Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on March 29th, 2012

[Sheryl Saperia]

There's no doubt that part of this just does have to do with internal politics. However, I think, from lessons looking at what has often befallen the Jewish people, that when somebody does threaten to kill you, you do have to take that seriously. That's not to say that you immediately pre-empt this with severe military strikes, but it does mean that you have to spend a little bit of time investigating whether there is some truth. Ideologically, both in terms of their past efforts, as well with regard to sponsoring terrorist groups that are very busy trying to do damage within Israel, there is good reason to believe that they would be serious.

If you're asking whether they would be prepared to launch some sort of nuclear strike and then risk very severe retaliation, there is a question about that. This really goes into the discussion of are they rational or aren't they rational.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

We had that discussion in the sixties with my generation, between the U.S. and Russia.

[Sheryl Saperia]

What I've basically come to conclude is that, first of all, there are some within the Iranian leadership—this must be said—who do subscribe to a very apocalyptic strain of a Shiite theology, and it does increase the likelihood that they might initiate a nuclear attack, even if retaliation would be devastating to their country. There have been leaders whose quotes I can provide for you that say, “Whatever ultimate damage is caused to Israel is more important than whatever less damage is caused to Iran.” However—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

We called it mutually assured destruction, MAD, at the time.

[Sheryl Saperia]

Correct. Although in this case, the numbers are in Iran's favour. In any event, what I'd like to focus on is that ultimately, even if Iran does not become nuclear-armed but is simply nuclear-capable, I still believe that this is an extremely dangerous situation.

The Iranian regime aspires to alter the regional and even global order of power to its advantage. So nuclear weapons, even capability, can form a protective shield around the Iranian regime and further embolden it to continue and intensify its belligerent activities towards that goal. What you've seen already are assassination attempts of foreign government officials, supportive terrorist groups around the world, fomenting violence in countries to weaken government's dislikes and then propping up murderous regimes like Assad's regime in Syria—

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I hate to do this again, but we're out of time once more.

We'll go to Mr. Sweet.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very grateful that Ms. Saperia is with us today and very grateful for the previous work that she's done to assure that people who are victims of terrorism actually have some kind of legal avenue for rebuttal and recompense for their pain.

Just to go back to Mr. Marston's round of questioning, I was just looking to make sure, but if it was not Khomeini, it was somebody of that class in Iran, who said that not only would they wipe Israel off the map but if it cost a few million Muslims lives, it would be a reasonable investment in order to rid the world of Israel. That's the kind of regime that we're dealing with. Certainly, I said yesterday when we had Dr. Ottolenghi here that along with those people that loathe this regime in Iran, I'm right up there with them.

I do want to mention something. On a direct question to Dr. Ottolenghi yesterday regarding the IRGC and conscription.... There is a case where conscripts are going in the IRGC and I'm concerned, because of the nature of the evil regime that they are, that there's a lot more that are less dedicated to the regime than we might be lead to believe because of their viciousness. Dr. Ottolenghi mentioned that they serve two years in there, so there is some concern.

I have absolutely no love lost for this regime at all. My concern would be for innocent people having the tag of a terrorist on their head, who were simply terrified by this very regime, their family was terrified, and they're in there on the fear of losing their own life or the lives of loved ones.

I'll just give you an opportunity to speak. I know that you have, but that, I believe, is the one major concern in regard to this regime, Ahmadinejad's regime.

[Sheryl Saperia]

No, I do understand your concern, and I think it's a good one. Again, based on my own research of what conscription means here, there are conscripts who are serving in the IRGC, but they are choosing to serve in the IRGC. So yes, they will get better pay, and they will probably get better perks as a result of serving in the IRGC, but ultimately there is no gun to their head. They do make this choice for themselves, and there does need to be a consequence for that.

Now, having said that, I will say that the lowly conscripted, especially the ones who are only going to spend a couple of years there, are not going to rise up in the ranks particularly far, and they're not going to be as impacted by any sorts of sanctions that western countries are going to impose. It's going to be the guys who stick around for decades who are going to rise up. They're also the ones who are going to be enriched financially from it and who then will also—ideally—suffer the most as a result of sanctions.

Again, this is not to be unsympathetic to truly nasty domestic circumstances, but I think every human being is born with challenges depending on where they live, and we hope that we all will make the best decisions we can within those circumstances. So short of being forced to serve in the IRGC, which they are not, I do not believe that your concern is enough to not list them as a terrorist organization.

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

You don't believe that there would be a substantial number who, for the sake of being able to atone for past sins for which their family may a pay high price in punishment from this regime, would serve in the IRGC?

[Sheryl Saperia]

No, because there are other ways of performing military service.

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

Okay.

I asked Dr. Ottolenghi this question. I just want to ask you the same question with the hope that maybe you have some different access to intelligence on the ground. One of the things that has been of concern is that because of the control of this regime, the Iranian people themselves.... Again, Mr. Chair, I will reassert that when we talk about the evil regime, we're talking about Ahmadinejad and that regime, and not the innocent people of Iran. There's always this capability of them demonizing Israel and demonizing the west and taking the focus away from their evil deeds.

I'm wondering if the average person on the ground in Iran is getting more and more aware of the nature of this through the repression of the Green Movement, and is becoming aware of the magnitude of influence and the participation that Iran has with what's going on in Syria right now, where thousands and thousands of lives are being lost, and of course, tens of thousands more there are being injured.

[Sheryl Saperia]

First of all, I trust Dr. Ottolenghi to have fairly good intelligence on this. I believe he said that they do have some access to media, but not everyone necessarily gets plugged in. Certainly in terms of the country's own media, it's very, very heavily censored.

What is interesting to me is that when Iranians have been interviewed, they are not blaming the west in general for their hardship. They are blaming the government. This is despite the fact that often a few feet away there is somebody watching them, because that is actually one of the roles the IRGC plays—to make sure that no one gets away with internally opposing the revolutionary regime there.

I do find that very interesting. In my mind, in terms of what's happening in Syria, even geographically I think it's probably too close for them to not have some sense of what is happening. I obviously do not support at all Iran's propping up of Assad's regime there in Syria, but what I do think is interesting is how, as a result, it's impacting other Muslims' perceptions of the legitimacy of the Iranian regime. I point, for example, to the tension that has now been created between Hamas and Iran as a result of Iran's support for Assad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Unfortunately, you are out of time, Mr. Sweet.

Before we go to Professor Cotler, I just want to make an observation. I went to the Internet and took a peek, and the organization that strikes me as having structural similarities and as being a parallel military organization to the Revolutionary Guard is the SS in Germany. I just looked at this. They had some conscripts as well, although it wasn't the majority of their membership.

The point I'd make in drawing the parallel is that the underlying criminality of an organization does not mean that after the fact you can't separate out those individuals who were involved and who were there against their own will. That seems to be a relevant point here when we talk about the conscription issue. I don't think it should be necessarily central to the discussion of the organization's criminality.

[Sheryl Saperia]

No, I think that's a very fair point. I think that point would be legitimate even if people were forced into the IRGC, which, again, it is my understanding that they are not. Your point is very well taken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Cotler, go ahead, please.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that you've saved me the need to make that point, and you made it better than I would have. I'm glad you made that intervention. It's an important point.

I also want to join in commending the witness for a very comprehensive and compelling presentation on this issue.

As someone who has advocated for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist group for some years now, this will help to buttress my case, and it might be the tipping point for getting the government to do this.

I want to say that I think Minister Baird is somebody who has an appreciation of the issues here, particularly with regard to Iran. He may be very responsive to the arguments you made today.

On the matter of other state agencies attached to the terrorist list, it is interesting because Hamas is not only a state agency, it is actually the government in Gaza. Hezbollah is not only a state agency, it is part of the government of Lebanon. So we have put both of them on the terrorist list, and they are even, as I've said, representative state bodies.

I have two questions.

One has to do—and you made some reference to it—with the evidence of Iranian complicity in the current Syrian assault. There has been reference to Iranian involvement in surveillance methods, intelligence gathering, coercive interrogation, and indeed, even in torture. Is there specific evidence of the footprints of the IRGC in Syria? That's question number one.

The second question is on your reference to the bombing of the Jewish community centre of the AMIA in 1994 in which there was clear evidence of Iranian implication in that bombing, in the judgment of the Argentinian judiciary, Interpol arrest warrants, etc. But you mentioned the 1992 attack, and I'm not aware that there's yet been evidence of the IRGC regarding that attack.

I wonder if you could respond to both of those questions.

[Sheryl Saperia]

On the first question, with regard to the Iranian footprint in Syria, yes, there has been concrete evidence, including evidence of IRGC leaders flying to Syria and being present to organize government forces there. I would be happy to provide the committee with some written documentation afterward.

In fact, Iran has been further sanctioned by the U.S. and others with regard to its proven support for Syria, and it continues to ship weapons as well. That has been documented.

In terms of the Argentinian events, both of them in the 1990s, again, I do have some information specifically about Iranian and IRGC involvement. I would be happy to provide you with that in written form afterwards.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You still have time. Are you done?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, I have to get somewhere else and that's why.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

All right.

We'll go back to the Conservatives again. No, I'm sorry, we won't. We'll go to the New Democrats.

Mr. Marston is dividing his time with Madam Péclet.

We'll do that, and then we'll go back to the Conservatives.

Mr. Marston, please go ahead.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll always take the opportunity when it's there.

One of the things we're talking about under today's orders of the day is the human rights situation in Iran. We're tending to look outward quite a bit. I'm very concerned about the kinds of repression that have been levelled against their own people. That's why in the last round I was talking a little about that and about the executions.

In the past, we've used containment to try to influence repressive governments into change. That was done with North Korea and with China, as I recall. When we're considering the impact of our actions and how they can benefit the Iranian people, how do you feel about that concept of containment?

[Sheryl Saperia]

You mean containment as opposed to preventing them from acquiring any sort of nuclear weapons capability in the first place?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, in this regard we're talking solely about the interior of Iran itself in terms of the implication of the harm they're doing to their own people, and the fact that containment could possibly persuade them to not be as aggressive with their own people.

[Sheryl Saperia]

Oh. Actually, in that case, I don't think I do understand your question.

My discussion of containment has to do with the distinction between how far to allow Iran to go in terms of its nuclear weapons capability—whether we're going to allow them to get there and then contain them to ensure that they do not use those weapons—and not in the context of human rights violations.