Iranian leaders use violence and manipulate legal system to quell opposition

By Neil Hicks
Crossposted from Jurist

The leaders of the Islamic Republic know well the value of violence and brutality as political control mechanisms. In recent months, the authorities have unleashed random beating of protesters, arbitrary detention and torture, apparently including rape of detainees, running down protesters with motor vehicles, shooting with live ammunition into crowds of unarmed demonstrators resulting in fatalities, and apparent targeted killings. The recent executions of two young men, Mohammed Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, after legal proceedings that violated Iranian law as well as international standards, and the threat, encouraged by hardliners like Ayatollah Jannati, the Chair of the Council of Guardians, to execute more alleged protesters, are a piece of this long-established strategy of state terror to quell dissent.

But the authorities are trying to achieve more through the earlier show trials and these recent exemplary executions. Not only do they wish to sow fear and deter further protest, they also hope to take control of the narrative of the post-election protests that have produced the deepest political crisis in Iran since the early years of the Islamic Republic.

Leaders of the opposition movement like presidential candidates, Mir Hossein Mousvai and Mehdi Karroubi, and former president Mohamed Khatami, have sought to characterize the opposition as the true defenders of the Islamic Republic and of the constitutional and democratic values that were the aspirations of some of its founders. The color of the opposition is Islamic green; the opposition does not hesitate to claim Muslim holy days as occasions to advance its cause and there is a contest over who can claim the legacy of the late founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini. There is some irony, and not a little justice, in the spectacle of Khomeini's flexibility and chameleon qualities – traits that he used ruthlessly to outwit and outmaneuver his one time leftist and liberal democratic allies in the overthrow of the monarchy and to secure his grip on power – now being used by the opposition to challenge the absolute authority of the office of Leader of the Islamic Republic that he created for himself.

To counter this narrative the authorities are anxious to demonstrate that the opposition has no legitimacy, is subservient to foreign interests and that its prime instigators are unpopular violent opposition groups. Prior to his execution, Arash Rahmanipour confessed to his role in plotting post-election protests on behalf of the People's Mojahedine of Iran, an organization associated with acts of political violence and terrorism in Iran, much derided among Iranians for having sided with Saddam Hussein against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. In fact, Rahmanipour seems to have been a confused young man who had only slight contact with the PMOI and no involvement whatsoever in the post-election protest movement. (He had, in fact, been in prison since March 2009, three months before the elections even took place.) Zamani was convicted of being a member of an obscure organization supportive of the restoration of the monarchy and also has no connections to the opposition movement. The authorities seem to be operating on the principle that if a lie is repeated often enough and loud enough, people will come to believe it.

Time will tell whether the opposition will be cowed by these crude tactics. The anniversary of Khomeini's triumphant return to Iran and the creation of the Islamic Republic 31 years ago is fast approaching. There will be further protests to mark this occasion and the authorities will again make the calculation of how much violence is needed to contain them. Opposition leaders are emphasizing that the forces that made the revolution were strengthened when the Shah's security agencies used excessive force against demonstrators and were swept aside by public outrage. There are no doubt arguments among historians as to whether that is an accurate description of events three decades ago; even more unknown is whether that history will repeat itself in 2010 with the regime's brutal overreach sowing the seeds of its own downfall.

A Human Rights Activist's Hopes for the State of the Union

By Neil Hicks
Cross-posted from Huffington Post

From podiums around the globe, President Obama has eloquently articulated his commitment to advancing human rights and securing global peace and prosperity by protecting the inherent rights and dignity of all people. On his second day in office, he put his words into action as he unequivocally renounced torture and set about the symbolically important task of closing the Guantanamo detention center. The world welcomed these important steps and the Obama Administration began its efforts to restore America's status as an international human rights leader.

Even so, one year later, human rights conditions in many parts of the world are deteriorating, including in a number countries that are viewed as important strategic partners of the United States. For example, in Russia, the North Caucasus threatens to explode and human rights defenders continue to be murdered with impunity. China is sentencing prominent dissidents to jail terms and extending its Great Internet Firewall. On Iran, even if rhetorical restraint by the U.S. may have been prudent, it left beleaguered Iranians struggling for their basic rights worried about American commitment to that cause. In other global problem areas like Africa and the Middle East, there is still no clearly stated U.S. human rights agenda.

What can the President and his administration do to arrest this disturbing global trend? Here are four things that the President could say in his State of the Union Address that would demonstrate how his Administration intends to advance human rights and democracy around the world:

• The President should send an unequivocal message that human rights promotion will be raised consistently in bi-lateral relationships with key strategic partners with human rights problems, including China, Pakistan, Russia, Colombia and Egypt. He should reiterate that he will assess his Administration's strategy on the basis of concrete progress and results that are achieved in these and other places confronting human rights challenges.
  
• The President should state clearly that he stands behind human rights and democracy advocates when they are threatened or attacked by governments and others who want to silence and put them out of business. He should direct administration officials at all levels to support change from within societies by doing the same. He should state the importance of freedom on the Internet and his intention to stand with technology companies that defend free expression and privacy.
  
• The President should articulate a commitment to create opportunities for human rights advocates by providing financial and other support to non-governmental organizations and regional institutions in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. This support would empower multilateral efforts to advance rights at the regional level. The President should also direct his aid agencies to develop and implement a long-term strategy to strengthen regional human rights institutions, while ensuring that U.S. security and other assistance is not facilitating human rights abuses.
  
• The President should demonstrate his resolve to advance reform at the UN Human Rights Council by upgrading the U.S. diplomatic presence in Geneva and adding cooperation at the Human Rights Council to the mix of bi-lateral issues raised with all allies, especially those in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
  

Promoting human rights and democracy around the world is challenging; it requires patience, sustained attention and consistency in the face of pushback and hostility. In today's interconnected world, America's national security and the peace of the world is fundamentally interwoven with the advancement of human rights and democracy everywhere. This does not mean that the United States has an obligation to create fully-functioning democracies everywhere - Afghanistan is not Switzerland, and will not become so in the term of this administration. Nonetheless, human rights promotion is central to a more stable Afghanistan; just as it is to a less threatening Iran or North Korea; or to a Middle East and Africa that creates hope for their people.


Tonight, as President Obama stands behind yet another podium and speaks to the world, he has an opportunity to advance the understanding that, amidst the many challenge we face at home, the well-being of Americans is inextricably tied up with the progress of freedom abroad. He should use this opportunity to reiterate the message that advancing human rights remains a cornerstone of his Administration's foreign policy and that America will not tolerate the silencing of dissidents through oppression and violence. He must not remain silent about these important issues. The world is listening.

Check out how to submit questions following the speech - instructions on the White House blog.