Human Rights in Iran: A Gray Shade Tending Towards Dark

December 10th has been designated by UNESCO as International Human Rights Day. On December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. This international covenant was a direct result of the atrocities of World War II and for the first time globally defines the fundamental civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights that all humans in every country should enjoy. This edition of the Views program is dedicated to examining the state of human rights in the world and Iran, featuring guests including Mr. Reza Alijani, a political activist and analyst in Paris, Mr. Reza Moieni, head of the Iran section at Reporters Without Borders in Paris, and Mr. Ali Alizadeh, a political analyst in London. Let's start with the overall state of human rights in the world, and since Mr. Moieni deals with regularly preparing reports on the status of human rights, particularly media rights globally, I would like to ask him how the overall situation of human rights in the world has been over the past year. The reality is that in the world we live in today, on one hand, there is war, and on the other hand, there are institutions that, due to this war and the imbalance of power in the world, cannot fulfill their duties. Institutions like the global bodies of the United Nations, which, if we want to name the best among them, have made the most efforts in the past year, are the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, but the situation is not favorable. Regarding human rights violations in war-torn areas over the past year, it can be said that there is not much news or information. But whatever exists indicates a poor situation concerning killings, murders, and kidnappings related to the violation of fundamental human rights that should be honored today. These international institutions, apart from the first decade of the 1990s, when they were very active and there was a collective effort for justice and a type of respect for human rights in the world, have faced obstacles in recent years due to wars and the interests of many governments that prevent what international institutions like the UN Human Rights Council should advance, which we believe, considering the advancements made, is in a state of paralysis compared to the Human Rights Commission. Now, let's focus on the specific situation of human rights in Iran. Mr. Alijani, how do you currently see the state of human rights in Iran, and how can this situation be improved? Overall, I see the state of human rights in Iran as a gray shade tending towards dark. This can be seen in various sectors concerning journalists, women, minorities, and in relation to critical and dissenting parts within the government, which is manifested in some political figures in prison, such as Mr. Mousavi, Mr. Karroubi, and Ms. Rahnavard, as well as in the situation of human rights activists or those who are part of the mainstream defense of human rights in Iran, such as Ms. Mohammadi, Abdolfattah Soltani, and others. Overall, I see the state of human rights in Iran as a gray shade tending towards dark. This can be seen in various sectors concerning journalists, women, minorities, and in relation to critical and dissenting parts within the government, which is manifested in the political figures in prison. In any case, the level of demands from Iranian society... the cultural middle class that seeks to participate in its destiny is at odds with what we suddenly see a judicial official saying and what we currently observe in the judicial and security apparatus. Recently, we saw that a member of parliament was sought to be arrested at night. This is, in fact, a type of bullying and intimidation that is being shown. We do not want to compare this with countries in the region. These are other discussions. As Iranian citizens who have gone through a great revolution and numerous reform movements, the state of human rights in Iran, given the desires and demands of the people, is abnormal. The Islamic Republic of Iran often argues against the criticisms regarding human rights by claiming that our human rights are Islamic human rights and differ from global human rights and what is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mr. Alizadeh, how do you justify this issue? Do you find this argument acceptable or not? Let me first refer to what Mr. Moieni said to open the discussion. Mr. Moieni mentioned that in the 1990s, the discourse of human rights peaked. What year was that? It was the year the Soviet Union collapsed and a new unipolar order emerged led by the United States, along with a free-market economy. Countries like Iran and Russia and some others that still did not belong to this global order felt that this discourse of human rights had political benefits for that global order for Western governments. This opposition begins in a way from here. We are dealing with two things: one is the discourse of human rights, which is inherent in every human being, and it is clear that no one wants to be oppressed, and the other is the specific historical form that is about 25 years old, the same discourse that when a child dies in Yemen is silent, but when a child dies in Syria, it screams, and the same discourse that is dualistic. It is clear that a country like the Islamic Republic of Iran will not accept this. Although its response that we have Islamic human rights discourse is an unconvincing and incomplete response. The issue is not about Islam and non-Islam. That part of human rights that is supplementary and complementary to Western foreign policy is not accepted by Iran. Now we are facing the collapse and weakening of that global order, which in a way, Mr. Trump and his rise to power is one of the signs of that issue, and it is likely that the multipolarity of the global order will show that even in America, the approach to human rights will decrease. Liberal values will decline to some extent, and this is not inherently good or bad. But we will be facing a different world. Regarding inside Iran, we must consider two things. One is that our view of human rights among Iranian human rights institutions, meaning Iranian activists, has been somewhat limited to just one part of human rights. We have paid little attention to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. If we consider them, which include the right to education, the right to welfare, etc., in my opinion, over the past three to four years, we have made progress. The shadow of war has been lifted from Iran, the threat of sanctions has been removed, and the unemployment rate has decreased... A very simple issue is that last year, Afghan students were granted permission to attend school, and Mr. Khamenei somehow approved it, and although activists did not help, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Afghan students can go to school is also considered human rights. However, our activists' perspective has been very one-sided. The same thing that Mr. Alijani says about Mahmoud Sadeghi, we must also see that side. In Iran, parliamentary elections were held, and despite all difficulties, the tenth parliamentary elections took shape, and Mahmoud Sadeghi emerged from it. Now, these two steps forward also lead to the fact that an arrest warrant is issued for him. They imprison him; of course, political repression exists in Iran, but because the demands of the people have increased, even the arrest of someone like Ms. Narges Mohammadi can cause dissatisfaction among many, besides the fact that the media also emphasizes it. But compare this with the past five years, four years ago, during the Green Movement, and before that in the 70s and 80s. If human rights activists cannot provide this context and historical framework to the audience, ordinary people, and those who are concerned, and only consider issues abstractly as individual cases without that historical path we have come from, the atmosphere will certainly be very dark, and the motivation for change from within will also disappear. Mr. Moieni? Let me clarify one point. This discussion that I think Mr. Alizadeh is talking about, from December 10, 1948, or before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, at that time, the Soviet Union and some countries close to it considered the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a conspiracy. In my daily work, I specifically see this problem. In a way, some countries do not want and cannot advance in the field of human rights, and they provide justifications that I regret hearing. But that Syrian child and the Yemeni child have specific rights. For years, Iranian people and intellectuals established schools secretly and taught Afghans. Dozens of legal cases were formed for this. Civil society made significant efforts in this regard. While I think that at the top or in power, it must be persuaded and advanced. But let’s also see this reality. If there had not been resistance from civil society and if there had not been information dissemination regarding the atrocities that occurred in Iranian prisons since the day after February 11, today the situation would have reverted to that of Haj Agha Asadollah Lajevardi. What is clear is not the justification of why they say this and do not say that. In my opinion, the question is why, in its entirety, does this children's rights issue not advance? That is, in many countries, it is not ratified, and there is practically a kind of opposition to it. I cannot accept that the Iranian child, whom the Islamic Republic does not accept conventions for and is abused, is concerned about the Yemeni child. In my opinion, civil society forces governments to advance. What was done regarding Afghan students in Iran was not the effort of Mr. Khamenei. For years, Iranian people and intellectuals established schools secretly and taught Afghans. Dozens of legal cases were formed for this. Civil society made significant efforts in this regard. While I think that at the top or in power, it must be persuaded and advanced. But let’s also see this reality. If there had not been resistance from civil society and if there had not been information dissemination regarding the atrocities that occurred in Iranian prisons since the day after February 11, today the situation would have reverted to that of Haj Agha Asadollah Lajevardi. In my opinion, simplifying the global issue in this way, while it has real foundations, and I think that monopolistic arms industries in the world play a major role, but this does not relate to the fact that Iran is the largest prison for journalists in the world. In response to the criticisms regarding human rights against Iran, one of the discourses that Iran raises is that the West uses human rights instrumentally and raises the dual discourse argument. Mr. Alijani, what is your opinion about this issue that Iran claims and says the West uses human rights instrumentally? This sensitivity and allergy that Iran has towards human rights is not new. Mr. Alizadeh also referred to the Soviet Union and the instrumental use by the West, which has some truth. Iran had sensitivity and allergy to this word even before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even going further back, there were human rights activities against the Shah's regime. The Shah also had this allergy, even though he was in the Western camp. Therefore, this is just a justification and a deception. Even if we see this dual logic in the behavior of some governments and media, powers are always justifiers. But there is also public opinion in the world, there are civil institutions, and there are also powers that act instrumentally. However, this can never justify the human rights order. The Islamic Republic, after all, has a discourse governing it. In my opinion, what prevents the acceptance of human rights is partly related to the intellectual foundations. Within the legal thought, human rights is hard to emerge. In a historical scale, I accept this. The conditions in Iran, for the reasons that Mr. Moieni mentions, the pressure of civil society or the retreat of power or the erosion and transformation that has occurred within power, the situation in Iran has improved compared to previous decades. I have often said that current prisons cannot be compared to the prisons of the 60s. The fact that Afghan children are allowed to study, are they trying to send Afghans to the slaughterhouse in Syria and want to give them concessions? After all, this is positive. However, overall, the human rights violations occurring in Iran are very high compared to the level of civil society. I said that part of it relates to intellectual foundations. Both from within this intellectual discourse and from within that political discourse, which is an enemy-centric discourse. It assumes that all internal actions are under the conspiracy of external enemies. Mr. Alijani, you referred to the jurisprudential discourse. Issues such as execution, retribution, stoning, executing individuals who committed murder under the age of eighteen, pressure on Bahá'ís and religious minorities are issues that the Islamic Republic of Iran raises whenever international human rights bodies mention these matters, and Iran brings up the issue of jurisprudence and says that according to Islam, we must perform these actions as obligatory and necessary. Here, it contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and global human rights principles. Mr. Alizadeh, what do you think? Can this justify human rights violations in Iran? Allow me to respond to Mr. Moieni and Mr. Alijani in a way. First, we must deal with the reality of what has happened in Iran and not with the claims of the ruling power and not with the claims of the global human rights industry. Where do they say that Iran is the largest prison in the world? Is it not numerical calculation of Iran that Yashar Soltani, one of the powerful figures of the ruling power, exposes in this way and after a while is under pressure...