| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 July 2009 : Column 260WH—continued
These are interesting times, but it seems that after the protests about the election and the demands by Mousavi’s supporters for a recount following the declared very large majority for Ahmadinejad, the Guardian Council approved a limited and partial recount, but the Supreme Leader declared that the election result must stand and
that was the end of the matter. At that point, public debate was effectively closed down, as was any attempt at serious discussion. We must express serious concern about that, not in a spirit of hostility to Iran or its history and culture, but in a spirit of co-operation and support for civil society in Iran. There is an important distinction to be drawn, which I shall discuss.
The excessive rhetoric, particularly from the Bush Administration and at various times from our Governments, has not helped the situation—in fact, it has made it worse. There must be a process of dialogue and respect. Far too little is understood of Iranian history—Iran is the inheritor of the great civilisation of Persia—and the persistent British and American meddling in Iranian affairs. During the first world war, Britain occupied parts of what is now Iran; we installed and removed various Governments of Iran; and British and Soviet Union forces occupied Iran again during the second world war, eventually withdrawing.
In 1952, the nationalist Mosaddeq Government were elected on a manifesto of obtaining equality of oil revenues from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, later the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which later became BP. The British refused, there was a dispute, and a coup was engineered by the CIA and the British. The Mosaddeq Government were removed, the Shah came to office, compensation was paid to BP, and we were back to square one with a repressive regime under the Shah. Those events are remembered in Iran. Iranians do not forget British involvement and our obsession with their oil reserves. When dealing with Iran, we must remember that we do not have clean hands, and we should be prepared to admit that.
The Shah’s oppressive regime, with its appalling human rights record, used outside SAVAK forces to attack Iranian students. I remember that during the 1970s, when the Shah’s secret agents operated in British universities and tried to criticise Iranian students who were active. The Shah’s human rights record led to huge protests and demonstrations and he was eventually removed in 1979, apparently only a few weeks after the British security services and the CIA had said that it was perfectly safe for him to stay there for many decades. They misunderstood the situation somewhat, and not for the first time.
In the turmoil of the 1979 revolution, Iran did not turn into a secular democracy. It became a Muslim state under Ayatollah Khomeini and the present constitution was invoked. It is an interesting document, but the western press simply fails to understand Iran’s power structures. It assumes that President Ahmadinejad, because he is President, is equivalent to President Bush or an executive Prime Minister in the west, but he is not. He is head of the civil Government, obviously, but he and anyone else are allowed to be a candidate in the election only if they are approved by the Council of Guardians, which is responsible to the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts also has a role in appointing the Supreme Leader.
There is a tripartite/quadripartite sharing of power in Iran, and we should remember that whatever the President or anyone else says, that is not the whole story; it is only part of it. One should try to understand that, and the fact that within all the complications of Iranian society
and its structures, there are people who manage to speak up for civil rights and women’s rights, to organise trade unions, to pursue intellectual work, and to operate in independent universities. Like any other society, Iran’s is not a seamless whole, and we should also be aware of that, too. Western strategy on Iran is part of the problem, and I shall be grateful if the Minister says a little more about that.
After Khomeini became the Supreme Leader, Iran entered a period of isolation and US sanctions. Because of the relationship between the US and Iran following the taking of US hostages and the resulting difficulties, the Iran-Iraq war occurred. Although that dreadful war probably suited Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini in equal measure, it cost the lives of at least 500,000 people. It also made a great deal of money for the arms industry around the world. We should remember that, again, Britain and the United States do not have clean hands, because at the same time as we were trying to buy oil from Iran, we were supplying arms to Iraq to provoke that war. Our role in recent history is not clear and not clean. Whatever we say about Iran, we should have some respect for our own role.
Israel’s threats to Iran are obviously serious and Israel’s ability to bomb Iran is very strong. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but not the supplementary protocol allowing unannounced inspections. It is developing a nuclear reactor and processor, but that is not the same as developing nuclear weapons. Although I do not want Iran or any other country in the world to develop nuclear weapons, any more than I want this country to continue to hold nuclear weapons, it is impossible to argue credibly for nuclear disarmament and a nuclear-free middle east while we remain silent about Israel’s development of nuclear weapons and its obvious ability to use them at some point. If we are serious about bringing about peace in the region, that also requires promotion of a nuclear-free middle east, which requires Israel to be brought to the table through a nuclear weapons convention.
It is important to get those general points on the record. In supporting human rights in Iran, we must build up the best possible contacts and relationships. Parliament to Parliament, there have been Inter-Parliamentary Union delegations, which have enabled some contact and the development of a relationship in that way. Much better relations must also be developed between universities, trade unions and civil society groups, and there must be support for individual cases such as those to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred.
I chair an organisation called Liberation, which was involved originally as the Movement for Colonial Freedom and is now more of an international solidarity organisation. We had our annual meeting last Saturday and we passed an extensive resolution on Iran. I shall quote some of that very long resolution. We said:
“The high rate of people’s participation in the election alerted the international community to the fact that the Iranian people wish to have and take an active role in their own destiny.”
It is important to say that. We went on to make specific requests, stating:
“The international community therefore should support the Iranian people’s struggle for peace, democracy and social justice in their country.”
We pointed out the “continued deterioration” of human rights in recent years in Iran and the “flagrant disregard” for internationally accepted conventions. We were referring to the most extreme forms of sharia law that are used, involving the stoning of individuals, amputations and public executions. Obviously, that is totally wrong and must be condemned, as I would condemn the death penalty in any circumstances anywhere in the world.
We also raised the violations of the rights to free speech, freedom of association and peaceful protest, which are important, and the continued detention of trade unionists and workers’ activists, including the leader of the Tehran Public Bus Company workers syndicate, Mansour Osanloo. I hope that a message goes out that we support his release just as much as we would support the release of any other person held on grounds of conscience or activity. We pointed out that the International Labour Organisation conventions 87 and 98 require all signatory states to allow the organisation of independent trade unions. That applies just as much to Iran as to any other country. In raising all those issues, and in supporting women’s rights and women’s activists in Iran, we have to send a message that we are serious about supporting human rights and civil society in Iran.
Our history is not clean by any means. The rhetoric used against Iran, the sanctions policy being used against Iran and the implicit military threats that have been made against Iran at various times do not force Iran to back down and operate differently. Instead, they unite Iranian people against the west, build the feeling of isolation and build the power of those who wish to pursue military options in Iran rather than peaceful options.
There must be a way for us to open a dialogue. A previous Foreign Secretary—the current Secretary of State for Justice—went to Iran and tried to open that dialogue and I commend him for doing that. I did not agree with what he did over the Iraq war, but I did agree with the fact that he was prepared to go to Iran and participate in that dialogue.
I hope that when the Minister replies, he will say that we are prepared to maintain dialogue with the Government of Iran; to co-operate in sending observers to future elections, if the Iranians are prepared to allow that, because it would be a helpful way forward; and to do what we can to take up individual cases of human rights abuse and individual cases in which people are wrongfully detained. Doing that will promote the development of the very strong civil society that has demonstrated itself on the streets of Tehran and the other cities in the past two weeks, and will help to develop the tolerant civil society that traditional Muslim countries have and the toleration that traditional Islam is all about. The Jewish community has always been present in Tehran; the Zoroastrians have always been there, as have people of many other faiths. There is much to be very proud of in the history of Iran and in the tolerance of ordinary people in Iran towards those of different faiths.
That is the message that we must send: one of sympathy, support and understanding, but above all condemnation of the abuses of human rights and the illegal and irrational imprisonment of people who are merely standing up for their cultural identity, their trade union rights or their right to demonstrate and express their political views.
10.4 am
Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on his speech. I agree entirely with its content and I congratulate him on his pronunciation of the Iranian names, which was far better than mine would be.
The subject of the debate is human rights in Iran. Let us be frank: there are no human rights in Iran unless people support the totally discredited President. That is the reality. This is not the first time that we have had such a debate. We have had many debates on this issue, because there is a band of Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords who have long been critics of the Iranian regime. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made excellent points. He was right to remind hon. Members of a number of issues. I am not sure that I entirely agreed with every point that he made, but I agreed with the overall thrust of his argument.
I say to the Minister that the British Government’s policy of appeasement—oh, the Minister frowns at that, so I shall tell him precisely what I mean. The British Government’s policy of appeasement has had disastrous results. When the present Secretary of State for Justice was Foreign Secretary, whether he was guided by the retired former Prime Minister, I know not, but there certainly was a policy of appeasement, and it has had disastrous effects. Let the House be in no doubt at all about the election in Iran: it was a sham election. I assume that it was overseen by Mr. Mugabe—presumably he flew over personally to count the votes. It was an absolute sham. As a result of the British Government’s policy of appeasement, who did the Iranian religious leader immediately attack? The United Kingdom.
I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. I agree with part of his remarks about the retired President George W. Bush, but I also think that the British policy of appeasement has had disastrous results, and I stand here today as one of the people who listened to the former Prime Minister tell the House of Commons that weapons of mass destruction were aimed at us and other parts of the world. I believed everything that he said, and was misguided enough not to join the 18 of my colleagues who voted against that war, which has had disastrous consequences. In hindsight, it was Iran rather than Iraq that, with regard to nuclear weapons, was the real threat.
Let me return to the issue of human rights in Iran. There is no point in having debates in Westminster Hall unless the British Government listen to what we say and something happens; they must not only go through the motions. This issue has been raised countless times. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) and I turned up at a rally outside the United Nations. I think that we addressed a crowd of 4,000 people. We were demonstrating against the arrival of Mr. Ahmadinejad. The leaders in the west applauded his arrival; they now seem to have changed their view on that.
We are talking about a country in which more than 200 people have been killed by the Revolutionary Guard since 12 June. Several thousand people have been arrested following the nationwide uprising in mid-June. Since June, security forces have randomly attacked people in
their homes. More than 1,000 hangings have taken place—34 people were hanged in the first four days of July 2009—and more than 1,700 death sentences have been issued since August 2005. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, more than 120,000 political prisoners have been executed—I repeat, 120,000. A further 500,000 Iranians have suffered torture in the regime’s notorious prisons. I could go on and on about those issues.
Mr. Drew: Like the hon. Gentleman, I support the Iranian opposition. One of the worst features of Iran is its attitude to capital punishment. It hangs juniors and it does so in public. It has the second-worst record after the Chinese. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way in which Iran could begin to prove that it is willing to engage is by doing something about its dreadful record?
Mr. Amess: I absolutely agree. Eighteen months ago we debated that very point in this Chamber, although another Minister responded—but there we are, that is the merry-go-round that we experience in Westminster.
I conclude with a plea to the Minister and his boss, the Foreign Secretary, as I am a born optimist. Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the Iranian resistance, has urged the west to reject the regime’s sham elections and the appointment of Mr. Ahmadinejad. She has also urged it to force the regime to accept a free UN-supervised election based on the people’s sovereignty, not the rule of the Supreme Leader. She has also suggested that we suspend all political and diplomatic ties with the mullahs’ regime until the suppression is completely stopped. She suggests that we impose a trade, diplomatic, arms and technology embargo on the regime and a foreign travel ban on its senior officials. Finally, she urges the UN Security Council to refer the crimes committed by the regime’s leaders—particularly Khamenei and Ahmadinejad—to an international tribunal.
The Minister frowns, and I accept that that is an extremely ambitious list—if he mentions it in his winding-up speech, he will probably say that it is not achievable. We will, however, have a general election before May or June next year, and the Government, who have made some terrible mistakes on all sorts of issues, now have an opportunity to do the right thing on human rights in Iran. As the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Montgomeryshire said, we are asking not for blind rhetoric—the time for that has passed—but for engagement. All that I am asking is that the Government speak up clearly to try to improve the human rights situation in Iran.
10.12 am
Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr. Chope. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on introducing the debate. I pay tribute to him for his work on the Baha’i community as chairman of the all-party group, and particularly for highlighting the case of the seven leaders of that faith who are languishing in prison awaiting news of their fate.
The debate is of course timely, as we reflect on the demonstrations that we have seen on our TV screens over the past few weeks since the presidential elections.
However, it could have been held at any time in the past 30 years, and we have had many such debates in that time. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) reminded us, we could have debated these issues in the years before that time, when Iran was under control of the discredited Pahlavi regime, which had form on its human rights policy, given the role of SAVAK and other bodies.
The well-documented catalogue of abuses at the heart of the Iranian regime has been added to in the past few weeks. I have reflected on the need for dialogue and the case for it remains—jaw-jaw is better than war-war—but, to date at least, unless the Minister can suggest otherwise, our words have fallen on deaf ears. The Iranian regime had two strategies after the presidential elections, and the analogy that comes to mind is that of the stunned rabbit in the car’s headlights. The first strategy was to attribute democratic protests on the streets of Tehran to the British Government and western influences. That is an old tactic, which is not without foundation, given our history in Persia and Iran. In that respect, I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the state of the remaining local staff in our Tehran embassy. The treatment of our staff there is obviously part of a deliberate tactic to pass blame elsewhere.
The second strategy was to launch what can only be described as a savage attack on demonstrators and agents of free speech, and that has been the story of the past few weeks. We have heard of the alleged killings of 200 protesters. We have also heard about the historical context and the 120,000 members of the opposition who have lost their lives over the past 30 years. We are grateful to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and the US State Department, as well as to the Foreign Office for the evidence that it collected in its 2007 report, which has been disseminated around the world. We are also grateful to the human rights monitoring lobby in Iran—or rather what is left of it, given that prominent members have been subjected to harassment and worse in recent weeks.
Last November, the UN General Assembly called for harassment, intimidation and the persecution of political opponents and human rights defenders to cease, and that is certainly necessary now. It also called on the Iranian Government to facilitate visits by human rights bodies, although I must say that I repeat that call with unwarranted optimism. I agree with what was said earlier about the need to have UN election supervisors in all countries, and that was certainly necessary in Iran’s elections. However, such calls will fall on deaf ears. So too, presumably, has the statement from the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting in Italy, which reaffirmed their belief in Iranian sovereignty, but made the case for human rights. I would be interested to hear what the Iranian Government’s response was, if there was one. Our Government have made 40 representations bilaterally and through the EU about specific human rights abuses in 2008.
I agree that we should not launch an attempt at poetic rhetoric, but we face a regime that is desperate to survive, and that need to survive has necessitated desperate measures. We have seen the forces of reform brutally repressed. There have been mass detentions; raids by the Revolutionary Guard and militia on university campuses; the closure of opposition newspapers; media restrictions that have made it difficult for journalists to
report the protests first-hand; and attempts to close digital media. My goodness, if anything should make us grateful for digital technology, it is the hazy, fuzzy pictures that have come out of Tehran in recent weeks.
We have also seen the threats from the Iranian regime. There was the chilling warning from prosecutor Mr. Habibi, from Isfahan, who had no difficulty expounding his views in the Iranian media:
“We warn the few elements controlled by foreigners who try to disrupt domestic security by inciting individuals to destroy and to commit arson that the Islamic penal code for such individuals waging war against God is execution”.
The unfortunate Miss Neda Agha-Soltan, a 26-year-old bystander in the protests, was shot dead on the streets of Tehran on 20 June, and another 200 people have met a similar fate. That is not to mention the countless arrests of major reformist politicians, clerics, student leaders, bloggers, journalists and human rights lawyers.
Like the hon. Member for Islington, North, I watched the coverage of the election campaign in the days before the vote and I had some optimism, despite being cynical about the Iranian regime by and large. It was good to see people on the streets talking and arguing. Mr. Mousavi’s credentials as a reformist are not particularly clear, but it was none the less good to see people on the streets. It was also good to see the Iranian footballers making their mark. We should remember, however, that Mr. Mousavi was one of four permitted candidates in the election and that the Council of Guardians did not allow the 450 other people who aspired to the job of Iranian President to stand. None the less, Mr. Mousavi did tap a mood for change, and I welcome the meetings and the debate that took place.
Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Mousavi’s campaign was different, in that the issue of women’s rights was raised for the first time in Iranian national politics and women spoke on platforms during his campaign?
Mark Williams: I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. Mrs. Mousavi, in particular, had a proud record of standing up for Iranian women’s rights.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |