After the JCPOA; Human Rights Remain Facing Serious Challenges

Tara Sepehri Far tells Radio Farda that it cannot be said that there has been an improvement in the human rights situation in Iran during the year since the JCPOA, and this issue still faces serious challenges in Iran. She believes that Iran's return to the global community must be comprehensive, including a more active role in the field of human rights. Tara Sepehri Far is a researcher in the Iran section at Human Rights Watch in Washington, D.C. She graduated from Sharif University of Technology and studied law and international relations at Tufts University after immigrating to the U.S. Ms. Sepehri Far was previously the secretary of the Islamic Association at Sharif University of Technology. If we look at Iran in a more general sense over the past year, meaning after the nuclear agreement, do you see any significant changes? Do you see improvements, progress, or setbacks when considering issues like human rights or civil society? Regarding the nuclear agreement between Iran and global powers, I think there was a lot of hope in both civil society and the international community that it would help improve the situation in other areas as well. However, since the content of this agreement pertains to Iran's specific responsibilities regarding its nuclear programs, in practice, this agreement is not expected to change other issues related to civil society and political freedoms. What we observe over the past year is that the issue of human rights in Iran still faces serious challenges. Efforts have been made by officials inside to address some of these challenges, and examples can be cited, such as attempts to teach indigenous languages in areas where ethnic minorities exist in Iran. But overall, this issue still faces many challenges. It cannot be said that, in general, this situation has improved to a noticeable extent, especially when it comes to civil and political freedoms. One of the consequences of the nuclear agreement that has been raised is the discussion of Iran returning as a more normalized player in the international community. The dialogues that Iran has with European or Asian countries—can these dialogues and this renewal or revival of relations with various countries in the world help improve the prevailing conditions in Iran? A mechanism has been designed for UN member states to participate responsibly in regional, global issues, and matters of public concern to the international community. Increasing Iran's trade relations with European countries, specifically with the world in general, is not a negative phenomenon as long as it can improve the economic rights of Iranians without discrimination; it can be a positive development. However, returning to the global community and being present as a responsible member requires not only adherence to commitments regarding Iran's nuclear file but also this must happen in other areas as well, and the issue of human rights in Iran remains a serious challenge. The initiation of bilateral relations between European countries and the multilateral European Union with Iran can be a positive development, provided that this relationship does not push the issue of human rights in Iran to the sidelines. European countries and companies should not prioritize their economic interests over the existing challenges. Bilateral relations, when they encompass all issues and concerns, can function positively. However, simply starting a relationship, I am not sure it can have a positive impact. Iran's return to the global community must be comprehensive and include a more active role in human rights both in Iran and the region, as well as in global concerns. This means that if Iran is a responsible member of the global community regarding human rights violations elsewhere in the world and the problems the global community faces, it must act more responsibly and, most importantly, address these issues within its own borders. One of the critical approaches to the perspective you mentioned is that the issue of human rights, political freedoms, and the functioning of civil society in a country are all matters related to the territory of that country and should not be negotiated or discussed with outsiders. What is your response to such a critical approach? It is true. I do not think this criticism, which may be heard more these days in Persian-language media and among Persian-speaking communities, is a new phenomenon. I believe that if we go back and refer to the history of human rights and human rights conventions and the process of their formation, the question of why these treaties were created, why international systems were established, and why this need was felt is, in a way, the best answer to this criticism. The main body of international organizations we have and the foundation of human rights treaties, of which Iran is also an active member in negotiating and approving these treaties, were formed after World War II, and the idea that countries have absolute territorial integrity and that whatever happens within the borders of these countries does not concern the global community has been severely challenged due to the atrocities that occurred during that time. The outcome of the global community, both Western and Eastern countries, has been that there must be a mechanism to address these challenges collectively. If you go back and look at the history of the adoption of the two main human rights conventions and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, you can even see that political and economic perspectives differ in them. But ultimately, the outcome of the international community is that all these people should enjoy all these rights, and countries, by signing these conventions, commit to ensuring these rights and accept this responsibility for ensuring these rights in all parts of the world. Therefore, I think looking at human rights as something that only exists within the borders of a country creates the danger of limiting the suffering that people endure to the borders of countries. Meanwhile, we see that, given the extent of mass media and the relationships that exist, many of the problems that arise in one part of the world have repercussions that affect other parts of the world as well. I think the most tangible issue we face is the refugee crisis that has emerged from Middle Eastern and African countries entering Europe, which has indeed engaged the global community as a whole. And it is also the responsibility of the global community to address the suffering of these people and find not only short-term solutions but also long-term solutions. Again, another critical perspective that arises is that the issue of human rights in Iran and the violation of human rights in Iran is, for example, linked to the challenges Iran faces in returning to international markets, for economic activity, and it is said that Iran's behavior regarding supporting terrorist groups and violating human rights causes the international community and investors to act more cautiously compared to other countries in the world. However, the critical view on this issue is why such a policy is applied to Iran but not to other countries accused of human rights violations, including Iran's neighbors in the Middle East, and there seems to be a double standard. What is your opinion on this? It is true. I think sometimes there is a confusion that occurs in which the positions of governments and political institutions are not generally distinguished from the positions of human rights institutions and international organizations. My short answer is that there are definitely double standards in how countries deal with this issue. But my more complete answer is that, from our perspective as a human rights organization, these mechanisms should exist for all countries. Only if international organizations can implement punitive measures fairly and impartially, even if punitive actions are to be taken, can these actions have an impact. The implementation of punitive measures selectively and based on the interests of influential and powerful countries only leads to a weakening of legitimacy. To give a more precise example, these days you may have seen in the news that due to the actions and violations of humanitarian laws by Saudi Arabia, the coalition led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen, which carries out a significant portion of airstrikes, was included in the list of countries that violate children's rights and commit killings and injuries against them. In part of the UN list, it is stated that due to pressure on the Secretary-General of the UN and threats to cut off funding for some of the UN's needs, Saudi Arabia's name has been removed from this list. We believe that this action severely undermines the neutrality of this list and challenges it. If such actions are to occur, they must happen uniformly. What companies consider may depend on the ideologies of the companies or the countries to which they are subject. But from our perspective, what they should consider, in addition to the laws of the country in which they are investing and present, are their human rights responsibilities according to the guidelines issued by the UN for companies, and in fact, their responsibility is that if they enter into investment in a country or place, they should not violate the rights of individuals and exacerbate the problematic issues that exist in this matter. Besides this, the rest of the discussions that may occur politically may even be promoted by some who consider themselves defenders of human rights. But from our perspective, this does not fall within the framework of this discussion.