Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on March 10th, 2009

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Genser.

[Jared Genser]

I would add that we shouldn't forget, of course, that the doctrine--in Farsi, velayat-e faqih--on the supremacy of clerical rule continues to apply in Iran, and that the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is ultimately in charge.

There's no doubt that the public rhetoric of the government has shifted because of the election of Ahmadinejad in 2005. But given the supremacy of clerical rule and the Council of Guardians, I think the capability of this government to reform, in its current form, is somewhat limited, though I take and agree completely with Ms. Ebadi's point that those within the government are by no means monolithic and that there are people who are reformers who want to do more and would like to push those boundaries.

That said, even if Mr. Khatami were to be elected for a new term as president, I think what we saw when he was elected last time was that his efforts at reform were stifled in substantial regard by the supreme leader and by the Council of Guardians, and ultimately they're the ones in charge, not the president of the country.

So while I agree completely with what Ms. Ebadi said, we have yet to see any evidence that in practice those reformers can get beyond a certain incremental change, which I think frankly is what we collectively in this room want, what many people want, and what the Iranian people, many of whom are young people themselves, want--to get beyond what the current range of the debate might allow to a completely different kind of set of freedoms for the people of Iran.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I have just one more question, and then I'll allow others to have some questions.

You had mentioned, and of course it goes back to Mrs. Ebadi's statement, making public statements not only here, obviously, in parliamentary committee, but also in the United Nations, etc.

Sanctions are always hotly disputed, but would you be willing to give some idea about the kind of sanctions that could be exercised by this country, by this government, that would be punitive to the regime--which of course is the one that is guilty of these human rights infractions--and yet not suffered by the Iranian people themselves?

[Joe Stork]

This is extremely tricky, as we know from the experience of sanctioning governments. Obviously, you want so-called smart sanctions, you want targeted sanctions that do, in fact, target individuals, or perhaps institutions, but not entire segments of society, certainly not the society as a whole.

Frankly, I'm just not familiar enough with the record of the Canadian government in terms of pressing for individual accountability on the part of the individuals suspected of being involved in Ms. Kazemi's death in detention. But that's where I would look.

It's a question that we, in Human Rights Watch, haven't had to address, because sanctions, as they've been imposed on Iran, have had nothing to do with human rights. They've all been related to other areas outside of our competence.

[Keith Rimstad]

I would add to that by stating that in the case of Amnesty, we don't take a position on sanctions except in very specific cases with regard to the sale of arms in certain contexts.

In terms of the effective actions that could be done internationally, I would emphasize pursuing legal charges against individuals where there's enough evidence to suggest they are responsible for human rights violations and they could be brought to justice.

Canada has signed on to the International Criminal Court. There are mechanisms by which we could pursue those charges. Certainly, that would restrict the ability of these individuals to travel. It would also send a message, if the charges were at a high enough level, to other officials about the consequences of their actions.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

Mr. Silva, please.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before our committee.

I'll just reiterate the committee's concern over the executions, the tortures that have taken place in Iran, the lack of freedom of expression, the restrictions, certainly the persecution of religious minorities, and of course the incitement to genocide. I was very pleased with some of the suggestions that Jared mentioned.

I just want to make sure I've gotten them all right, and then elaborate further on what we could do. One of them was that the issue be raised at the Human Rights Council, and I think that is very valid. I know in the past we raised it at the Human Rights Council as well. Another was that there be a special rapporteur from the Human Rights Council to investigate.

The other one was what to do about the incitement to genocide. In Canada we have laws, as there are international laws about those who try to incite genocide on a particular group of people. Certainly, the Jewish people and Israel are being targeted right now by Iran. You mentioned the fact that our Prime Minister, our government, should be making that public address. Would that be in terms of trying to get a resolution at the General Assembly? What would be some of the diplomatic channels? In what ways could we actually be more active on that file?

[Jared Genser]

There is a range of options, from easy to hard, in terms of their prospect of success for doing something.

The genocide convention was adopted in 1948. All states who are a party to that convention have a proactive obligation to prevent the various crimes in the genocide convention, which includes incitement to genocide, and to act accordingly. Only once since 1948 has a state-to-state complaint been filed in the International Court of Justice, and it was the case of Bosnia versus Yugoslavia. It took a long time to wind its way through the court, and ultimately led to an only somewhat satisfactory judgment.

But given the fact that we know that numerous genocides have in fact taken place between 1948 and the present time, the abject lack of enforcement taken by state parties to the genocide convention against other states that are committing genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, incitement to commit genocide, etc., I think is an unfortunate legacy of our own history.

One easy thing that Canada could decide to do unilaterally, because both the Government of Iran and the Government of Canada are a party to the convention, and because under article 9 of the convention, one state can make a complaint against a second state in the court of justice, is to file a complaint on charges of incitement to genocide. That would be the easy thing to do.

The obviously very hard, and probably impossible, thing to do, but perhaps the morally correct thing to do, is to also urge that the UN Security Council, under a chapter 7 resolution, refer the situation of Iran and its incitement to genocide to the International Criminal Court for investigation and potential prosecution. That would be individual criminal liability for those involved in the incitement themselves. I think it's unlikely, given the vetoes in the Security Council and the complicated nature of what's going on, that this would be successful.

Then in between the easy and hard, there are multilateral efforts that can be taken in the Human Rights Council, in the General Assembly, to include language in the General Assembly resolution on the incitement question. That might be a challenge multilaterally. Given the large number of states that have continued to vote against that resolution on Iran, that might be untenable politically. But that is multilaterally, and, as I said, somewhere between the easy and the hard in terms of things that can be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You still have time, Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Unfortunately, I'm the first one to make a statement in the House today, at 2 o'clock. I have to leave.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Silva.

I'll just note, for the benefit of Professor Cotler and Mr. Sweet, that there may be time for additional questions after. We've gone faster than anticipated.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all for being here.

It's been mentioned by previous witnesses that the demographic shift in Iran is such that the hardliners, the people in government at the present time, are trying to force the standards of these abuses upon a younger generation out of some desperate attempt that they might be adopted or recognized.

I'd like to get your perspective on where you see the future of Iran. I've met with Iranian representatives in past years, who tell us that the younger generation is more pro-human rights, pro-democracy, pro-international relations.

Are we seeing the last grasps of a dictatorial government trying to exert itself, and there's hope on the horizon? Or how do you see things unfolding in the next few years?

[Joe Stork]

It's crystal ball time. I think those of us who work in human rights always.... I'll speak for myself. We're in this work because we do have some degree of optimism that we can push things ahead and that in fact things are moving in the right direction. I personally am not enough of an Iran expert to make a judgment on that.

One reason to think this may be the case is the fact that just trying to take a poll to measure those kinds of attitudes would be extremely difficult in Iran today. Among the people arrested and sentenced for alleged crimes against the state are people who've been trying to take polls of political attitudes. Certainly what I tried to suggest in my presentation about the degree of activism one finds on campuses, among youth of that strata, for instance, is that it is very encouraging. One finds it, too, among workers, who are actively trying to organize and advance their own claims against the state, against their employers, and so forth.

I think there are certainly reasons to be encouraged, but I think at the same time that a change of government is not the same as a poll favouring one particular set of ideas or values over the other, because we're talking about a government that.... As Mr. Khatami, as president, learned to his chagrin, we're talking about a system that has become extremely entrenched, so that you might indeed have 70% not only of the youth but of the population in general favouring a certain approach, but it's not necessarily going to be reflected in the government, because its accountability in terms of the popular vote and so forth is extremely limited.

[Jared Genser]

I would just add, in addition to agreeing with Mr. Stork, that there are a lot of signposts along the way that suggest a positive outlook. I say that not just because I'm a human rights lawyer and optimistic, but also because technology is having its impact.

I speak to Iranians quite regularly. You can look at access to the Internet, at satellite television, at radio being broadcast in the Farsi language into the country from outside the country, and you can look at cellphone technology. The fact is that cellphone pictures of a dozen people hung in an intersection get out the same day, within hours. They get sent via a text message to a human rights group and get posted on the Internet. All of these things are making it harder and harder for the Islamic Republic to maintain its grip on information and control over its own population.

The trends are quite worrisome for them, putting aside the fact that the trends are also worrisome for them economically. They may have an incredible capacity to produce oil, but they actually have very little refinery capacity. They have to purchase gasoline from abroad. With the price of oil dropping, the economy is under increasing pressure. There's a lot of pressure from those who are having serious economic challenges for the government to reform and to engage with the international community.

All of those things, in my view, are signposts suggesting a potential brighter day to come. The Islamic Republic and the supreme leader are trying, of course, to create every disincentive in the world for any of those people so inspired to want to see change come to their country to take action to make that change happen.

I think that's the battle that is being fought within Iran, but I think, as we have seen with dictatorships throughout history, it'll be a losing battle. I'm no more capable of looking at a crystal ball than anyone else, so I can't say how long that will take, but there are a lot of things which suggest to me that over time it will be harder and harder for the supreme leader and the Islamic Republic to maintain control.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Rimstad, just before you answer, you mentioned in your comments that there has been an increase in arrests or violations of human rights going forward to the June 2009 election. Is there any chance that there would be a change in power in that election? What's the state of the opposition?

[Keith Rimstad]

The way the system works, many individuals from the opposition would be excluded because they have to meet the qualifications that the Council of....

[Joe Stork]

Guardians.

[Keith Rimstad]

Yes, Council of Guardians; I was thinking of elders.

The Council of Guardians approves all the candidates. So typically only a few real opposition people are able to run in the election.

It's also important to note that in the case of Ahmadinejad, when he won the election, it wasn't because people were supporting him for his religious and political views necessarily, but there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the prior government in terms of being able to address the basic issues of living every day in Iran. The general state of affairs for people--jobs, etc.--was not good. He is a populist. He appeals to people by using that rhetoric, and it has been successful in that regard.

I think one of the challenges the international community has to address and take care in is the fact that action against Iran by the international community isn't just going to be interpreted by the political leadership in a particular way; the population itself also responds to that. In some cases where the international community would be seen to be unfair in its criticism of Iran, or criticism of Iran but not someone else, this can result in growing support not because people want to support the government but because everybody sees themselves in the same boat. So that's where the international community will have to take careful thought in terms of how it approaches the problem, I think, over the next while.

Certainly at this moment, I think the powers that be within Iran, all the way from the supreme leader down, understand that the situation...there is dissatisfaction. I think the increasing repression is reflective of that. They are trying to close down every vehicle that's out there that would get messages out to the broader public, the Internet being one of them.

The other factor in here, though, is that there still is a very large number of people living in rural areas who have no access to this, and the lack of information and being under control of local leadership does prevent them from engaging in the political life of the country in the same way as those living in the urban areas like Tehran. So it's very complex.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

One last question.

It was also suggested by a previous witness that criticism from other countries other than Canada would be helpful, even smaller countries, because Iran is very concerned about its international reputation. It made me wonder, are there some countries out there that would be seen as defenders of Iran and its policies at the present time?

[Joe Stork]

Well, if you look at the vote tally in the General Assembly, for instance, on the resolution that Canada sponsored, and you look at the correspondence of that vote tally with other votes taken in places like the Human Rights Council, you have to say that, yes, there are. There's kind of a solidarity of authoritarians, shall we say, a solidarity of the oppressors.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

And who would that be?

[Joe Stork]

You know, there are plenty of candidates out there. It involves many of the countries that define themselves as Islamic; so the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the OIC, for instance. I really don't know if you'd find any state that's a member of the OIC that has supported something like the Canadian resolution or failed to support the Government of Iran in these kinds of votes, for instance—

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Other than the OIC, do any members come to mind that would...?

[Jared Genser]

I would say, for example, the G-77. I mean, there are the developing countries, the Third World; Africa, more broadly.

It's not because these countries necessarily stand up in support of Iran's human rights abuses. It's because they see the west, and in particular the permanent members of the Security Council, as kind of having favourite whipping children. So that often gets turned into a debate over the powerful versus the powerless. It's standing in solidarity.

I look at a country like South Africa as an illustration, which has a tremendous recent history of having stood up and achieved reconciliation after apartheid, and yet their record in supporting other oppressed people since becoming free from apartheid has frankly been pretty terrible. They have stood in support of the Burmese junta, in Burma. They've stood in support of Mugabe, in Zimbabwe. And this is because of this alliage. I understand the reasoning, but frankly I don't understand the approach.

The argument is that the west has unfairly singled out particular countries for negative treatment and this is part of a kind of a colonialist-oppressor past that needs to be stood up to, not necessarily because of support for the particular abuses of the regime in question but because the whole system itself is flawed and cannot be supported.

I think that is what has happened with many of the countries. I have spoken to ambassadors from many of the countries that vote against the Iran resolution. They recognize that the situation in Iran is atrocious from a human rights perspective, but they're not going to support the west in going up against Iran because, frankly, they feel that they're not as powerful in the UN and this is not a reasonable approach that is being taken.