An Interview with Hadi Ghaemi, the spokesman for the International Campaign of Human Rights in Iran (Part 2 )

By Ardavan Rouzbeh

Q. You say the Islamic Republic had no stomach for criticism back then. Does that mean their tolerance for dissent and opposition voices has increased in recent years?

A. I don’t know whether they have more tolerance but it has certainly evolved. Most of them occupied key positions of power in the 1980's. They were ministers, military commanders, intelligence and security chiefs, etc. They had very little executive experience, but they were determined to defend and preserve the newly-created Islamic system by any means possible, including through the use of extreme violence.

In fact, their resolve to sustain the Islamic system at any cost was the primary reason those atrocities took place. But after the war ended and Iran entered the 1990's, these young revolutionaries, who had been in their mid- to late 20's, also reached a certain age of personal maturity.

They had become more experienced, the regime had become more stable and secure; its existence faced no serious threat from the opposition. The country had moved from a war footing to a so-called reconstruction phase. As a consequence, their revolutionary fervor cooled down somewhat and they became relatively calmer.

They had realized that the type of policies and actions they pursued in the 1980's were no longer tenable. A new generation had come of age who did not share their revolutionary zeal. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that the tolerance level of the government and its revolutionary leaders has increased but only that with the evolutionary process and the arrival of new generations, the Islamic system was faced with no other choice than toleration. The ascendancy of Mr. Khatami to the presidency was the ultimate sign that the 1980's mindset was no longer viable and could no longer be used to run and manage Iranian society.

Q. But isn’t it true that the reformists of today were, for the most part, the radicals of the 1980's?

A. This is a very good point. Not only the reformists but many people in the Ahmadinejad government are radicals from the 1980s. For instance, Ahmadinejad’s Intelligence Minister, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie, and former Interior Minister, Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, both have an atrocious record of human rights violations from the 1980's.

An overwhelming majority of today’s reformers were indeed young radicals in the early post-revolutionary era.

When you ask why there aren’t more candid discussions about the 1980's, it is precisely because it is a “redline” of sorts with the reformists. Many of today’s reformers, who now support pluralism, civil society, freedom of speech and transparency, don’t want to talk about the 1980's and their role in the things that happened.

A majority of them neither allowed anyone to look into their past actions nor did they do so themselves. They did their best to keep the “black box of dirty secrets” closed. One is really never sure what lies behind the facade of today’s reformists who speak in beautiful language about freedom, democracy and human rights.

What’s more, the mass executions of the 1980's has had a major negative impact on the human rights activism of today. When we try to raise awareness about this issue, the common uninformed response by most people is, “So what? Only a couple of hundred people are executed in Iran every year, and most of them are rapists, murderers, thieves and criminals anyway.”

The critical point they are missing is that it isn’t a matter of quantity or numbers. The issue is the track record of executions in Iran and the procedures through which the Islamic system decides to take the life of another human being: without due process and a fair hearing in a court of law. This year or last year it may have been 200 people who were hanged, but indisputable records show that during the last two decades, countless thousands have been executed, an overwhelming majority of whom, and I repeat, an overwhelming majority of whom, were completely innocent.

Therefore, if as a matter of principle, you believe in capital punishment for hardened criminals, it should be emphasized over and over again that you are dealing with a society that has brought to power a regime with a despicable track record of ordering and carrying out the murder of thousands of people, in a matter of a few blood-filled nights.

So it is our duty to confront this issue in a very serious manner and eradicate it from our society from the very roots. It is a society that has seen and experienced a great deal of violence; it doesn’t react with the kind of outrage that it should when innocent people are killed.

Q. In light of the fact that you have conducted specific research on the subject, were there human rights violations prior to the revolution?

A. Definitely. I really don’t believe there is a place on this planet where human rights have not been violated at one time or another. It is indeed depressing to say, but in every country, in every era, one way or another, people in power have infringed upon the human rights of others.

The violations I am talking about are not necessarily carried out by the government or the state. The violation can be carried out by the head of the family, it can occur in the workplace, and of course it can be inflicted by the system and those in charge.

During the Shah’s reign, there were certainly human rights violations, but there was never an instance, or even one close to it, where in a span of three months, thousands and thousands of prisoners were executed.

In any event, there were serious human rights problems before the revolution and those with different and dissenting political views were under enormous pressure.

In general, freedom of speech was suppressed back then--but to be fair--it is much worse today. However, when we say there are human rights violations in Iran today, we are not trying to convey the message that there weren’t human rights violations during the Shah’s monarchy.

Q. Can you tell us about your current activities and projects?

A. Our objective is to end the systematic violation of the law by the Iranian government and to make the system more transparent.

In order to achieve the kind of cultural and social progress that we seek in Iran, campaigns and NGOs such as ours should spring up from within Iranian society. It is preposterous to launch a human rights campaign from outside of Iran and hope that it will change for the better the predominant culture inside our society.

It is difficult to establish such campaigns in Iran, but I believe it can be done. I think the duty of all Iranian and non-Iranian human rights activists around the world should be to focus on Iran and countries like ours where human rights campaigners aren’t even allowed in to collect documents, interview witnesses or ask questions of those in charge.

There are four countries to which human rights organizations have absolutely no access: Iran, Burma, North Korea and Turkmenistan are completely closed to us. It is therefor our duty to collect as much information as possible and to expose the systematic breach of human rights violations in these countries.