Summary: 8 February 2010, Brussels - Joint Statement by the European Union and the United States calling on the Iranian government to fulfil its human rights obligations
The European Union and the United States condemn the continuing human rights violations in Iran since the June 12 election. The large scale detentions and mass trials, the threatened execution of protestors, the intimidation of family members of those detained and the continuing denial to its citizens of the right to peaceful expression are contrary to human rights norms.
Our concerns are based on our commitment to universal respect for human rights. We are particularly concerned by the potential for further violence and repression during the coming days, especially around the anniversary of the Islamic Republic's founding on 11 February. We call on the Government of Iran to live up to its international human rights obligations, to end its abuses against its own people, to hold accountable those who have committed the abuses and to release those who are exercising their rights.
* Ref: CL10-037EN
* EU source: Council
* UN forum:
* Date: 8/2/2010
Source:
http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_9471_en.htm
Monday, 8 February 2010
Friday, 5 February 2010
Obama's Iran test
By Lord David Alton
The Hill - As US President Barack Obama used his first State of the Union Address to lash out at Iran over its continuing nuclear defiance, it was clear that 2010 will see a new approach in dealing with Tehran.
How things have changed since, one year ago in January 2009, in his first sit-down interview, President Obama symbolically used an exchange on Al- Arabiya TV to offer a conciliatory approach in his conduct of American-Iranian relations. President Obama then told the news channel, that "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."
Well, Tehran's fist has remained well and truly clenched not least over its nuclear intentions.
Tehran sees its sole method of survival through its success over its nuclear weapons programme; of that, there is little doubt. This is even more so now as the regime, weakened at home by the mass protests of the last six months, looks to its nuclear programme as a safety net for survival.
The time has come for the international community to pull this safety net from under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Tehran's leadership, allowing the Iranian regime to fall at the hands of the Iranian people. The removal of that safety net can only be achieved with the imposition of targeted sanctions against Tehran's leadership.
As the Iranian opposition movement gears up for further mass protests on the 31st anniversary of the people's revolution on 11 February, the message from the President and his European counterparts must be one of support. The Iranian leadership has long been isolated from its people and now there can be no doubt as to the Iranian people's demands for regime change.
Yes sanctions must be targeted at Tehran's leadership and yes they must be put together in such a manner as to have the least effect on the Iranian people. The Iranian people are well aware that their leaders live like kings as they suffer economic hardship.
We have all watched the recent protests in which Iranians have lined the streets knowing full well that by protesting they could face death or torture. Those same people will be supportive of any economic and diplomatic sanctions which bring an early end to the more than thirty years of ruthless tyrannical rule by Iran's theocratic masters.
In a clear warning to the Iranian population ready to line the streets in the coming weeks, Tehran's leadership recently executed two dissidents accused of plotting to overthrow the regime. At least nine others face execution, accused of having links to the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI). The PMOI is Iran's largest opposition group and analysts believe it has played an integral role in recent unrest throughout Tehran.
One thing should now be clear to President Obama and his allies, Tehran will not unclench its fist when it comes to its nuclear programme, and the Iranian people will not yield in their desire for regime change.
The two now go hand in hand and support for the Iranian people's opposition movement must include the removal of the nuclear safety net which is integral to this regime's survival. As in all such scenarios the leadership must be isolated, and sanctions can achieve this aim. UN Security Council sanctions are critical, but if China continues to play hard ball and to use its veto, the West must forge ahead and impose its own comprehensive sanctions and not adopt a set of watered down sanctions which are symbolic rather than successful, simply to please China.
We can remove Tehran's nuclear safety net and we must do so in order to support the Iranian people's democratic ambitions.
Lord Alton of Liverpool is a cross-bench Member of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom
Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/79843-obamas-iran-test
The Hill - As US President Barack Obama used his first State of the Union Address to lash out at Iran over its continuing nuclear defiance, it was clear that 2010 will see a new approach in dealing with Tehran.
How things have changed since, one year ago in January 2009, in his first sit-down interview, President Obama symbolically used an exchange on Al- Arabiya TV to offer a conciliatory approach in his conduct of American-Iranian relations. President Obama then told the news channel, that "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."
Well, Tehran's fist has remained well and truly clenched not least over its nuclear intentions.
Tehran sees its sole method of survival through its success over its nuclear weapons programme; of that, there is little doubt. This is even more so now as the regime, weakened at home by the mass protests of the last six months, looks to its nuclear programme as a safety net for survival.
The time has come for the international community to pull this safety net from under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Tehran's leadership, allowing the Iranian regime to fall at the hands of the Iranian people. The removal of that safety net can only be achieved with the imposition of targeted sanctions against Tehran's leadership.
As the Iranian opposition movement gears up for further mass protests on the 31st anniversary of the people's revolution on 11 February, the message from the President and his European counterparts must be one of support. The Iranian leadership has long been isolated from its people and now there can be no doubt as to the Iranian people's demands for regime change.
Yes sanctions must be targeted at Tehran's leadership and yes they must be put together in such a manner as to have the least effect on the Iranian people. The Iranian people are well aware that their leaders live like kings as they suffer economic hardship.
We have all watched the recent protests in which Iranians have lined the streets knowing full well that by protesting they could face death or torture. Those same people will be supportive of any economic and diplomatic sanctions which bring an early end to the more than thirty years of ruthless tyrannical rule by Iran's theocratic masters.
In a clear warning to the Iranian population ready to line the streets in the coming weeks, Tehran's leadership recently executed two dissidents accused of plotting to overthrow the regime. At least nine others face execution, accused of having links to the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI). The PMOI is Iran's largest opposition group and analysts believe it has played an integral role in recent unrest throughout Tehran.
One thing should now be clear to President Obama and his allies, Tehran will not unclench its fist when it comes to its nuclear programme, and the Iranian people will not yield in their desire for regime change.
The two now go hand in hand and support for the Iranian people's opposition movement must include the removal of the nuclear safety net which is integral to this regime's survival. As in all such scenarios the leadership must be isolated, and sanctions can achieve this aim. UN Security Council sanctions are critical, but if China continues to play hard ball and to use its veto, the West must forge ahead and impose its own comprehensive sanctions and not adopt a set of watered down sanctions which are symbolic rather than successful, simply to please China.
We can remove Tehran's nuclear safety net and we must do so in order to support the Iranian people's democratic ambitions.
Lord Alton of Liverpool is a cross-bench Member of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom
Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/79843-obamas-iran-test
| Reactions: |
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Seven Myths About Iran
How long will it take for the lesson to stick?
By BRET STEPHENS
The Wall Street Journal - 'We have been trying to negotiate [with the Iranians] for five, six years. We've tried everything. We have met every Iranian. We have tried to open every possible channel. We've had new ideas and the result is this: nothing."
Thus did a senior Western diplomat recently describe to me his country's efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with Tehran over its nuclear programs. In doing so, he also finally disposed of the myth, nearly a decade in the making, that Iran was ready to abandon those programs in exchange for a "grand bargain" with the West.
Let's dispose of a few other myths—and hope it doesn't take years for the lesson to stick:
(1) Military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would accomplish nothing.
That's the argument made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who last year told a Senate Committee that "a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert."
Maybe so, but what's wrong with buying time? Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor also bought time while driving Saddam's nuclear programs underground. But it ensured that it was a non-nuclear Iraq that invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia nine years later, a point recognized by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney when he thanked the Israeli commander of the Osirak operation for making "our job much easier in Desert Storm."
(2) A strike would rally Iranians to the side of the regime.
The case would be more persuasive if the regime had any remaining claims on Iranian patriotism. It no longer does, if it ever did. It also would be more persuasive if the nuclear program were as broadly popular as some of the regime's apologists claim. On the contrary, one of the more popular chants of the demonstrators goes, "Iran is green and fertile, it doesn't need nukes."
Yet even if the nuclear program enjoyed widespread support, it isn't clear how Iranians would react in the event of military strikes. Argentine dictator Leopoldo Galtieri whooped up a nationalist fervor when he invaded the Falklands in 1982, but was ousted from office just a week after Port Stanley fell to the British. When a regime gambles its prestige on a single controversial enterprise, it cannot afford to lose it.
(3) Sanctions don't work, and usually wind up strengthening the regime at the expense of its own people.
That's only true when the sanctioned regimes have strong internal controls, relatively pliant populations, and zero interest in international respectability. It's also true that sanctions alone are never a silver bullet. But as Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, they can be "silver shrapnel," particularly when the target country is as politically vulnerable as Iran is now, and when it is also critically reliant on the consumption of imported gasoline.
That's why the House was right when it overwhelmingly approved the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act in December, and when the Senate unanimously passed a similar bill (against the administration's objections) last Thursday. Over time, the regime will surely find ways to skirt the sanctions, which prohibit companies that do business in Iran's energy sector from also doing business in the U.S. But in the critical short term, these sanctions might provoke the kind of mass unrest that could tip the scales against the regime.
(4) The world can live with a nuclear Iran, just as we live with other nasty nuclear powers.
Assume that's true. (I don't.) Can we also live with nuclear Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? The problem with the "realist" view is that it fails to take account of the fears a nuclear Iran inspires among the status quo regimes in its neighborhood. Containment was complicated enough during the Cold War. Now imagine a four- or five-way standoff among Arabs, Persians, Turks and Israelis, some religiously fanatic, in the world's most volatile neighborhood.
(5) The Iranian regime is headed for the ash heap of history. The best policy is to do as little as possible until it crumbles from within.
Communist regimes were also destined for the ash heap. Unfortunately, it took them decades to get there, during which they murdered tens of millions of people. It matters a great deal to Iran's people, and its neighbors, that the regime go quietly. But it also matters that it go quickly, and waiting on events is not a policy.
(6) The more support we show Iran's demonstrators, the more we hurt their cause.
This was the administration's view after the June 12 election, as it walked on tiptoes to avoid the perception of "meddling." The regime accused the U.S. of meddling all the same.
But protest movements like Iran's (or Poland's, or South Africa's) are sustained by a sense of moral legitimacy that global support uniquely conveys. When will American liberals get behind Iranian rights, as they have, say, Tibetan ones? Maybe when President Obama tells them to.
(7) Israel will ultimately dispose of Iran's nuclear facilities.
The more policy makers fall for the first six myths, the less mythical the seventh one becomes.
Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575038971915808294.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
By BRET STEPHENS
The Wall Street Journal - 'We have been trying to negotiate [with the Iranians] for five, six years. We've tried everything. We have met every Iranian. We have tried to open every possible channel. We've had new ideas and the result is this: nothing."
Thus did a senior Western diplomat recently describe to me his country's efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with Tehran over its nuclear programs. In doing so, he also finally disposed of the myth, nearly a decade in the making, that Iran was ready to abandon those programs in exchange for a "grand bargain" with the West.
Let's dispose of a few other myths—and hope it doesn't take years for the lesson to stick:
(1) Military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would accomplish nothing.
That's the argument made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who last year told a Senate Committee that "a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert."
Maybe so, but what's wrong with buying time? Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor also bought time while driving Saddam's nuclear programs underground. But it ensured that it was a non-nuclear Iraq that invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia nine years later, a point recognized by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney when he thanked the Israeli commander of the Osirak operation for making "our job much easier in Desert Storm."
(2) A strike would rally Iranians to the side of the regime.
The case would be more persuasive if the regime had any remaining claims on Iranian patriotism. It no longer does, if it ever did. It also would be more persuasive if the nuclear program were as broadly popular as some of the regime's apologists claim. On the contrary, one of the more popular chants of the demonstrators goes, "Iran is green and fertile, it doesn't need nukes."
Yet even if the nuclear program enjoyed widespread support, it isn't clear how Iranians would react in the event of military strikes. Argentine dictator Leopoldo Galtieri whooped up a nationalist fervor when he invaded the Falklands in 1982, but was ousted from office just a week after Port Stanley fell to the British. When a regime gambles its prestige on a single controversial enterprise, it cannot afford to lose it.
(3) Sanctions don't work, and usually wind up strengthening the regime at the expense of its own people.
That's only true when the sanctioned regimes have strong internal controls, relatively pliant populations, and zero interest in international respectability. It's also true that sanctions alone are never a silver bullet. But as Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, they can be "silver shrapnel," particularly when the target country is as politically vulnerable as Iran is now, and when it is also critically reliant on the consumption of imported gasoline.
That's why the House was right when it overwhelmingly approved the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act in December, and when the Senate unanimously passed a similar bill (against the administration's objections) last Thursday. Over time, the regime will surely find ways to skirt the sanctions, which prohibit companies that do business in Iran's energy sector from also doing business in the U.S. But in the critical short term, these sanctions might provoke the kind of mass unrest that could tip the scales against the regime.
(4) The world can live with a nuclear Iran, just as we live with other nasty nuclear powers.
Assume that's true. (I don't.) Can we also live with nuclear Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? The problem with the "realist" view is that it fails to take account of the fears a nuclear Iran inspires among the status quo regimes in its neighborhood. Containment was complicated enough during the Cold War. Now imagine a four- or five-way standoff among Arabs, Persians, Turks and Israelis, some religiously fanatic, in the world's most volatile neighborhood.
(5) The Iranian regime is headed for the ash heap of history. The best policy is to do as little as possible until it crumbles from within.
Communist regimes were also destined for the ash heap. Unfortunately, it took them decades to get there, during which they murdered tens of millions of people. It matters a great deal to Iran's people, and its neighbors, that the regime go quietly. But it also matters that it go quickly, and waiting on events is not a policy.
(6) The more support we show Iran's demonstrators, the more we hurt their cause.
This was the administration's view after the June 12 election, as it walked on tiptoes to avoid the perception of "meddling." The regime accused the U.S. of meddling all the same.
But protest movements like Iran's (or Poland's, or South Africa's) are sustained by a sense of moral legitimacy that global support uniquely conveys. When will American liberals get behind Iranian rights, as they have, say, Tibetan ones? Maybe when President Obama tells them to.
(7) Israel will ultimately dispose of Iran's nuclear facilities.
The more policy makers fall for the first six myths, the less mythical the seventh one becomes.
Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575038971915808294.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
| Reactions: |
Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair ‘lied’ and misled Parliament, claims Clare Short
Tony Blair 'lied' to his Cabinet and misled Parliament over the war in Iraq, Clare Short, the former international development secretary has said.
By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
The Telegraph - UK -Giving evidence before the Chilcot Committee into the war, she repeatedly accused the former prime minister of personally “misleading” and “conning” her, and of being “deceitful” with Cabinet, Parliament, and the public.
Miss Short claimed that Mr Blair broke the ministerial code by misleading Parliament, and accused Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general who gave the “green light” to war, of failing to tell the Cabinet the truth of his reservations about the legality of an invasion.
“I think he misled the Cabinet,” she said. “He certainly misled me. I think for the Attorney General to come and say there's unequivocal legal authority to go war was misleading."
When she tried to ask questions in Cabinet, Miss Short was “jeered” at, and Mr Blair told her to “be quiet”.
By then, Miss Short said, Cabinet government had broken down, and ministers were reduced to having “little chats.” She rejected a claim by the ex-prime minister, who gave evidence last week, that “substantive” discussions had taken place, or a formal Cabinet “endorsement” given for the war.
Miss Short disclosed that after deciding to quit in protest at the failure to secure UN support for the invasion, she had booked time with the Speaker of the House of Commons to deliver a resignation statement to Parliament.
But before she could resign, she was talked round by Mr Blair, who did not want her to quit on the same day as the late Robin Cook, the then-Leader of the House.
Two months later, she claimed, she realised that she had been “conned” by Mr Blair, who had assured her that he had persuaded United States President George W Bush to make progress on the Palestine issue, and involve the United Nations in post-conflict planning.
The left-wing MP eventually resigned in May 2003, two months after the invasion, in protest at a “feeble” UN resolution approving aid for Iraq secured by the British and Americans.
Nine months earlier, during a visit to Mozambique, Miss Short said that Mr Blair had “misled” her by denying that he had made preparations for war in Iraq. In fact, the inquiry has heard, he had already held talks with advisers in July of that year.
She said: "He told me in Mozambique 'I haven't had a presentation, I will come back to you, don't worry.' Clearly that was one of the many misleading things that were said."
Later, once the decision had been taken to stop seeking a fresh UN mandate for the war, Miss Short said that the then-prime minister and his advisers put the word out that the French had been planning to veto any resolution.
She added: "That was in my view a lie, a deliberate lie. It was one of the big deceits."
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7137863/Iraq-inquiry-Tony-Blair-lied-and-misled-Parliament-claims-Clare-Short.html
By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
The Telegraph - UK -Giving evidence before the Chilcot Committee into the war, she repeatedly accused the former prime minister of personally “misleading” and “conning” her, and of being “deceitful” with Cabinet, Parliament, and the public.
Miss Short claimed that Mr Blair broke the ministerial code by misleading Parliament, and accused Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general who gave the “green light” to war, of failing to tell the Cabinet the truth of his reservations about the legality of an invasion.
“I think he misled the Cabinet,” she said. “He certainly misled me. I think for the Attorney General to come and say there's unequivocal legal authority to go war was misleading."
When she tried to ask questions in Cabinet, Miss Short was “jeered” at, and Mr Blair told her to “be quiet”.
By then, Miss Short said, Cabinet government had broken down, and ministers were reduced to having “little chats.” She rejected a claim by the ex-prime minister, who gave evidence last week, that “substantive” discussions had taken place, or a formal Cabinet “endorsement” given for the war.
Miss Short disclosed that after deciding to quit in protest at the failure to secure UN support for the invasion, she had booked time with the Speaker of the House of Commons to deliver a resignation statement to Parliament.
But before she could resign, she was talked round by Mr Blair, who did not want her to quit on the same day as the late Robin Cook, the then-Leader of the House.
Two months later, she claimed, she realised that she had been “conned” by Mr Blair, who had assured her that he had persuaded United States President George W Bush to make progress on the Palestine issue, and involve the United Nations in post-conflict planning.
The left-wing MP eventually resigned in May 2003, two months after the invasion, in protest at a “feeble” UN resolution approving aid for Iraq secured by the British and Americans.
Nine months earlier, during a visit to Mozambique, Miss Short said that Mr Blair had “misled” her by denying that he had made preparations for war in Iraq. In fact, the inquiry has heard, he had already held talks with advisers in July of that year.
She said: "He told me in Mozambique 'I haven't had a presentation, I will come back to you, don't worry.' Clearly that was one of the many misleading things that were said."
Later, once the decision had been taken to stop seeking a fresh UN mandate for the war, Miss Short said that the then-prime minister and his advisers put the word out that the French had been planning to veto any resolution.
She added: "That was in my view a lie, a deliberate lie. It was one of the big deceits."
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7137863/Iraq-inquiry-Tony-Blair-lied-and-misled-Parliament-claims-Clare-Short.html
| Reactions: |
Saturday, 30 January 2010
'Shocking' execution of Iran protesters condemned
Amnesty International has condemned the execution of two men arrested during protests that followed Iran's disputed presidential election last year.
Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were hanged on Thursday after being convicted in unfair trials of “enmity against God” and being members of Anjoman-e Padeshahi-e Iran (API), a banned group which advocates the restoration of an Iranian monarchy.
They are the first executions known to be related to the post-election violence that erupted across Iran in June and has continued since.
"These shocking executions show that the Iranian authorities will stop at nothing to stamp out the peaceful protests that persist since the election," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director.
"These men were first unfairly convicted and now they have been unjustly killed – it is not even clear they had links to this group as their 'confessions' appear to have been made under duress."
According to the Iranian authorities, at least nine other people are currently on death row in Iran after being sentenced to death in similar post-election 'show trials'.
"Our fear is that these executions are just the beginning of a wave of executions of those tried on similar vaguely worded charges," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were convicted of “enmity against God” by Tehran's Revolutionary Court in October. They were also convicted of "propaganda against the system", "insulting the holy sanctities" and "gathering and colluding with intent to harm national internal security".
Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani was accused of illegally visiting Iraq where he was alleged to have met US military officials.
Arash Rahmanipour's lawyer says he played no role in the election protests and was forced to confess in a “show trial” after members of his family were threatened.
The two men's lawyers were not informed of their clients' executions, as is required by Iranian law.
"These executions highlight how the justice system is used as an instrument of repression by the authorities. They are sending a warning to those who may wish to exercise their right to peacefully demonstrate against the government, not to go out in the street,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
Further anti-government demonstrations are widely expected to take place on the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on 11 February.
According to Iranian officials, over 40 people have died in demonstrations since the election, which were violently repressed by the security forces. Amnesty International believes the number to be much higher. More than 5,000 people have been arrested, many of whom were tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
Scores have been sentenced to prison terms, and in some cases flogging, after unfair trials, and at least 11 have been sentenced to death. One man – Hamed Rouhinejad - has had his death sentence commuted on appeal in January 2010.
Source:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/shocking-execution-iran-protesters-condemned-20100128
Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were hanged on Thursday after being convicted in unfair trials of “enmity against God” and being members of Anjoman-e Padeshahi-e Iran (API), a banned group which advocates the restoration of an Iranian monarchy.
They are the first executions known to be related to the post-election violence that erupted across Iran in June and has continued since.
"These shocking executions show that the Iranian authorities will stop at nothing to stamp out the peaceful protests that persist since the election," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director.
"These men were first unfairly convicted and now they have been unjustly killed – it is not even clear they had links to this group as their 'confessions' appear to have been made under duress."
According to the Iranian authorities, at least nine other people are currently on death row in Iran after being sentenced to death in similar post-election 'show trials'.
"Our fear is that these executions are just the beginning of a wave of executions of those tried on similar vaguely worded charges," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were convicted of “enmity against God” by Tehran's Revolutionary Court in October. They were also convicted of "propaganda against the system", "insulting the holy sanctities" and "gathering and colluding with intent to harm national internal security".
Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani was accused of illegally visiting Iraq where he was alleged to have met US military officials.
Arash Rahmanipour's lawyer says he played no role in the election protests and was forced to confess in a “show trial” after members of his family were threatened.
The two men's lawyers were not informed of their clients' executions, as is required by Iranian law.
"These executions highlight how the justice system is used as an instrument of repression by the authorities. They are sending a warning to those who may wish to exercise their right to peacefully demonstrate against the government, not to go out in the street,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
Further anti-government demonstrations are widely expected to take place on the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on 11 February.
According to Iranian officials, over 40 people have died in demonstrations since the election, which were violently repressed by the security forces. Amnesty International believes the number to be much higher. More than 5,000 people have been arrested, many of whom were tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
Scores have been sentenced to prison terms, and in some cases flogging, after unfair trials, and at least 11 have been sentenced to death. One man – Hamed Rouhinejad - has had his death sentence commuted on appeal in January 2010.
Source:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/shocking-execution-iran-protesters-condemned-20100128
| Reactions: |
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Iran executes two dissidents accused of being Mohareb (enemies of God) and sentences to death nine more
Iran delivered a chilling message of intent to the country's dissident movement today when it hanged two men accused of being Mohareb (enemies of God) by participating in protests following last year's disputed presidential election and sentenced to death nine more.
The predawn executions of Arash Rahmanipour and Mohammed Reza Alizamani were the first since tens of thousands of ordinary Iranians poured onto the streets to challenge the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president.
Grappling with the country's greatest political crisis since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran's hardliners further indicated their unwillingness to brook dissent after the regime announced that death sentences had been passed on nine other government critics.
Yesterday's hangings mark a new watershed following months of intimidation and harassment designed to crush the spirit of Iran's uprising for change.
Last August a mass show trial of reformists accused of trying to orchestrate a revolution was staged in a Tehran courtroom.
Among the senior figures paraded on state television were the two hanged men, convicted, prosecutors said yesterday, for being "enemies of God".
Abbas Dolatabadi, Tehran's prosecutor general, told state television. "During their trials they confessed to plan to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to former prisoners and human rights activists, confessions are regularly extracted, especially during politically-tinged trials, through torture and sleep deprivation.
According to his lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, Rahmanipour was detained two months before June's election protests and confessed only after his torturers threatened to harm his family if he held out.
Like many other people, Mrs Sotoudeh was convinced that the execution of the two men was primarily intended to deter further street action by the opposition.
"An execution with this speed and rush has only one explanation," she said. "The government is trying to prevent the expansion of the current (opposition) movement through the spread of fear and intimidation."
British Foreign Secretary David Milliband said I am "appalled" by the reported hanging of two men in Iran convicted of being Mohareb (enemies of God). He added, "The trials and now these subsequent executions undermine Iran's claimed commitment to justice, human rights and democratic values."
The White House also "strongly" condemned the executions and said this act marked a new low in Tehran's "ruthless crackdown" on peaceful dissent. Deputy White House spokesman Bill Burton added, "Murdering political prisoners who are exercising their universal rights will not bring the respect and legitimacy the Islamic Republic seeks.”
So far, the tactic does not appear to be working. Messages circulated on the internet have called for fresh rallies on Feb 11, when Iran marks the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution – one of the most emotive dates in the state's calendar.
It is unclear whether the Iranian regime will seek to reinforce its message of intolerance for dissent before then by carrying out further executions. Yesterday's announcement that there nine other dissidents bound for the gallows came as a surprise and there were conflicting accounts as to when they may have been sentenced.
Iran's leaders are increasingly aware of the fragility of their power base, observers say, a recognition that was reinforced by violent crackdown of protests on the Shia holy day of Ashura in late December in which at least eight demonstrators died.
In what appeared to be a sign of desperation, Iranian officials this week claimed the Ashura protests had been orchestrated by two German intelligence officers identified as "Yogi" and "Ingo".
Planning legislation to reduce subsidies for the poor, Iran's leaders are more nervous about further protests than ever, analysts say.
Despite the executions, the mass population who want change sense an opportunity to cause further damage to this illegitimate government.
The predawn executions of Arash Rahmanipour and Mohammed Reza Alizamani were the first since tens of thousands of ordinary Iranians poured onto the streets to challenge the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president.
Grappling with the country's greatest political crisis since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran's hardliners further indicated their unwillingness to brook dissent after the regime announced that death sentences had been passed on nine other government critics.
Yesterday's hangings mark a new watershed following months of intimidation and harassment designed to crush the spirit of Iran's uprising for change.
Last August a mass show trial of reformists accused of trying to orchestrate a revolution was staged in a Tehran courtroom.
Among the senior figures paraded on state television were the two hanged men, convicted, prosecutors said yesterday, for being "enemies of God".
Abbas Dolatabadi, Tehran's prosecutor general, told state television. "During their trials they confessed to plan to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to former prisoners and human rights activists, confessions are regularly extracted, especially during politically-tinged trials, through torture and sleep deprivation.
According to his lawyer, Nasrin Sotoudeh, Rahmanipour was detained two months before June's election protests and confessed only after his torturers threatened to harm his family if he held out.
Like many other people, Mrs Sotoudeh was convinced that the execution of the two men was primarily intended to deter further street action by the opposition.
"An execution with this speed and rush has only one explanation," she said. "The government is trying to prevent the expansion of the current (opposition) movement through the spread of fear and intimidation."
British Foreign Secretary David Milliband said I am "appalled" by the reported hanging of two men in Iran convicted of being Mohareb (enemies of God). He added, "The trials and now these subsequent executions undermine Iran's claimed commitment to justice, human rights and democratic values."
The White House also "strongly" condemned the executions and said this act marked a new low in Tehran's "ruthless crackdown" on peaceful dissent. Deputy White House spokesman Bill Burton added, "Murdering political prisoners who are exercising their universal rights will not bring the respect and legitimacy the Islamic Republic seeks.”
So far, the tactic does not appear to be working. Messages circulated on the internet have called for fresh rallies on Feb 11, when Iran marks the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution – one of the most emotive dates in the state's calendar.
It is unclear whether the Iranian regime will seek to reinforce its message of intolerance for dissent before then by carrying out further executions. Yesterday's announcement that there nine other dissidents bound for the gallows came as a surprise and there were conflicting accounts as to when they may have been sentenced.
Iran's leaders are increasingly aware of the fragility of their power base, observers say, a recognition that was reinforced by violent crackdown of protests on the Shia holy day of Ashura in late December in which at least eight demonstrators died.
In what appeared to be a sign of desperation, Iranian officials this week claimed the Ashura protests had been orchestrated by two German intelligence officers identified as "Yogi" and "Ingo".
Planning legislation to reduce subsidies for the poor, Iran's leaders are more nervous about further protests than ever, analysts say.
Despite the executions, the mass population who want change sense an opportunity to cause further damage to this illegitimate government.
| Reactions: |
What's monitored online in Iran? How traceable are communications?
Iran has vowed to step up its efforts in digital censorship, claiming that the era of "mercy" is over.
Based on an article by AUSTIN HEAP in San Francisco
In a statement released by the Iranian Labour News Agency, national police Chief Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam stated, "These people should know where they are sending the SMS and email as these systems are under control. They should not think using proxies will prevent their identification." He added that those who have used the Internet for organising the opposition had "committed a worse crime than those who come to the streets."
They are trying to scare people off to stay away from cyber communications. Let's break down these claims. Here are a few tips and facts.
Proxies can be tracked and are easy to detect.
A proxy server is something that can help one evade the Internet censorship in Iran. It acts as a go-between for a user in Iran trying to connect to the Internet. For example, instead of connecting directly to Facebook (which is blocked) the user's computer first connects to the proxy, which then connects to Facebook on the user's behalf. BUT -- just because this can help get around the filtering does not mean your request is not being monitored/altered: If one is not using an encrypted proxy, the contents can be read and even altered.
Text messages (SMSs) can be tracked and read.
This, unfortunately, is also true. Iran uses the monitoring technology sold by Nokia Siemens. What they call "lawful intercept" technology can track and read text messages sent from cell phones. Whenever possible, people should use prepaid cell phones and calling cards to disassociate their locations and identities. It is very important to understand that by carrying a cell phone, one is essentially carrying a tracking beacon that broadcasts your location.
Email can also be tracked and read.
This is certainly true for clear-text email. When you send an email from -- let's say Hotmail to Gmail - it is routed between Hotmail's servers and Gmail's servers in plain text for the whole world to see. Good news though: it's easy to protect your e-mail. People should be accessing their email using an encrypted connection (POP + SSL or IMAPS). For extra security, they should use PGP/GPG encryption for email. Great tutorials are available for Mac and Windows.
Bottom line: If you control the network, you can control and inspect the contents. Think of sending an email like sending a FedEx package. What FedEx is to your package, the government is to your emails in Iran. But what if FedEx decided to open every box, poke around inside, and change or remove anything it didn't like? That's how it is with communications in Iran.
In a recent interview with PRI's The World, I discussed how the Iranian government will ramp up censorship on certain days considered crucial in suppressing the opposition. This demonstrates further that they are shifting tactics, grasping for an effective policy of strategic covert oppression over manic street violence.
First, it shows the regime knows the power of the Internet. They realize arresting, beating, and killing thousands of protesters inspires more and more Iranians to oppose the regime. Now, they will try to focus on silencing the organizers by controlling digital communications. Ultimately, this strategy will fail because the strength of the opposition has been its diffuseness: the organizers and protesters are one in the same.
Moreover, this new strategy demonstrates the continuing and pressing need to disseminate information and technology in Iran to allow people free communications, without fear of retribution. With the passage of time, will the government give up on the public violence against the protesters? Or are they trying to murder the vox populi before it can assume a degree of control? Either way, we have to be creative in finding ways of getting the news, info and message across the barrier. If you know techniques and know how please share it.
| Reactions: |
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
The legal road to justice for PMOI
By Jubin Afshar
OpEd News - An Iranian group tagged as a foreign terrorist organization since 1997 has challenged the Secretary of State's designation of the group in court. According to legal experts the group may have a real chance, as the circumstances since the original designation have substantially changed.
The case was heard by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Tuesday, January 12. The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. US Department of State, is yet another chapter in the group's unrelenting battle to clear its name from terror lists in Europe and the United States.
The PMOI has won hard-fought legal battles in Britain and Europe as competent courts ruled to remove it from terror lists on grounds that there is no evidence to support a terror designation.
The State Department claims that it can designate the group as "terrorist" by merely resting on classified information, the veracity of which is unknown, despite the fact that the group's members, mostly in a refugee camp in Iraq, are voluntarily disarmed and internationally protected persons. The PMOI has refuted any connection to terrorism. Its leaders continually call for democratic change in Iran as it has shown its commitment to the rule of law everywhere in exile.
The State Department branded PMOI (MEK) as an FTO in 1997 in what a former administration official described as a goodwill gesture to the Iranian government. A policy that stemmed from a naïve reading of Iran and based the FTO designation on politically expedient foreign policy goals rather than facts, the PMOI contends.
PMOI officials content that hampering the movement was a strategic mistake that set back the goal for a pluralistic, secular democracy in a non-nuclear Iran, and peace in the region.
But how can the PMOI possibly plea a case if the evidence against it is wholly classified? In court on Tuesday, the Secretary of State's counsel admitted that former Secretary Rice, who denied the group's petition in January 2009, relied entirely on classified material to do so.
"Did you provide them with unclassified material before the January 2009 decision?" asked Judge David S. Tatel of Douglas Letter, the Secretary of State's counsel. "Not really," replied Letter.
"Are you arguing on behalf of the Secretary of State that the unclassified portion of the administrative record provides substantial support for her decision?" asked Judge Tatel. "We are not, Your Honor," replied Letter.
Andrew Frey, the PMOI counsel argued, "I don't know what's in the classified record. However, we're confident that there is nothing of any substance there." Frey pointed to the State Department's decision to review the PMOI's case in just 2 years even if the organization does not petition for a review, and said "I would not believe that she would have made such a statement if there was substantial support in the classified material for the proposition that the PMOI is engaged in terrorism."
"The second part of what you just said is almost certainly true," observed Senior Judge Stephen E. Williams.
The three-judge panel clearly voiced skepticism that the evidence offered substantial support for the Secretary of State's case.
Judge Tatel probed the Department's legal counsel on the veracity of highly questionable information of unknown origin. "The report says at the end that the ultimate source of the information was unknown, that the motivation behind it was unknown and the veracity of it was unknown. Does our standard of review allow us to say that the Secretary of State cannot rely on that sort of evidence?" asked Judge Tatel.
Despite the proscriptions, PMOI took its case to courts in the EU and US. Resorting to the legal recourse makes one thing clear: the PMOI is both confident of its conduct and serious in its commitment to democracy and rule of law.
Nearly 100 people, mostly PMOI supporters, showed up in court on Tuesday. Many Iranian-Americans are keenly hoping that the legal battle will finally allow them to channel their opposition to Iran's theocracy through the PMOI which they regard as the leading organization in the Iranian resistance movement.
"This is a critical time for Iran, in which decision-makers in the US and elsewhere, are making decisions about policy towards Iran. The PMOI is a key player in that debate...yet neither it nor its members or sympathizers are allowed to participate in the debate," lead counsel for PMOI argued in court. "The court's role is not simply to rubberstamp the Secretary of State's decision," he pleaded.
The court will have to issue judgment on the case soon and decide whether the Secretary of State's decision was supported by substantial evidence. There is also the question if reliance on wholly "classified" information is compatible with Congressional intent and concepts of judicial fairness. But as the unrest in Iran grows, the Iranian regime will pile pressure on its Iraqi allies to destroy a PMOI camp in Iraq. Over 3,400 PMOI members and sympathizers in Camp Ashraf today increasingly represent defiance to mullahs' rule.
The Iraqi government will justify its hostility to Camp Ashraf residents by pointing to the US terror list. The Iranian regime too will use the US list to legitimize its suppression of even family members of PMOI sympathizers, never failing to mention that the US too calls them terrorist. Ironically, the US list has become an instrument for inhibiting democrats in Iran and reinforcing a brutal dictatorship.
Events in Iran are moving to a dramatic pace. Courts in Europe have confirmed the fallacy of the terrorism label against the PMOI. It would be prudent for the US to drop its obstacles to their democratic efforts and not aid or abet the Iranian regime by pressuring its opposition.
The uprising in Iran has been a watershed event that has been extensive and sustained. Circumstances in Iran have changed. So have the circumstances of the PMOI. If the court finds no substantial support for the Secretary of State's designation in the classified material too, then Iranians will soon be able to freely get on with the business of organizing peaceful democratic change in their country without the impediment of the US list.
Jubin Afshar, is Director of Near East Studies at Near East Policy Research in Washington, D.C.
Source:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-legal-road-to-justice-by-Jubin-Afshar-100121-218.html
OpEd News - An Iranian group tagged as a foreign terrorist organization since 1997 has challenged the Secretary of State's designation of the group in court. According to legal experts the group may have a real chance, as the circumstances since the original designation have substantially changed.
The case was heard by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Tuesday, January 12. The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. US Department of State, is yet another chapter in the group's unrelenting battle to clear its name from terror lists in Europe and the United States.
The PMOI has won hard-fought legal battles in Britain and Europe as competent courts ruled to remove it from terror lists on grounds that there is no evidence to support a terror designation.
The State Department claims that it can designate the group as "terrorist" by merely resting on classified information, the veracity of which is unknown, despite the fact that the group's members, mostly in a refugee camp in Iraq, are voluntarily disarmed and internationally protected persons. The PMOI has refuted any connection to terrorism. Its leaders continually call for democratic change in Iran as it has shown its commitment to the rule of law everywhere in exile.
The State Department branded PMOI (MEK) as an FTO in 1997 in what a former administration official described as a goodwill gesture to the Iranian government. A policy that stemmed from a naïve reading of Iran and based the FTO designation on politically expedient foreign policy goals rather than facts, the PMOI contends.
PMOI officials content that hampering the movement was a strategic mistake that set back the goal for a pluralistic, secular democracy in a non-nuclear Iran, and peace in the region.
But how can the PMOI possibly plea a case if the evidence against it is wholly classified? In court on Tuesday, the Secretary of State's counsel admitted that former Secretary Rice, who denied the group's petition in January 2009, relied entirely on classified material to do so.
"Did you provide them with unclassified material before the January 2009 decision?" asked Judge David S. Tatel of Douglas Letter, the Secretary of State's counsel. "Not really," replied Letter.
"Are you arguing on behalf of the Secretary of State that the unclassified portion of the administrative record provides substantial support for her decision?" asked Judge Tatel. "We are not, Your Honor," replied Letter.
Andrew Frey, the PMOI counsel argued, "I don't know what's in the classified record. However, we're confident that there is nothing of any substance there." Frey pointed to the State Department's decision to review the PMOI's case in just 2 years even if the organization does not petition for a review, and said "I would not believe that she would have made such a statement if there was substantial support in the classified material for the proposition that the PMOI is engaged in terrorism."
"The second part of what you just said is almost certainly true," observed Senior Judge Stephen E. Williams.
The three-judge panel clearly voiced skepticism that the evidence offered substantial support for the Secretary of State's case.
Judge Tatel probed the Department's legal counsel on the veracity of highly questionable information of unknown origin. "The report says at the end that the ultimate source of the information was unknown, that the motivation behind it was unknown and the veracity of it was unknown. Does our standard of review allow us to say that the Secretary of State cannot rely on that sort of evidence?" asked Judge Tatel.
Despite the proscriptions, PMOI took its case to courts in the EU and US. Resorting to the legal recourse makes one thing clear: the PMOI is both confident of its conduct and serious in its commitment to democracy and rule of law.
Nearly 100 people, mostly PMOI supporters, showed up in court on Tuesday. Many Iranian-Americans are keenly hoping that the legal battle will finally allow them to channel their opposition to Iran's theocracy through the PMOI which they regard as the leading organization in the Iranian resistance movement.
"This is a critical time for Iran, in which decision-makers in the US and elsewhere, are making decisions about policy towards Iran. The PMOI is a key player in that debate...yet neither it nor its members or sympathizers are allowed to participate in the debate," lead counsel for PMOI argued in court. "The court's role is not simply to rubberstamp the Secretary of State's decision," he pleaded.
The court will have to issue judgment on the case soon and decide whether the Secretary of State's decision was supported by substantial evidence. There is also the question if reliance on wholly "classified" information is compatible with Congressional intent and concepts of judicial fairness. But as the unrest in Iran grows, the Iranian regime will pile pressure on its Iraqi allies to destroy a PMOI camp in Iraq. Over 3,400 PMOI members and sympathizers in Camp Ashraf today increasingly represent defiance to mullahs' rule.
The Iraqi government will justify its hostility to Camp Ashraf residents by pointing to the US terror list. The Iranian regime too will use the US list to legitimize its suppression of even family members of PMOI sympathizers, never failing to mention that the US too calls them terrorist. Ironically, the US list has become an instrument for inhibiting democrats in Iran and reinforcing a brutal dictatorship.
Events in Iran are moving to a dramatic pace. Courts in Europe have confirmed the fallacy of the terrorism label against the PMOI. It would be prudent for the US to drop its obstacles to their democratic efforts and not aid or abet the Iranian regime by pressuring its opposition.
The uprising in Iran has been a watershed event that has been extensive and sustained. Circumstances in Iran have changed. So have the circumstances of the PMOI. If the court finds no substantial support for the Secretary of State's designation in the classified material too, then Iranians will soon be able to freely get on with the business of organizing peaceful democratic change in their country without the impediment of the US list.
Jubin Afshar, is Director of Near East Studies at Near East Policy Research in Washington, D.C.
Source:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-legal-road-to-justice-by-Jubin-Afshar-100121-218.html
| Reactions: |
Friday, 22 January 2010
West must support Iran's youth movement for reform
BY PETER FRASER
The latest round of talks by major world powers to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons last week finished without agreement on any new sanctions; more consultations were agreed instead. But Tehran is pushing forward with its nuclear program.
France's ambassador to the United Nations, Christophe Bigot, rightly said 2010 is going to be ``an Iranian year,'' adding, ``We have to work a lot on Iran. We are planning definite decisions to be taken by the United Nations Security Council. Our patience is running out.'' But the solution remains as evasive as ever.
After a year of lull, last week U.S. General David Petraeus sounded the war drums against Iran. Washington, he said, has contingency plans in place to address Iran's nuclear activities if international negotiations fail to achieve consensus.
Gen. Petraeus told CNN that Iran's nuclear sites ``certainly can be bombed'' while adding that, ``The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear".
Although there can be little doubt that no option should be removed from the table in dealing with the nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, military action against Iran should be a long way back in the West's list of options.
This Iranian regime is unable to step back in any international dispute, whether over its nuclear ambitions or its support for terrorism in Iraq and the Middle East. The regime's survival is based on its core element of supporters believing in its strength. Severely weakened at home from perpetual nationwide anti-government protests, this Iranian regime must portray strength on the international front over its nuclear program and its support for terrorism in Iraq to distract from its internal frailty.
But there is another drumbeat that deserves our greater attention -- that of young Iranian men and women chanting ``down with the dictator.''
The foundations of the regime are creaking in the face of mass protests which show little sign of subsiding, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei knows he must act to curtail its demise. He sees having nuclear weapons as a fast route to regaining clout and for the regime to become the Middle East's superpower. And so Tehran ignores deadline after deadline set by the international community.
Solutions are clearly hard to come by for the West in dealing with Iran's nuclear threat, which may explain never ending negotiations with Tehran which have failed at each and every level. The exercise of dangling the carrot of economic and political incentives has failed and will continue to fail. This is not because the carrots have not been large or shiny enough but because Tehran weakened at home has no option but to forge ahead with its nuclear program, because it knows just as well as its detractors do that going nuclear means survival.
Rather than resort to war as an option were negotiations to fail, the United States and the international community would be much better placed to look no further than the streets of Tehran. Late last month as masses of Iranians took part in a national religious ceremony, major protests erupted with people openly calling for regime change; thus, the Iranian people's desire and methodology for democratic change was flung onto the world stage in no uncertain terms.
Democratic change by the people of Iran is an option that many of us within the British Parliament have argued for over many years. Alongside the leading Iranian opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), we have shouted long and hard that this can and must be the solution to the Tehran threat; yet, we were long ignored.
As the West attempted further rapprochement with Tehran, the opposition movement was sidelined and its solutions silenced. Well now the words of the Council ring true, democratic change by the people of Iran for the people of Iran must be seen as the solution.
The war drums have been drowned out by the noise of protests by the Iranian opposition movement. The people of Iran have placed an option on the table that many had historically ridiculed. Support the Iranian opposition movement and the rest will undoubtedly fall into place.
Rt. Hon. Lord Peter Fraser of Carmyllie QC is a former Solicitor-General and Lord Advocate for Scotland who oversaw the Lockerbie bombing case.
Source:
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1440196.html
The latest round of talks by major world powers to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons last week finished without agreement on any new sanctions; more consultations were agreed instead. But Tehran is pushing forward with its nuclear program.
France's ambassador to the United Nations, Christophe Bigot, rightly said 2010 is going to be ``an Iranian year,'' adding, ``We have to work a lot on Iran. We are planning definite decisions to be taken by the United Nations Security Council. Our patience is running out.'' But the solution remains as evasive as ever.
After a year of lull, last week U.S. General David Petraeus sounded the war drums against Iran. Washington, he said, has contingency plans in place to address Iran's nuclear activities if international negotiations fail to achieve consensus.
Gen. Petraeus told CNN that Iran's nuclear sites ``certainly can be bombed'' while adding that, ``The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear".
Although there can be little doubt that no option should be removed from the table in dealing with the nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, military action against Iran should be a long way back in the West's list of options.
This Iranian regime is unable to step back in any international dispute, whether over its nuclear ambitions or its support for terrorism in Iraq and the Middle East. The regime's survival is based on its core element of supporters believing in its strength. Severely weakened at home from perpetual nationwide anti-government protests, this Iranian regime must portray strength on the international front over its nuclear program and its support for terrorism in Iraq to distract from its internal frailty.
But there is another drumbeat that deserves our greater attention -- that of young Iranian men and women chanting ``down with the dictator.''
The foundations of the regime are creaking in the face of mass protests which show little sign of subsiding, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei knows he must act to curtail its demise. He sees having nuclear weapons as a fast route to regaining clout and for the regime to become the Middle East's superpower. And so Tehran ignores deadline after deadline set by the international community.
Solutions are clearly hard to come by for the West in dealing with Iran's nuclear threat, which may explain never ending negotiations with Tehran which have failed at each and every level. The exercise of dangling the carrot of economic and political incentives has failed and will continue to fail. This is not because the carrots have not been large or shiny enough but because Tehran weakened at home has no option but to forge ahead with its nuclear program, because it knows just as well as its detractors do that going nuclear means survival.
Rather than resort to war as an option were negotiations to fail, the United States and the international community would be much better placed to look no further than the streets of Tehran. Late last month as masses of Iranians took part in a national religious ceremony, major protests erupted with people openly calling for regime change; thus, the Iranian people's desire and methodology for democratic change was flung onto the world stage in no uncertain terms.
Democratic change by the people of Iran is an option that many of us within the British Parliament have argued for over many years. Alongside the leading Iranian opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), we have shouted long and hard that this can and must be the solution to the Tehran threat; yet, we were long ignored.
As the West attempted further rapprochement with Tehran, the opposition movement was sidelined and its solutions silenced. Well now the words of the Council ring true, democratic change by the people of Iran for the people of Iran must be seen as the solution.
The war drums have been drowned out by the noise of protests by the Iranian opposition movement. The people of Iran have placed an option on the table that many had historically ridiculed. Support the Iranian opposition movement and the rest will undoubtedly fall into place.
Rt. Hon. Lord Peter Fraser of Carmyllie QC is a former Solicitor-General and Lord Advocate for Scotland who oversaw the Lockerbie bombing case.
Source:
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/inbox/story/1440196.html
| Reactions: |
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Sunni Iraqis fear disenfranchisement after hundreds of candidates banned
By Leila Fadel and Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service
BAGHDAD -- By barring hundreds of candidates from an upcoming parliamentary election, a controversial commission whose members have close ties to Iran is threatening to disenfranchise members of Iraq's Sunni minority and weaken its fledgling democracy.
The commission, led by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician who supplied faulty intelligence to the United States in the run-up to the war, and Ali Faisal al-Lami, a former U.S. detainee, was established to help cleanse the Iraqi government of officials who adhered to the ideals of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.
But the panel sent shockwaves through Iraq's political establishment when it recently announced the disbarment of 511 candidates for their alleged allegiance to the party. The move has led to recriminations that Iran, through proxies, is trying to rig the vote to ensure that Iraq is solidly in the hands of politicians loyal to Tehran.
U.S. officials, who were caught off guard by the decision, now fear that it could reignite sectarian violence and dash their hopes of political reconciliation in Iraq -- the end goal of the U.S. military strategy known as the "surge."
"If there is no balance, there will be violence," said Mustafa Kamal Shibeeb, a Sunni who was among those banned.
Outside a cemetery in the Sunni Baghdad district of Adhamiyah, Ibrahim Hamid, 22, glanced over a railing at about 6,500 graves of Sunnis buried during Iraq's sectarian war.
"This is Iraq," he said. "Always the men with dignity are banned. I'm sure there is going to be a lot of violence."
Many Sunnis boycotted a national election in 2005 to protest the U.S. occupation. Their disenfranchisement contributed to the rise of an insurgency and a civil war fought along sectarian lines. This time, there is little talk of boycotting, but there is widespread fear that Sunnis will once again believe they got a raw deal.
On Friday, at a Sunni mosque in Adhamiyah, the Iraqi army stopped a demonstration over the disbarments, residents said. Sunnis in Baghdad complain that in recent months the Iraqi army has sharply restricted movement in their districts, stifling commerce and imposing de facto martial law.
"People will keep their mouths shut," said Zaki Alaa Zaki, 38, a member of the local Sunni paramilitary force established by the U.S. military and now controlled by the Iraqi government. "We are the living dead now."
The committee that announced the disbarments is known as the Supreme National Commission for Accountability and Justice. Its chairman, Chalabi, is an erstwhile Pentagon and CIA ally who played a crucial role in the run-up to the invasion. He's fallen out of favor, and most U.S. officials now call him an Iranian agent. Chalabi's deputy on the commission, Lami, spent nearly a year in U.S. custody after being implicated in the bombing of a Sadr City government building that killed two American soldiers and two U.S. Embassy employees. He has denied involvement in the attack and claims that U.S. interrogators tortured him.
An aide to Chalabi said he was unavailable for comment. In an interview, however, Lami said he wasn't to blame that candidates failed to qualify for elections. He also disputed allegations, from U.S. officials and others, that he and Chalabi were acting at the behest of Tehran or in the interest of their own coalition vying for seats in the next parliament.
The list of barred candidates, which was endorsed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, provides vague justification for the banishments. It includes Sunni and Shiite politicians, but it seems to disproportionately target prominent Sunnis and secular leaders. There were 6,592 candidates who were screened for Baathist ties.
Being labeled a Baathist in today's Iraq, which is led by exiles driven out by Hussein, is tantamount to being called a communist during the McCarthy era. The disbarment would be likely to benefit Maliki's coalition and the predominantly Shiite bloc that includes Chalabi and Lami.
Barred candidates have three days to appeal to a newly empaneled body of three judges. Sunni politicians and U.S. officials worry that the appeals process could inflame tensions and potentially derail the election, scheduled for March 7.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher R. Hill said he worries that the process could overwhelm the democratic system.
"It's a tough issue. It involves deep emotions," Hill said in an interview. "Frankly, the weight of these emotions sometimes exceeds the capacity of the institutional framework to handle them."
Vice President Biden called the Iraqi speaker of parliament Sunday to push back the disbarment of politicians until after the vote, according to the speaker's spokesman. But the call and other, similar efforts by the U.N. envoy to Iraq and Western diplomats appear to have gone unheeded.
Some Sunni leaders and analysts said more aggressive American intervention is the only way to avert a bigger crisis.
"We need to hear from you Americans. Please don't just watch this from the outside," said Mithal al-Alusi, a former member of the now-disbanded commission on de-Baathification. "The White House needs to move and move quickly."
Special correspondent Aziz Alwan contributed to this report.
Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803475_pf.html
Washington Post Foreign Service
BAGHDAD -- By barring hundreds of candidates from an upcoming parliamentary election, a controversial commission whose members have close ties to Iran is threatening to disenfranchise members of Iraq's Sunni minority and weaken its fledgling democracy.
The commission, led by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician who supplied faulty intelligence to the United States in the run-up to the war, and Ali Faisal al-Lami, a former U.S. detainee, was established to help cleanse the Iraqi government of officials who adhered to the ideals of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.
But the panel sent shockwaves through Iraq's political establishment when it recently announced the disbarment of 511 candidates for their alleged allegiance to the party. The move has led to recriminations that Iran, through proxies, is trying to rig the vote to ensure that Iraq is solidly in the hands of politicians loyal to Tehran.
U.S. officials, who were caught off guard by the decision, now fear that it could reignite sectarian violence and dash their hopes of political reconciliation in Iraq -- the end goal of the U.S. military strategy known as the "surge."
"If there is no balance, there will be violence," said Mustafa Kamal Shibeeb, a Sunni who was among those banned.
Outside a cemetery in the Sunni Baghdad district of Adhamiyah, Ibrahim Hamid, 22, glanced over a railing at about 6,500 graves of Sunnis buried during Iraq's sectarian war.
"This is Iraq," he said. "Always the men with dignity are banned. I'm sure there is going to be a lot of violence."
Many Sunnis boycotted a national election in 2005 to protest the U.S. occupation. Their disenfranchisement contributed to the rise of an insurgency and a civil war fought along sectarian lines. This time, there is little talk of boycotting, but there is widespread fear that Sunnis will once again believe they got a raw deal.
On Friday, at a Sunni mosque in Adhamiyah, the Iraqi army stopped a demonstration over the disbarments, residents said. Sunnis in Baghdad complain that in recent months the Iraqi army has sharply restricted movement in their districts, stifling commerce and imposing de facto martial law.
"People will keep their mouths shut," said Zaki Alaa Zaki, 38, a member of the local Sunni paramilitary force established by the U.S. military and now controlled by the Iraqi government. "We are the living dead now."
The committee that announced the disbarments is known as the Supreme National Commission for Accountability and Justice. Its chairman, Chalabi, is an erstwhile Pentagon and CIA ally who played a crucial role in the run-up to the invasion. He's fallen out of favor, and most U.S. officials now call him an Iranian agent. Chalabi's deputy on the commission, Lami, spent nearly a year in U.S. custody after being implicated in the bombing of a Sadr City government building that killed two American soldiers and two U.S. Embassy employees. He has denied involvement in the attack and claims that U.S. interrogators tortured him.
An aide to Chalabi said he was unavailable for comment. In an interview, however, Lami said he wasn't to blame that candidates failed to qualify for elections. He also disputed allegations, from U.S. officials and others, that he and Chalabi were acting at the behest of Tehran or in the interest of their own coalition vying for seats in the next parliament.
The list of barred candidates, which was endorsed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, provides vague justification for the banishments. It includes Sunni and Shiite politicians, but it seems to disproportionately target prominent Sunnis and secular leaders. There were 6,592 candidates who were screened for Baathist ties.
Being labeled a Baathist in today's Iraq, which is led by exiles driven out by Hussein, is tantamount to being called a communist during the McCarthy era. The disbarment would be likely to benefit Maliki's coalition and the predominantly Shiite bloc that includes Chalabi and Lami.
Barred candidates have three days to appeal to a newly empaneled body of three judges. Sunni politicians and U.S. officials worry that the appeals process could inflame tensions and potentially derail the election, scheduled for March 7.
U.S. Ambassador Christopher R. Hill said he worries that the process could overwhelm the democratic system.
"It's a tough issue. It involves deep emotions," Hill said in an interview. "Frankly, the weight of these emotions sometimes exceeds the capacity of the institutional framework to handle them."
Vice President Biden called the Iraqi speaker of parliament Sunday to push back the disbarment of politicians until after the vote, according to the speaker's spokesman. But the call and other, similar efforts by the U.N. envoy to Iraq and Western diplomats appear to have gone unheeded.
Some Sunni leaders and analysts said more aggressive American intervention is the only way to avert a bigger crisis.
"We need to hear from you Americans. Please don't just watch this from the outside," said Mithal al-Alusi, a former member of the now-disbanded commission on de-Baathification. "The White House needs to move and move quickly."
Special correspondent Aziz Alwan contributed to this report.
Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803475_pf.html
| Reactions: |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




















