Home >> Middle East >> Iran

     Email   Print 

Human Rights and the Iranian Opposition

Prof. Raymond Tanter - 11/17/2009

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of the United Nations begins with the statement that all peoples and all nations should strive to promote respect for human rights. Moreover, the Declaration ends with the principle that “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

One of the rights is that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” At issue is how serial violators of human rights principles should be held accountable for such violations. Consider the cases of Iran and Iraq, which appear to be in collusion to deny human rights protections to thousands of Iranian dissidents in Iraq.

Tehran not only is probably complicit in violating the human rights of its opponents in Iraq, but also is clearly in violation of the rights of its citizens in Iran. On November 4, 2009, a day for anti-Americanism on the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets, chanting slogans against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The activists were violently dispersed by Iranian security forces, contrary to the principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In a November 4 speech to the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, U.S. Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL) drew attention to human rights violations on the streets of Iran’s major cities and read aloud the names of Iranian dissidents. Now, another human rights catastrophe involving additional Iranian oppositionists is gaining the attention of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Christian clergy. If human rights activists were to read aloud the names of the threatened, the Government of Iraq can be held accountable for the fate of the oppositionists.

The main Iranian opposition group in exile is based at Camp Ashraf, Iraq, about 60 miles northeast of Baghdad, and is under threat from Iraqi Security Forces, most probably operating at the behest of Tehran. A seven month siege by Iraqi Forces escalated tragically on July 28-29, 2009, when Iraqi police invaded Ashraf, home of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK). These violent actions are clearly contrary to the principles in the UDHR.

Iraqi proxies for Tehran felt confident enough to invade Ashraf while Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was in Iraq; the assaults left at least 11 Iranian oppositionists dead, and several hundred injured. Thirty-six residents were detained for 72 days, despite three court rulings for their release. They finally reached Ashraf, hours before several were about to die after they embarked on a seven-day dry hunger strike, following a 65-day liquid only hunger fast. Now, international humanitarian organizations fear they and the others at Camp Ashraf may be dispersed within Iraq and subjected to attack because of their enhanced vulnerability, or extradited to Iran to face torture and execution.

In 2007, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) assessed “risks faced by residents of Camp Ashraf of nonvoluntary repatriation to their country of origin, and takes the view that the residents must not be deported, expelled of [or] repatriated in violation of the principle of non-refoulement or displaced inside Iraq in violation of the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.” A UNAMI fact-finding delegation visited Ashraf again during August 2009 and voiced its heightened concern for the human rights of residents in the wake of the attack by Iraqi forces.

Consider an April 20, 2009 Amnesty International report. It refers to an Amnesty letter to the Iraqi government concerning Iraqi threats to disperse Ashraf residents after the handover of U.S. security responsibilities to Iraqi authorities:

In its letter, Amnesty International urged the Iraqi Prime Minister to ensure that no action is taken by the Iraqi authorities that violates the human rights of the Camp Ashraf residents and to clarify the government’s intentions towards them in the light of Dr al-Rubaie’s [then national security adviser in the Government of Iraq] reported threat to make their lives “intolerable.” Amnesty International has previously called on the Iraqi government to ensure that none of the Camp Ashraf residents or other Iranian dissidents is forcibly returned to Iran in view of fears that they would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations there.

The human rights community, including relevant UN authorities, American clergy, and American as well as European activists, such as the Near East Human Rights Initiative, are now raising the alarm, yet the U.S. Government takes little action. Because the United States military played a monitoring role over the Iranian dissidents, Washington will have its hands bloodied by human rights violations committed by Baghdad at the behest of Tehran.

In 2004, the U.S. military awarded MEK members at Ashraf “Protected Persons” status under the Fourth Geneva Convention; as the United States passed the baton of security responsibilities to Iraq at the end of 2008, Baghdad put its promise in writing: Ashraf residents would be treated humanely in accord with Iraqi and international law.

Following my October 2008 trip to Iraq to interview Iraqis about Iranian dissidents in Iraq, Ali Al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the Iraqi Prime Minister’s Office, told me last December in Washington that the people of Ashraf would be treated in accordance with their status under the Geneva Convention. While violence against the unarmed Iranian civilians continues, Dabbagh also continues with the line that his government would “treat the inhabitants humanely and it will respect international conventions.”

In addition, then National Security Adviser for the Government of Iraq Dr. al-Rubaie reaffirmed that commitment to me privately in January this year, contrary to his public comments about dispersing the rank and file and possibly extraditing the leaders. As the Iranian press celebrates and congratulates Baghdad for its suppressive actions and speaker of Iran’s parliament Ali Larijani says, “Even though it is rather late, the action by the Iraqi government is praiseworthy,” one can only infer collusion between Baghdad and Tehran is behind the crackdown.

At issue is what will become of MEK members at Camp Ashraf. During my 2008 fact-finding mission to Iraq, both Sunni and Shiite Arab leaders told me they feared an assault by Iraqi Security Forces on the unarmed Iranian dissidents in Iraq. Iraqis stated that if the people of Ashraf are harmed by Baghdad, it will be to serve the interests of Tehran. Unfortunately, their fears have been realized, and in the process the United States is losing its Iraqi ally as Baghdad drifts into Tehran’s orbit.

Human rights advocates hope that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go beyond her initial reactions to the 2009 Iraqi attacks against unarmed Iranian dissidents, “It is a matter now for the government of Iraq to resolve.” Furthermore, Secretary Clinton also is reported to have called for “restraint on both sides.”

During the Cold War, my colleagues and I in the Reagan administration suggested to President Reagan that he adhere to principles of the Universal Declaration by repeatedly mentioning names of Soviet dissidents in talks with the former Soviet Union and in the public arena. Human rights proponents believe the Obama administration would be well-advised to follow a similar approach of keeping the names of Iranian dissidents in Iran and in Iraq at the forefront of the private and public discourse with both the Iranian regime and the Government of Iraq. Likewise, the activists suggest that Iranian dissidents follow the lead of Representative Kirk, and read the names of their missing colleagues as well as those still at Ashraf during rallies and demonstrations on their behalf.