Starting with the first question, on whether condemning will result in being offended, there's some resentment from the Persian-background community for accommodating ethnic minority rights within Iran. We're working toward making sure they interpret from our policies and activities that we do not want to separate from Iran. None of the ethnic minorities are actually working toward that.
Because of the Persians' historical dominance--their empire and the territories they have lost over the years and centuries--they're quite suspicious of our activities. We always want to make sure to tell them that through the policies that have been enacted and adopted by the previous regime, this regime, and a lot of Persians, the threat of disintegration in Iran is much greater than if we were to come together and say “This is what you want, and this is what we'll give you”. People in Iran, especially the ethnic minorities, would be much happier in an Iran that accommodated everybody. They would be less inclined to resort to other means, especially wild means, of separating from the country if they were happy and accommodated.
The Persian communities in Iran and Canada must understand that condemning human rights violations in Iran does not mean supporting secession and separatism by anyone. If you condemn the human rights violation of Kurds in Iran, it's probably best to refer to the territorial integrity of Iran, which sometimes pleases the Persian community, and say, “Yes, we are worried about activities like this, but at the same time they must be addressed and respected”. That might ease the tension and minimize their fears.
On the general condemnation of Iran's human rights, my understanding is that the majority of Iranians would like to see Iran condemned because of this violation, but at the same time do something about it. For example, a lot of times people align the Iranian regime with its people. When they say this regime is a terrorist group or terrorist regime, a lot of people are worried that it actually refers to the people as well. This is something they are afraid of, and they think this will lead to something worse. Maybe there could be something done in that regard to actually ease their fears.
If I were the Minister of Foreign Affairs there are two things I would do. It's very hard to understand the circumstances, being in that position, and Canada's interests in many regards. A minister first has to take into account the interests of the country. On the human rights condition, Iran was a major market for Canadian goods, especially Canadian wheat. But that changed a lot because of the human rights conditions, especially with the case of Zahra Kazemi. It affected diplomatic relations in many ways.
It really has to be put in the context of the situation at that time and in that place. But one of the things I would do is continue to work very hard, because Canada is well respected, to make sure that Iran--within the international rules and regulations like the human rights council--continues to be monitored and condemned, if needed. At the foreign affairs level, I would set up human rights monitoring groups and gatherings to promote human rights and a better understanding of Iran and Iranian culture.
I think what the Canadian government has to do, as a suggestion, is make sure that while they condemn the Iranian government for their actions, they are by the side of the Iranian people. That's very political as well, but again that has to be done within the context of that time, and really the statement needs to be made. So that's what I would do.