Evidence of meeting #6 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 iranian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Thank you.
I allowed that round of questioning to go on about five minutes longer than was scheduled, which leaves us just enough time for a very brief round of questions from Mr. Cotler.
March 10th, 2009 / 1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to take 20 seconds to acknowledge the presence of David Kilgour, a former minister and member of Parliament who was very much engaged in these issues while in Parliament. He continues to be engaged in them outside of Parliament. I welcome him here today.
My question, because it flows from your testimony, is to you, Mr. Genser. Do you consider it somewhat anomalous that there have been United Nations Security Council resolutions and sanctions regarding Iran's processing of enriched uranium on the road to becoming a nuclear power, which Iran has itself denied, and about which some of its own citizens have rightly claimed that Iran should have as much right as anybody else to develop civil uses and peaceful uses of atomic power, and that there have been no sanctions with regard to the massive domestic repression of human rights, on which we've heard abundant testimony today, and no sanctions with respect to the state-sanctioned incitement to genocide, a breach of the genocide convention itself?
Does this somehow undermine the case regarding the sanctions with regard to the nuclear issue? The real danger of the nuclear issue comes, it seems to me, because it's anchored in a state that is otherwise a human rights violator and engaged in state-sanctioned incitement to genocide.
So are we on the one hand undermining one case for the sanctions and somewhat sanitizing the other categories of violations and concern?
2 p.m.
Lecturer in Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Mr. Cotler, it's a profound and challenging question to answer. The course that I teach at the University of Pennsylvania Law School is actually on the UN Security Council, and this is a question that my students are wrestling with on a weekly basis.
2 p.m.
Lecturer in Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
I think we've seen a similar set of challenges play out in dealing with North Korea, as an illustration, which is a nuclear power, not an aspiring one but an actual nuclear power, which has one of the worst human rights and humanitarian records in the world today.
The argument has been made over decades on North Korea, and the argument has been made similarly in recent years on Iran, that the international community shouldn't be raising these human rights and humanitarian concerns because it might distract from, or otherwise undermine, negotiations on these important nuclear questions.
My personal view is that the international community and governments are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, and much like we saw with the Helsinki process and engaging with the former Soviet Union there are ways to have discussions on nuclear questions and to have discussions on economic questions and human rights questions at the same time. But I think it's a reasonable question to ask given the terrible nature of the Iranian government's abuses against its own people about how that is in essence being swept under the carpet to a large extent by the international community because of this exclusive focus on the nuclear question.
Obviously it's understandable why the nuclear question is paramount, but it shouldn't preclude the international community from also looking to address the suffering of the Iranian people. I think if you were to ask the average Iranian, who as you say would like to see civil uses for nuclear technology and have every right to want to have that for themselves and their own people, what is it you think about every day, the average Iranian, for example, who yearns to be free, which is most Iranians, they're not thinking about the question of developing nuclear technology. They're worried about the fact that, as a woman, if they don't put on a head scarf, they could be subject to severe punishment. They're worried about their ability to express their viewpoint in disagreement with their government, and the fact that they could end up tortured or killed without any due process of law.
Those are the things, based on my experience talking to Iranians, that they worry about, not the nuclear question.
Again, I think we need to address both, but I think you were right to point out that there is a substantial disconnect internationally between the focus on the nuclear question and the human rights questions.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Thank you very much.
That, unfortunately, uses up the available time.
I'm most grateful to all of our witnesses for having come. It's very much appreciated.
At this point, I'm afraid I have to adjourn the meeting.
Thank you.