Frustration is growing among the Iranian people over the Obama administration's silence on human rights abuses in Iran. Condemnations of Tehran's abhorrent treatment of its people have been few and far between. But before nuclear diplomacy moves towards a premature ending, the Obama administration must act quickly to reinvigorate its human rights agenda. Failure to do so may cause any future focus on Iran's human rights violations to be viewed solely as a means to punish Tehran, rather than a strategic imperative worthy of pursuit in its own right.
The Obama administration made a genuine effort to kick-start diplomacy by focusing on building confidence and turning back the nuclear clock through a deal brokered by the IAEA. But rather than succeeding to build trust and slow Iran's nuclear advances, Tehran is threatening to expand the program ten-fold.
The Obama administration cannot be faulted for not having sought genuine diplomacy with Iran. Washington unilaterally changed the atmospherics between the two countries by reaching out to both the Iranian people and their rulers. Through strategic messaging, the Obama administration helped create circumstances conducive to successful diplomacy.
While the Administration's efforts were genuine, and while the failure to reach an interim deal thus far has more to do with internal Iranian infighting than with Washington's diplomacy, the modalities of the Obama strategy were problematic from the outset.
First, the time-frame was too short. Due to pressures from domestic actors as well as US allies in the region, diplomacy was given no more than 12 weeks to make measurable progress. In contrast, US sanctions on Iran have been given more than 20 years to work, and are yet to produce tangible results. With such a short time frame, a single bump in the road could derail the process.
Second, significant capital and prestige was invested in an interim deal aimed at shipping out large portions of Iran's stockpiles of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU). While the deal would have been of significant tactical importance, it was no more than an instrument to reach the strategic goal of a conclusive settlement of the nuclear issue. As such, the interim deal would have been helpful, but not necessary, towards reaching a final agreement. But by permitting the interim deal to determine whether diplomacy would proceed or not, a helpful tactical objective was made more important than the strategic goal itself.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the narrowness of the agenda - the sole focus on the nuclear issue - made the negotiations a single variable conversation. With only one track, any hurdle could effectively put an end to the diplomatic journey, as now seems to have happened.
In particular, the failure to make human rights a prominent part of the talks has been problematic, both in terms of support for talks inside Iran, and for the long-term prospects of finding a sustainable, positive relationship with Iran. Unfortunately, fear in the White House that a forward leaning posture on human rights could jeopardize progress on the nuclear front may have prevented broadening the agenda.
The end result is a vacuum on the human rights front from the American side with several negative effects. First, the Ahmadinejad government may have been left with the impression that it can get away with almost any human rights abuses due to America's compromised position in the region.
Second, the green movement -- which represents a force for moderation in the country -- is turning increasingly skeptical about US intentions. While opinions differ within the movement as to the wisdom of US-Iran diplomacy at this time, the neglect of human rights fuels pre-existing suspicions about the objectives of American diplomacy. That is, the fear that the US is solely interested in reaching a nuclear deal and may be willing to sacrifice the Iranian people's aspirations in the process.
Looking at Iran solely from a nuclear prism proved disastrous for the Bush administration. The Obama administration will fare no better. It needs to swiftly reinvigorate its human rights approach to Iran and begin giving significant prominence to this issue.
Time is of the essence. Iran's human rights abuses must be addressed now and not just when our focus turns to punitive measures. Otherwise, the administration will unintentionally signal that the rights of the Iranian people are used solely as a pressure tactic against Iran when it fails to compromise on other issues.
Today, opponents of the Ahmadinejad government took to the streets once again, continuing the marathon to determine the future of the country. Their rights to assemble, to speak, and to live freely continue to be denied. The history of the Unites States in the Middle East shows that neglecting human rights comes at America's own peril. Neither short nor long-term security is achieved by failing to recognize the breeding ground for anti-Americanism created when we remain silent on abuses in countries whose governments we engage with.
The Obama administration is right in not making itself a central actor in this historic Iranian struggle. It is also right to engage the Iranian government. But let there be absolute clarity that from a moral standpoint, the United States supports the Iranian people's quest for democracy and human rights. Silence betrays that clarity.
Follow Trita Parsi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tparsi
“In a calm but defiant interview with ABC News, Iranian human rights activist and 2003 Nobel Prize Winner Shirin Ebadi said the current Iranian regime has “no popular base”. “I promise you, this regime will not last,” she said. Pressed as to how a largely a popular protest movement can challenge a regime which seemingly has all the cards — police, military, basij paramilitaries, Revolutionary Guards — she said the movement is becoming more widespread despite the crackdown, spreading from Tehran to other cities. She said political backing from prominent religious leaders adds strength, and that while political leaders such as Mirhossein Mousavi have been largely quiet, “the real leaders are the people.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/abcs-jim-sciutto-nobel-prize-winner-says-irans-regime-wont-last.html
08 Dec 2009 16:56No CommentsProtests
Six students arrested at Tehran University
AUT | Dec. 8, 2009
Following two days of protests and clashes with security forces at Tehran University, six students have been detained according to a student online news source.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/12/selected-headlines-82.html
Had the US not blockaded Cuba, the Castro brothers might not have lasted very long.
Had the US not cut off Iraq from the world, the Iraqi people might have overthrown Saddam Hussein very quickly.
Same with Iran.
But Obama should lecture Iran about human and political rights?
Your willingness to ally with whoever you think can help accomplish your agenda, and ignore relevant circumstances, only undercuts the morality and objectivity of your stated position.
Maybe Obama should instead lead by example, and set his own house in order. The US can't even fix the corruption, crime, and ghetto misery in its own capitol.
"Schizophrenia (pronounced /ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/), from the Greek roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind") is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality."
it is truth, that past us administrations didn't take the best decisions giving arms and supporting rebels to fight against a communist or socialism government !!! and now we're living the consequences of that wrong politics! but today this threatening concern all human people who believe in a democracy in freedom!!
I do not share the view of some posters here that the US should not "meddle," if only because I do not think speaking up for the rights of the Iranian people is the same thing as, say, a CIA-engineered coup. (Imposing sanctions would be a different story, but I don't see Parsi & Fassihian calling for those.) And while I do wish Obama would take a stronger stand against W administration officials, it is a bit much to equate the Obama administration with the regime of Ahmadinejad.
Part of me wonders if a stronger statement by Obama would have much impact, since the Iranian regime would likely use it as evidence that the opposition movement is a tool of the West. But if it gave encouragement and comfort to those who are fighting for freedom in Iran, that would be a good enough reason to speak out.
However; one of the rumors among the Reformists, as reported by Maziar Bahari, was that they now think Obama has cut a secret deal with the IRGC (note to "progressive" IRI apologists, paranoia in Iran sprouts many such theories, across the spectrum). This was behind their question of whether Obama was with them or against them.
I've long said that standing up for human rights should not be drowned out by the nuclear issue. In fact I'm downright frustrated by all the attention to the latter (which is not unimportant, but overblown and target of more hyberbole than analysis). Well, the Iranian people are trying to get our attention, to not forget them. A statement is not meddling. And, if that were the case, hasn't Ahmadi meddled more than his fair share with us?! Don't they "meddle" at every TU Friday Prayers in their responsive chants and Khutbas?!
I think, as Parsi and Fassihian were getting at, the question was timing. I concur with their assessment, that waiting could be more problematic and that we can't afford to not issue another statement again. He should get his Iran team together and craft a speech which the teabaggers will only criticize if it's elegant (or, if it falls flat - heck, they just "Blame Obama®").
When the people of a nation is not strong, united and determine enough to stand out and sacrifice for their rights then that nation is not ready for whatever democracy and rights it deserve. The people of a nation are the ones to safeguard democracy in their country, without that willingness to sacrifice any democracy will be weak and subjected to coups and extremenism.
On another issue, I would think by now the U.S. would have learned its lesson to stop meddling in Iranian internal issues. Enought already! The U.S. has been interfering with Iran's domestic affairs since 1942, when the U.S. sent troops to take over Iran's railroad and oil facilities, and continued meddling with the Mossadegh coup de etat, and so on and so forth...and lastly the U.S. turned a blind eye to the Shah's secret nuclear weapons program in the 1970s...
"China has a horrendous human rights record. One or two weeks after the June 12, 2009 Iranian elections, mass protest in Western China broke out and over 250 people were killed in ONE DAY. Yet, Obama went to China last month with open arms."
Please be discreet if you are serious about any human rights violation in any part of the world. Since you singled out China to make a point. Please make a fact check before you try to mislead, intentionally or unintentionally, the readers. Those people killed in ONE DAY in Western China were killed by mobs, not by the government. The victims were civilians not protesters. You can label it as protest over riot as you want or even as a peaceful protest as you want, but no one can deny the true nature of the violence directed at those innocent civilian victims.
China police used brutal force against the Uighur and the dictators in Iran are using brute force against protesters. There was nothing incorrect in my last post. I stand by what I said and I will say it again. The U.S. will use human rights only if it serves her interest in negotiations with Iran. Which unfortunately it does not so it will continue to stay silent on the issue.
"Ten days later, Uighur youths protested in the western city of Urumqi to demand a full investigation into the incident, leading to a police assault and rioting that left almost 200 people dead."
Source: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/latest-world-news/2009/10/10/china-death-sentence-for-man-in-brawl-that-prompted-ethnic-riots-91466-24897712/
How could you honestly expect Obama to come out against human rights abuses in Iran when he is buy supporting similar acts right here in his own country? And I don't just mean Gitmo, rendition, or black sites, but his support of the Patriot, Military Commissions and Home Grown Terro.rist Acts that effectively eliminate our human rights as provided by the Constitution. If he cares not about them there, why would he here?
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, December 7, 2009
(12-07) 11:33 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration has asked an appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing former Bush administration attorney John Yoo of authorizing the torture of a terrorism suspect, saying federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers who advise the president on national security issues.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/07/BA061AVC89.DTL#ixzz0Z2memGKH