Foreign Policy Blogs

A Candid Discussion with Nazanin Afshin-Jam

A Candid Discussion with Nazanin Afshin-Jam

A former Miss World Canada and Miss World 1st runner up, Nazanin Afshin-Jam is an internationally acclaimed human rights activist and the recipient of  “Human Rights Hero Award” from UN Watch in 2009. In 2008, Nazanin was appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada‘s office to the Board of Directors of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Born in Tehran, Iran, Nazanin is President and Co-Founder of Stop Child Executions, a leading organization providing information and updates on the situation of minors on death row.

Reza A. : From a Canadian perspective, violations of human rights in Iran generally have taken place in two forms; one toward ordinary Iranian citizens and the other directed at Canadian citizens of Iranian background. What kind of role, in your opinion, should Canada play when it comes to these two types of violations of human rights in Iran? When it comes to the violation of the rights of ordinary Iranian citizens, should Canada react the same way as it does when such violations are directed against Canadian citizens of Iranian ancestry?

Nazanin A. : Ever since the rape and murder of the Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian government has had limited diplomatic contact with the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Naturally, when Iran is committing human rights violations against one of Canada’s own citizens, it makes it a priority to ensure the safety and security of that national. This does not mean that Canada does not address broader human rights concerns of Iranian citizens as a whole. In fact, Canada has often sent strong communiqués condemning Iran for their egregious violations of human rights. Canadian Government officials have pressured Iran to: release political prisoners, end the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities particularly the Baha’is, halt child executions and apply a moratorium on stoning cases and other forms of cruel and inhumane forms of punishment. Just this week in Canadian parliament there was an emergency committee held in the House of Commons which was televised addressing these very issues. The members of parliament highlighted the recent violence used by the officials of the Iranian regime to suppress the masses of innocent peaceful protesters rallying to show their discontent with the theocracy in power and draw attention to their struggle and quest for freedom and democracy. There were also witness hearings this week about Iran’s deleterious conditions of human rights in the parliamentary subcommittee on International human rights.

Reza A. : On the death sentence handed down to Mr. Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian-Canadian citizen, Melisa Lantsman, spokeswoman for the Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, has been highly critical of the Iranian government. Can you update us on your own efforts on the case of Mr. Saeed Malekpour?

Nazanin A. : Since I received news of the death sentence given to Mr. Saeed Malekpour, a resident of Canada, and Hamid Ghassemi-Shall, a Canadian citizen of Iranian descent, I have been in close contact with Canada’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, following up on their cases and making sure that our government, through its channels, is doing all that in can in pressuring Iran for their release. At the very least, under International human rights law, Iran is obligated to ensure that these two men have access to proper legal representation and fair trials. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which Iran is a state party, restricts the death penalty only to the “most serious crimes”.  Neither of these two current cases applies to this circumstance.  I have publicized these cases in my international speaking engagements and media interviews.  Mr. Ghassemi-Shall’s case has unfortunately taken a dramatic turn for the worst.  The Iranian Amnesty Commission has reverted his life-in-prison sentence back to death sentence. Not recognizing dual-citizenship, Iran claims that since Ghassemi-Shall was born in Iran, he is automatically considered an Iranian national and thus subject to Iranian laws and rules. People can learn more and help these cases by visiting: http://www.freehamid.org/ and http://peoplewithoutnation.wordpress.com/

Reza A. : Since the controversial June 2009 presidential elections in Iran, there have been debates on the non-religious ideological direction that Ahmadinejad’s new administration has taken. Also, we have witnessed the militarization of the country’s management system and the near dominance of its economy by the Sepah (Revolutionary Guards). Given the failure of religious ideology in Iran, do you think that Iran under its new military rulers is adopting a non-religious ideology?

Nazanin A. : I agree that religious ideology has failed in the eyes of the vast majority of Iranian citizens. By pounding an iron fist on the Iranian population after the revolution in 1979 to adhere to “Islamic” principles, Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors have inadvertently driven people away from Islamic dogma. In fact Iran is considered to be the most secular country in all the Middle East.  As for Ahmadinejad and his administration, on the contrary, I believe they remain highly “religious” and ideological. They are working harder than ever to strengthen religious elements in schools, starting from kindergarten. They have reinstated segregation of men and women in universities and we are starting to see members of the clergy replacing certain professors. More and more mosques are being built in Iran and funded abroad.  Ahmadinejad’s support base is made up mostly of rural, poor, illiterate, superstitious and religious Iranians. His survival and any form of legitimacy he still has depend on his ultra-religious rhetoric including his prophetic discourse on the return of the 12th Imam, Mahdi. Just a few days ago, Ahmadinejad once again started with his open air tirades against the United States and Israel. He said “We will soon see a new Middle East materializing without America and the Zionist regime”. He went on to say that Mahdi has his hands in orchestrating the recent wave of protests that have washed over the Arab world. He referred to it as the unfolding of a “great awakening” and implied judgment day is near as “the final move has begun”. Without the hype of such religious fantasies, neither he, nor the revolutionary guard would be capable of recruiting religious zealots like the Bassij to shoot at their own brothers and sisters in the name of Islam. As Ayatollah Ali Montazeri once said and Mehdi Karroubi recently and rightfully remarked, “Iran is neither Islamic nor a Republic”.

Reza A. : Taking a close look at Iran’s current internal politics, one can clearly see a growing difference, and at times tension, between Ahmadinejad’s Administration and the clergy, including the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Where do you think these differences stem from and what implications, if any, they hold for the regime?

Nazanin A. : Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the grand puppet master, knows well that Ahmadinejad makes a good puppet. This is why Khamenei supported Ahmadinejad after the fraudulent elections were exposed. It would have been much easier for Khamenei to have allowed a “re-vote” and brought the so-called “moderates” Mehdi Karroubi or Mir Hossein Moussavi to power; however he could rely on Ahmadinejad as they are both on the same wavelength. They both are anti Zionist religious Shi’a Islamists who will not bow to any propositions made by the West, in particular the United States. It is true that there is growing opposition within the parliament and fissures at the clerical level. Some are more fanatic like the recent example of parliamentarians calling for the execution of Karroubi and Mousavi, and others more lenient like certain members of the clergy that have condemned the violence during the peaceful protests calling such acts “unislamic”. There have been more and more defections from the diplomatic corps as well as leaks from Iranian technocrats about Iran’s nuclear plans in exchange for political asylum abroad.  Such internal battles can help bring down the regime faster.

Reza A. : How do you assess the two crises in Iran and Egypt and what similarities and dissimilarities between these two crises have caught your attention?

Nazanin A. : There are many similarities and dissimilarities, but let me name a few. The people of both countries have been under a form of tyrannical rule for the last 30 years. The Egyptians have been under Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship while the Iranians have been imprisoned under a theocratic regime. Both populations are sick and tired of being oppressed and having their human rights and freedoms suppressed and violated. They are all disenchanted with the corruption and the way their economies managed by top levels of government. They are feeling the hardships of increased poverty, lack of employment and hope for the future.  Interestingly, both have populations where 60-70 percent below the age of 30. There are also some clear dissimilarities between the two countries observed during protests particularly the levels of repression. The Egyptian army refused to become violent against the people. The Bassij and Revolutionary Guards in Iran, on the other hand, have not practiced any restraint in breaking up demonstrations. They have used tear gas and batons; they have shot and killed at least three so far. They have detained, tortured and raped many peaceful protesters and threatened members of their family. The Iranian regime is much more brutal and fanatical and has no qualms in killing its own citizens under the guise of “protecting Islam”. This religious element was not factored in the Egyptian uprising. While protesters from both countries used social media networks like facebook and twitter to a large extent, there was a big difference in the level of suppression in channels for free communication. In Egypt, there is more freedom of expression.  International media was allowed to report news of the events unfolding. In Iran, foreign journalists were banned in the country and the state-run media spun all stories to their own advantage. Iran has also more frequently and with a heavier hand disabled satellite broadcasts from outside. It also disconnected wireless phones and internet access during protests. One of the reasons why the regime in Iran has launched a stronger campaign of brutality is because financially they can afford to manage the unrest. Iran is a wealthy country that enjoys the benefits of its large oil revenues. Iran does not rely on financial assistance from the West (i.e. the United States) the way Egypt does. Therefore, Egypt cannot afford long periods of instability and unrest as its major source of income is derived from the Tourism sector. Iranians have a harder battle ahead of them. The Iranian regime will not go down in 18 days.

Reza A. : For the past half century Egypt has been under the military rule. The country’s economy also has been controlled by the military. Similarly, in Iran we have witnessed the takeover of the Iranian economy by the Revolutionary Guards. How do you assess this similarity between the two? And what in your opinion needs to be done to bring about a detachment of military from the economic management system in such societies?

Nazanin A. : The Egyptian army doesn’t have the same control and power over the economy as the IRGC does in Iran.  The Egyptian army has important financial interests that it wishes to preserve but they are not comparable to Iran. The IRGC in Iran control the economy and are well looked after by the regime. They will hold onto power as long as possible to ensure their interests are looked after and families are well provided for. To begin with, the international community must target the IRGC and impose targeted sanctions that will cripple their source of funding. The international community must also freeze IRGC assets including their hidden cash in international banks. Travel bans must be imposed on Iranian officials and their families.  A “grace period” can be offered by which if these officials defect, they will be “pardoned” and allowed to keep their funds abroad. Otherwise, their funds will be revoked and they will be subjected to trials in an international tribunal for crimes against humanity.

Reza A. : The pro-democracy movement in Egypt has been quite significant in that it has had no clear leader and certainly no heroic figure. On the other hand, Iran’s Green Movement continues to be the subject of many debates as to whether or not it had a clear leadership and, if it did so, whether it had credible and competent leadership and heroic figures to follow. Given that both Iran and Egypt lack strong and well-established civil democratic institutions, how would you assess their democratic aspirations?

Nazanin A. : Once the regime crumbles, so too will Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Moussavi. They were part of the system afterall. People are not calling for reform of the system, they want democracy. Iran does not have a clear leadership or recognized opposition group. Much of the opposition has been funnelled into the general category of “the green movement”. It is true that Iran and Egypt lack strong and well-established civil democratic institutions, but I believe in time they will be successful. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Block by block democracy will also take time to build. A functioning democracy needs democratic institutions in place and more importantly it takes practice by civil society. It may take many years, but I have faith in the Iranian and Egyptian people. Both people are heir to two of the oldest civilizations on the planet.

Reza A. : In your opinion, what are the key steps that need to be taken in Iran to reach a democratic political management system? Where should this start from?

Nazanin A. : Reaching democracy must always start from within by the people of that country. The Iranian people have already displayed their readiness by pouring out onto the streets by the millions to protest against this regime and sacrificing their lives and safety for a better Iran. Iranians must continue with acts of nonviolent resistance, including general strikes from the market level at the bazaars up to the oil and gas industry. Simultaneously, leaders and governments on outside Iran must clearly and strongly condemn the hardliners in power and show their unequivocal support and solidarity with freedom loving Iranians both morally and financially by empowering Iran’s civil society. One area they could tremendously help is funding communication channels and technology for Iranians to be able to disseminate news to the outside world and receive news inside the country. Iranians living in exile can help those inside by creating a temporary opposition group made up of people from all sides of the political spectrum, representing all ethnic and religious minorities. This group can act as a channel voicing the concerns of the people from within with a united voice advising world leaders on the wishes of the Iranian people and take direct action with regard to Iran’s internal developments.  After the regime is overthrown, an interim government can be set up with UN supervision and the following year after political parties have had a chance to mobilize and campaign, there can be free and fair elections under a new democratic system. The first step is for Iranians to put aside all their past differences, and be united with one voice. My dream is the creation of “United People of Iran”. Be on the lookout.