Evidence of meeting #34 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nuclear.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 29th, 2009 / 1:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Thank you.
Is there any time left?
Conservative
Liberal
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
I have two questions. One of them has to do with the fallout from the last election, which I guess in some ways was a watershed moment. I think for many Iranians, it was a realization that the supreme leader was not neutral in that election. He really did take sides with the present regime. Has that led in many ways to a loss of credibility among those who are still loyal to the supreme leader but who at the same time were not necessarily loyal to Ahmadinejad?
Is there in fact a loss of confidence in the supreme leader? He is no longer a neutral sort of spiritual leader. Really, he belongs to a political faction that is in control of the process and therefore makes the whole process of having an election almost irrelevant in some ways.
The other question I have is this one. Lately we've heard about what is happening with the Baluchis and Baluchistan and so forth. I'm wondering if the minority communities within Iran are so frustrated at the moment that they feel taking up armed struggle is the only way they can in fact deal with some of the issues that are quite repressive to them?
Professor of International Law, McGill University, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Silva, for those very insightful questions.
The question of the election has various dimensions. I wish to highlight, first of all, that this was not an election; it was a selection. There were four candidates hand-picked by the supreme leader. Mr. Mousavi, who should be commended in many respects, was a former prime minister. Mr. Karoubi, who also should be commended for being the first Iranian leader to stand up and admit that there had been systematic rape and torture in Iran's prisons, was the former speaker of the house. The structure is that the supreme leader will determine who can run for elections or run for Parliament, and that's the facade of democracy that the regime has created to legitimize itself without actually having a democracy.
The point is that after the recent violence, many of the reformists who believed that they could change the Islamic Republic from within have now realized that it may not be possible. At the same time, the supreme leader, who for many years was above these kinds of political divisions, has now become regarded as merely one political faction among others. The Office of the Supreme Leader has lost its legitimacy in an irreparable way. It's impossible for that institution to ever retrieve the authority that it once had.
There are, of course, struggles within the hard-liners as well, between Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad. This gentleman, Mr. Mashai, whom I explained was in Canada, was one of the points of contention. The supreme leader pressured President Ahmadinejad to remove him from one position. Ahmadinejad defied him by putting him in another equally important position.
There are all sorts of cracks within the regime, and a big part of it is also about plunder of resources, about who controls which part of the economy. You know that the government of the U.K. recently froze a bank account under legislation relating to the nuclear program, and according to many reports, this bank account contained $1 billion in the name of Ayatollah Khamenei's son, Mojtaba. This is the link, once again, between resources and the power struggles that are happening within the country.
In the question on minorities, I imagine you're referring in particular to the recent terrorist bombing in Baluchistan. There is a real fear on the part of the non-violent democratic movement that as people in certain minorities become increasingly desperate, they will resort to violence. There were also two assassinations of government officials in the Kurdistan region of Iran.
My own sincere hope is that this democratic movement maintains its discipline and succeeds through non-violence, but one has to also anticipate the possibility that the longer this situation continues and the longer the international community helps to prop up this regime, the greater the prospect that some, discouraged by non-violence, will begin to resort to violent methods. That will be, I think, most unfortunate for the future of Iran and the kind of regime we will end up with.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
We have one more round of questions. In order to allow this to happen, I am going to see the clock as being at five minutes to two.
Go ahead, Mr. Hiebert, please.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you for being here. I have two questions.
You've said that the U.S. approach was detrimental to human rights in Iran, mostly because of the cuts to the funding of this group that monitors and writes about democracy in Iran. Is there anything else that the U.S. is doing or not doing that's also detrimental to human rights in Iran? That's question number one.
Question number two is that you said a moment ago that you or others have come to the conclusion that it's not possible to change the Iranian government from within. If you can't change it from within because the power is so concentrated with the supreme leader, then how will it ultimately change at all, if not by being completely overthrown through some sort of coup?
Professor of International Law, McGill University, As an Individual
Thank you, sir.
On the question of U.S. policy, I'm not sure I understood completely. Once again, I'm not an expert on U.S. foreign policy. I think that on a bipartisan basis there clearly still is some sympathy on the human rights issue, but certain decisions have been made to take certain projects off the table. It really remains to be seen how U.S. policy unfolds.
Despite my expressions of regret over the funding decisions, I think once they come to the realization that any concession on the nuclear issue is only temporary and is not going to solve the fundamental problem, there can once again be more enlightened understanding of what role the west can play in supporting the democratic movement.
I think the advisers now in the Obama administration are those who, during the Bush administration, were against what they characterized as sort of cowboy diplomacy, making military threats, which only helped Ahmadinejad to unite the Iranian people against American imperialism and all this rhetoric of the revolution.
They now are moving in the opposite direction, but many of them are completely ignoring what happened over the summer. They have these views that Ahmadinejad is there to stay, we have to be realistic, we have to engage him, we shouldn't be making military threats. But they are completely disregarding this explosion that took place over the summer, which should fundamentally make them recalculate the equation in Iran and how much power Ahmadinejad really has.
In terms of change within, I want to be very careful with my words. The change within was the idea that through elections one could move forward with a reformist agenda. The question of changing the regime is not one, as I've repeatedly said, of replacing one group of tyrants with another group of tyrants. Of course, everyone speaks about human rights and democracy until they're in power; then they resort to the same methods.
The promise of Iran is that there is now a grassroots social movement calling for democracy. This is no longer just factional politics. The protestors, the millions in the streets, may have used the elections as a pretext to come out on the streets, but there are women's groups, human rights activists, student leaders, unemployed people, and just grandmothers and grandfathers and children who want freedom. They want hope.
That is the reason why I think a bright future lies ahead. Any leader who comes to power today must now answer to those people. We know that is ultimately the basis for a democracy rather than holding a few elections in a system where the people are disenfranchised and really have no real power or say.
Just underneath this very unfortunate image of Iran is a new, pragmatic, post-ideological, highly idealist, and highly capable generation of people who are truly human rights champions. So long as they maintain their discipline and keep their non-violent ethos, sooner or later these leaders will be put aside. Fortunately Iran is not like North Korea: it cannot be ruled through terror and intimidation indefinitely.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Thank you very much, Professor Akhavan.
It's been a pleasure having you here as a witness. We are very grateful that you were able to take the time to be here with us.
Professor of International Law, McGill University, As an Individual
Thank you, sir.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
We are adjourned....
No, we're not adjourned quite yet. I take that back.
Madam Thi Lac.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to make a suggestion for the committee.
We have received the report that we are to examine Tuesday next. However, we have heard new witnesses during the past weeks and it is still the same report that you had sent to us before we heard the new witnesses.
Instead of studying it next Tuesday, perhaps it would be more appropriate to let the researchers retrieve the information and put it in writing. Otherwise, it will have been useless to have welcomed new witnesses and heard them. I believe that it would be more appropriate to delay the study until the researchers have had the time to incorporate in their report the information that was provided by these witnesses. Moreover, as we have asked them to appear, it would be insulting for these people not to take any account of their testimony in our future report.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Essentially it sounds as if you're suggesting that we don't have a meeting next Tuesday. Would that be a very brief summary of what you've just said?
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
We could have a meeting. I believe that we can meet next Tuesday precisely to deal with the schedule of future business, but not on the subject of the report.
I just want to give the researchers the time needed to put together the information provided by the witnesses that we have heard lately. Today we were all very happy to hear from the professor. Also, if we are to examine this on Tuesday, I can tell you that Mr. Akhavan will have come here absolutely for nothing, because none of this information will be included in the report.
I do not want us to force the researchers to scramble. We must give them the time needed to put together the information provided by the latest witnesses, to work on another report that could be tabled perhaps a bit later. This could even be done when we come back after the break, so that we can make an in-depth study of the report.
I want the views expressed by witnesses to be incorporated in the report, otherwise it would have been useless to have them appear before us.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
I would like to make a brief intervention.
Has any of the testimony of our recent witnesses regarding the state of Iran after the uprising been aggregated into this report? If it hasn't, then I agree with what Madam Thi Lac said, to just leave it until our constituency week, because they're going to need time to take all that evidence and write it, and it's not going to happen in a couple of days.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
All right. That's what we're going to do.
On Tuesday, we'll be talking about future business.
Thank you very much. Now we really are adjourned.