- 27 October 2009
-
- 8 Comments
-
-
-
- Events in Iran, Human Rights in Iran
A Policy of Imprisonment
27 October 2009 Posted By Matt Sugrue
The detention of Iranian Americans by the government in Tehran serves the purpose of those hardliners who want to avoid diplomatic engagement with the United States. This is the argument Karim Sadjadpour takes in his recent Foreign Policy article. Sadjadpour argues that the imprisonment of his friend Kian Tajbakhsh is not about Tajbakhsh’s supposed role in the post-election protests; as the Iranian government views it, “da’va sar-e een neest…that’s not what this fight is about.”
Tajbakhsh was not the opposition mastermind that the government alleges. As the protests against the June election were reaching their height, Tajbakhsh maintained a low profile. He even continued to “meet with his minder” from the Ministry of Intelligence, like he had been doing since his four month imprisonment in 2007. Sadjadpour contends that the Iranian government is using Tajbakhsh as a means to an end. The leadership wants to strengthen its negotiating position in relation to the United States.
Sadjadpour points out that,
While neighboring Dubai and Turkey have managed to build thriving economies by trading in goods and services, Iran, even 30 years after the revolution, remains in the business of trading in human beings.
In an attempt to answer the question why this is still the case and what is to be done, Sadjadpour looks to both the left and the right. Continuing to engage with Iran can only boost the ability of the United States to help people imprisoned by the Iranian government. At the same time, hardliners in Iran work to sabotage engagement with the United States as a way to distract people from the country’s real problems. Imprisoning Iranian Americans, like Tajbakhsh, is one of the methods hardliners use to wag the dog.
Perhaps it is time that the Iranian government begins to worry more about the economic well being of its citizens, and less about its relative standing in the world. Indeed, in all likelihood Iran’s standing in the world would increase if the government stopped oppressing its own people and looked to their needs.
Even Niccolo Machiavelli, the ultimate advisor on power politics, recognized that rulers should avoid being hated: “the prince must consider…how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches…And one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people.” A government that resorts to fear and repression as methods of retaining control also begins the process of undermining its own authority in the eyes of the people.
It is time that Iran’s leaders begin to act like a government that has an interest in the welfare of the Iranian people, and begin to act less like men with guns. In a fitting conclusion, Sadjadpour allows Tajbakhsh to have the last word on the state of the Iranian government,
Iranians might ponder Barack Obama’s challenge to Iran to articulate ‘not what it is against, but what future it wants to build.’ Each Iranian will wonder how much thought our rulers or our fellow countrymen have given to this critical question and why answers to it are so vague and so few.
8 Responses to “A Policy of Imprisonment”
The Turkish comparison is tired and misleading. Look at Turkey’s substantially higher public debt. Also, consider the economic war waged against Iran by the US for the past 30 years. Take this into consideration, and you may well reach a very different conclusion.
I feel for Karim. I honestly do. His pal is in prison. Certain Iranian authorities condemn Tajbakshs for his Soros connection. In 1970, Angela Davis went through a similar show trial right here in the US, for her anti-establisment stance and communist connections. Bobby Seale and Abbie Hoffman encountered very similar experiences.
Matt, I highly encourage you review the American anti-establishment movement and mass demonstrations of the late 1960’s, early 70s. It will provide you with some bearing and objectivity for what is now taking place in Iran.
@ Pirouz:
I’ve been following your comments for a while now and it seems to me that you bring up the history of U.S. repression of dissidents in order to justify Iran’s current repression.
You seem to imply that if it’s okay for the U.S. government to use violence and imprisonment to suppress opposition then it’s okay for the Iranian government. But why use the one to justify the other when you can take a principled stand for human rights and oppose both?
By the way, I’ve been meaning to ask you if you’re familiar with the American-Iranian Council. I don’t know too much about them but they’ve been advocating engagement with Iran while at the same time staying more or less silent on human rights abuses in Iran. I think they may be more of your cup of tea than the NIAC. Here’s their website: http://www.american-iranian.org/
Not that I don’t appreciate hearing your opposing views here. I believe the AIC is also doing important work advocating engagement and just thought you might like to know about them.
@Someone:
Thanks for responding. Unfortunately, there are some that misinterpret my comments comparing the historical anti-establish movement of the US with the current situation in Iran, as some form of justification for human rights anywhere in the Middle East, including Iran. That’s simply not the case. What I seek to provide is, like I stated in the previous post, a sense of bearing and objectivity for what is happening today inside Iran. If you’ve lived through both struggles (including revolutionary Iran), I personally find that you cannot but be struck by certain similarities. Steadiness and caution are my suggestions in observing these events as they unfold. Widen your focus to include all of Iran; not simply a vocal section of the protest. Most importantly, remain objective.
Back in 1970, the anti-establishment movement of the US envisioned the end of American conservatism such as the Republican party (through revolution, if necessary). Obviously, that had no chance of happening. Likewise, it is equally unrealistic to believe that there might be in the foreseeable future an Islamic Republic of Iran without something like the Abadgaran, or an Iran without the Islamic Republic for that matter.
Regarding the NIAC, my attachment to the organization stems primarily from my respect for Trita Parsi and his writings, particularly his early efforts. He’s an impressive young man, and we look to him for leadership.
If for some reason the NIAC doesn’t appreciate my views and insights, please let me know and I’ll cease contributing to niacINsight. Trita has my email address.
A question for Pirouz: when was the last time the U.S. government killed dozens of demonstrators involved in political protests? When was the last time the U.S. government executed many thousands of its own citizens for belong to political organizations, as the IRI has done?
@ Pirouz:
I agree that there will always (at least in the foreseeable future) be a conservative constituency in Iran. It’s not my reading of the green movement that they wish to eliminate that constituency. I believe they just want to open up political space for a more liberal constituency which has been shut out of the peaceful political process.
They’re also demanding rights that would benefit all Iranians regardless of their political views such as the right to free expression and other rights that are supposed to be granted by the constitution.
During the civil rights movement in the U.S., no one could have imagined the kind of progress that would occur in the American South in the following decades. In spite of that, brave Americans risked and at times sacrificed their lives against all odds to help bring about racial equality.
I believe it’s admirable whenever and wherever people stand up for their rights and I don’t think you have to loose your objectivity to hold a strong hope that Iranians too will succeed in claiming their rights.
@ Alireza
I don’t believe there has been that level of repression in the U.S. in recent history. However, look up Waco and Kent State. Most governments have the blood of their own people on their hands and the freest country in the world is no exception.
To Someone:
I am aware of Waco and Kent State. And I agree with you that most governments in the world, including the U.S., have the blood of their own people on their hands. However, the scale of IRI killing of Iranians far exceeds many Wacos and Kent States. Moreover, it far exceeds the number of Iranians killed by the Shah’s dictatorial regime.
Making historical comparisons, there are never identical cases. And debating the severity of a dozen protestors killed over a half dozen is really pointless, wouldn’t you agree?
I can, however, point out a few items in the IRI’s favor right now. Although there have been noises made to imprison and prosecute the two main opposition leaders, this hasn’t (yet) happened. During the period of American history I draw a comparison to, one of the leading opposition figures, Dr. Martin Luther King, did undergo a period of imprisonment. Also, we’re not seeing in Iran whole neighborhoods of major cities being put to the torch, like there were in America in 1968. In Iran today, there hasn’t even been a successful strike in support of the demonstrators, that I know of. This lack of active labor and business support for the demonstrators could actually indirectly support the WPO poll data, which provides 91% support for the IRI government, 80% support for the election results and 55% claiming they voted for Ahmadinejad. (To my knowledge, the WPO poll is the only hard data we currently have to draw upon.)
Unlike 1988, there appears to be a moderating force in effect this time around in Iran. There have been arrests, but many have also made eventual bail. Even in the case of student dissent, there appears to be a fair amount of effort being made to actually engage the students. From what I’m seeing (albeit thousands of miles away from the scene), there appears to be a much greater level of official engagement than that which was shown at US universities during the years 1965-1972. Anyway, that’s my personal experience I’m drawing upon.
Pirouz, what’s pointless (and dishonest to boot) is your assertion that the number of Iranians executed by the IRI amounts to “a dozen”. Between 1981 and 1985 alone, it killed over 12,000 Iranians (the vast majority executed for belong to opposition organizations). It killed thousands more in 1979-1980 and again in 1988. How does that even remotely compare in terms of death toll to the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s. I would love to hear a straight, non-evasive response on you regarding the fact that the IRI is a prolific killer of its own citizens.