are not just going to talk to this narrow circle of people who happen to control the regime; we are also going to talk to the Iranian people, as they are also part of our diplomacy. And the message has to be sent that while we respect the legitimate rights of Iran as a regional power with its own aspirations, we will draw a line in the sand when it comes to human rights abuses and support of international terrorism.