|
May 1, 2006
 |
|
| Iran Awakening: A Memoir of Revolution and Hope |
Introduction
JOANNE MYERS: Good morning. I’m Joanne Myers, Director of Public
Affairs Programs. On behalf of the Carnegie Council, I want to thank you all
for joining us this morning as we welcome Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi to our
breakfast program. She will be discussing her book, Iran
Awakening: A Memoir of Revolution and Hope.
In a country where voices are too often muted and silenced by brutal force,
there is one woman who is a powerful voice for change. For ordinary Iranians,
she is also their symbol of hope. At great personal risk, Dr. Shirin Ebadi,
the 2003 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, has become a passionate campaigner
for human rights, democracy, and freedom of speech, especially those of women
and children.
Over the past decades, she has been harassed, threatened, arrested, imprisoned,
and even listed as a target for assassination. Yet through it all, as a lawyer
defending individuals and groups who have fallen victim to a powerful political
and legal system that has been legitimized through an inhumane interpretation
of Islam, she has remained resolute, speaking with quiet bravery on behalf of
the victims of injustice and discrimination. In so doing, she has personified
professionalism and courage, while always vigilant of the dangers living as
Muslim woman in a theocracy.
Dr. Ebadi rose quickly to become the first female judge in Iran. But when the
religious authorities declared women unfit to serve as judges, she was demoted
to the rank of clerk in the very courtroom in which she once had presided. She
eventually fought her way back as a human rights lawyer, often taking on politically
charged cases that most in her profession would have been too timid to touch.
A recent example, and one which some of you may be familiar with, is the case
of Zahra
Kazemi, the Iranian-Canadian photojournalist who died while in Iranian custody.
In her book, Iran Awakening, she writes about Iran from within Iran
and speaks eloquently about the ideals of the 1979
Islamic Revolution and of her deep disillusionment with the direction that
Iran has taken under the guidance of the mullahs. Yet she believes that in spite
of the repressiveness of this regime, it is up to the Iranian people, who in
their own way must transition to a democratic government that is representative
of their needs.
She writes that the threat of regime change by military force, while reserved
as an option by some in the Western world, endangers nearly all of the efforts
democracy-minded Iranians have made in these recent years. Furthermore, she
warns us that it is this very threat of military force which gives the system
a pretext to crack down on its legitimate opponents and undermines the nascent
civil society that is slowly taking shape there.
Scholars may endlessly analyze political upheavals like the fall of the
Shah of Iran and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, but eyewitness accounts
such as that of Dr. Ebadi help us to understand what it was like to experience
such a revolution firsthand. Her story is haunting.
Please join me in giving a very warm welcome to our very special guest.
Dr. Ebadi, it’s a privilege to have you here today.
(We have a little different setup today. Dr. Ebadi’s English is not fluent,
and so there is an interpreter.)
Remarks
SHIRIN EBADI: [Through an interpreter] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
I am very honored and very glad to have this opportunity to meet you this morning
and to have this conversation with you about Iran.
When you consider and talk about a country, you can do it from very different
angles. You can study the situation of the country from the point of view of
the economy, the politics, human rights, and many other aspects as well. What
I will talk about is the human rights situation in Iran.
As you know, the government of Iran has adhered to most conventions in the
field of human rights. But, unfortunately, our laws do not reflect these commitments
taken by the government, by the country, and there are many, many cases of violations
of human rights. For example, there is discrimination on the basis of gender.
I can give you several examples of our laws in this field.
One example is the value that the laws give to the life of a woman and to the
life of a man. For example, if there is an accident in the street and a man
is injured or a woman is injured, the value of the life, the price that you
would attribute to the life of a woman is not the same as the value that you
would give to a man. The value of the life of a woman is half that of a man.
In matters of testimony, when people go and give testimony in courts, the testimony
of one man is equal to the testimony of two women.
The age for contracting marriage is also different and very low in Iran. For
girls it’s thirteen and for boys it’s fifteen. We are talking about
laws that were adopted after the revolution in Iran.
What you should know is that the women in Iran acquired the right to vote well
before many women in the world — for example, well before women in Switzerland.
And they could sit in parliament.
Another feature which is characteristic of Iran is that women are, on the whole,
more educated than men, and this is reflected by the number of women who are
in university. Sixty-five percent of the students are girls. That is probably
one of the main reasons why women in Iran talk against the government, because
they cannot accept the discriminatory laws against them.
In my book I have tried to express all of this through three pictures. One
is the picture of my mother. Then there is a picture of myself when I was a
student. The third picture is that of my daughters while they study. I think
that by looking at these pictures, you will realize that the new generation
is sort of regressing in comparison to the old generation.
We also have in our laws discrimination on religious grounds. There is, of
course, discrimination between Muslims and people who have other religions.
It also goes as far as creating discrimination between Sunnis and Shias, who
are both Muslims, as you know. The example in this field is that in Tehran,
which is a huge city, with 14 million inhabitants, the Sunnis have not had the
right yet to open a mosque. It is only in some cities that are close to the
borders of Iran, where the concentration of the Sunni population is very high,
that they have had the possibility to open Sunni mosques.
Not only do we see discrimination between Sunnis and Shias, we can also see
discrimination amongst Muslims who are, I would say, pro-government and those
who are not with the government. About two months ago, the Sufis, which are
a religious group, were having a ceremony, a celebration in the city of Qum,
which is a very sacred city in Iran, as you probably know. But the Sufis, although
being Shias, are people who do not sympathize with the government. That is why
they were attacked by the forces of police and by some pressure groups. I must
stress that these, what I call pressure groups, usually come and disrupt congregations
and assemblies. Very often, when the government wants to disrupt a group, it
does it through these pressure groups, because it’s very easy afterwards
to dissociate oneself from them, saying, “We don’t know who these
people are.”
In my book, I have written about the role that these pressure groups played
during the events that happened in the university when the dormitories of the
students were attacked by these groups. When this happened, they attacked these
dorms in the university compound, and some of the students were thrown from
the windows of the third floor during this event. One of the students was actually
killed. I was representing that student.
The reason why this unrest started in the university was that a group of students
protested against the closure of a popular newspaper. The freedom of expression
is one of the freedoms that have been attacked in Iran. A number of writers
and translators are in prison.
One of the people that I represent, one of my clients, is probably well known
to you. His name is Akbar
Ganji. He is a journalist who, because of the articles that he wrote, has
been condemned to six years in prison. But when he was put in jail, he said,
“The walls that surround me in the prison will not prevent me from saying
what I have to say.” While he was in prison, he wrote a book called The
Republican Manifesto. This is a book that was taken outside the country,
and you can actually read it on certain websites. This was, of course, one of
the reasons why he was very badly treated in prison. He got asthma in prison.
Although I protested many times, and he did so as well, we did not get anywhere.
The courts even prevented me, as the lawyer, to go and see my client, which
I had all rights to do.
He also went on a hunger strike. He continued with his strike for about forty
days. He was really approaching death. When the international circles got to
know about this, there was a lot of noise around it and he got a lot of support
from without Iran. Fortunately, now he is out of prison.
The government also filters a lot of internet sites. For example, any site
that deals with the rights of women is being filtered. But, fortunately, our
young generation is smarter than the government. They always find a way to break
through the filters and consult the sites. Obviously, the government comes back
and puts up new filters and new obstacles, which are broken through again.
Democracy is not complete in Iran. Why? Because people cannot vote for the
person of their choice. As you know, once any person becomes a candidate for
the post of president or to become a member of parliament, his candidacy must
be vetted and okayed by what we call the Guardian Council. This Guardian Council
is composed of twelve people. Out of these twelve persons, six are religious
clerics who are directly chosen by the leader of the revolution. The other six
are lawyers who are actually proposed by the chief of the judiciary to the parliament,
and the parliament should vote its confidence towards these six people. The
chief of the judiciary himself is a cleric, who is chosen by the leader of the
revolution, by the leader of the country. In other words, the other six who
are not clerics are also chosen indirectly by the leader.
Actually, how it works is that, although the Guardian Council should approve
the lawyers that are introduced to it, in reality it is something that has already
been prearranged.
Democracy stays within a circle. People from without, people who are not part
of the circle, simply cannot penetrate the circle. If, let’s say, the entire
population of a town votes and chooses one person, that one person will not
be their representative unless it has been approved previously by all those
within the circle. You can be sure that any person who has had the guts to pronounce
any kind of criticism against the government will not be considered as competent
to be chosen.
During our last presidential elections, quite a number of people who were candidates
were considered not competent because of that. That is why the people simply
did not vote, did not take part in the elections.
The population of Iran is 70 million. Forty-nine million out of the 70 million
could vote. Mr.
Khatami won the election with 22 million votes, while Mr.
Ahmadinejad, during the second round of voting, won the position with only
14 million votes. That is because democracy is not full democracy, as I told
you before. Precisely because democracy is not a full democracy, as we understand
it, the international opinion is very scared of Iran getting hold of nuclear
capabilities.
The government of Iran claims that it wants to use nuclear energy only for
peaceful ends and peaceful purposes. But international opinion, obviously, does
not accept that claim. I think that the only way for this claim of the government
of Iran to become credible is that the government should show that it is ready
to advance the cause of democracy, because in a real democracy, the people can
have a power of civilians over what is happening, over the acts of the government,
and there will be checks and balances introduced over the acts of the government.
For example, France has nuclear capabilities. It also has the nuclear bomb.
Is that a reason, for example, for the world to be worried about France? Obviously
not, because France is a democracy, where people can control what the government
does. That is why I consider that the only way to come out of this stalemate
which we are in with Iran is for the government to prove that it wants democracy.
That is the only way to win the trust of the outside world.
Obviously, when I talk about democracy, I don’t mean a democracy that
is accompanied by bombs that are launched on the people. I don’t talk about
democracy that can be bargained and bought with several million dollars.
Democracy is not an event that can happen overnight. It’s not merchandise
that you can export anywhere. Democracy is a culture, and it’s the democratic
people that can build democracy. Fortunately, this is a culture that we do have
in Iran, within the people. The only problem is that the government does not
respect this will of the people. Rather than worrying and putting pressure on
the government of Iran on the question of nuclear energy, I think the world
should work on the ideas of democracy with the people.
We, the people of Iran, although we do criticize a lot and we have a lot of
criticism against the government, are against any kind of military attack on
Iran. You can be assured that the young generation of Iran will not accept the
presence of a single foreign soldier on the soil of Iran.
I must say that any military attack, and even the threat of a military attack,
will not allow the democracy to go on the right path in Iran, because any kind
of attack will give the excuse and the possibility to the government under the
pretext of the protection of the Iranian security, of the national security,
to put people with democratic ideas in jail.
For me, democracy is like a flower. This is a flower that can flourish and
bloom only in favorable circumstances, where you have calm, you have peace,
where you can give plenty of water and nourishment and sunlight to this flower.
Obviously, if you have torrents pouring down on the flower from the sky, that
flower cannot bloom. This is precisely the reason why we are opposed to any
kind of military attack.
I thank you very much for your attention. If you do have any questions, I am
at your disposal.
JOANNE MYERS: We would like to invite questions.
Questions and Answers
QUESTION: Could you speak to whether you believe that Condoleezza Rice’s
request for $75 million to support democracy groups in Iran is a useful proposal
or counterproductive?
SHIRIN EBADI: I told you, democracy is not merchandise that you can
buy. But on a more serious note, this question actually gives the government
another excuse to oppress those who are fighting for freedom. I will give you
an example.
I talked about Akbar Ganji already. The prosecutor of the republic told me
when I was defending him that, actually, I had received money from the United
States to incite him, to encourage him to go on a hunger strike. That allegation
was made. That is why I have an open file right now at the Ministry of Justice.
Actually, they have seized my house as collateral, because I have this case
with them.
That’s one of the consequences of the $75 million. So please, please—this
is a plea to you—use the $75 million, but for the improvement of the conditions
of life of the American Indians. [Laughter and Applause]
QUESTION: Thank you, Dr. Ebadi, for being here. I wonder if you could
describe a little bit the attitudes of the younger people in Iran—the students
you talked about, the women in the universities—being opposed to the government
because of the absence of human rights. But what about the large numbers of
other people? Do they generally support the government? Is the government working
hard to try to earn the support of the younger people? We hear statements that
50 percent of Iran’s population is under twenty-five years old, and this
represents a very volatile combination for the government.
SHIRIN EBADI: I think that if you want to have an idea of the support
that the people give to the government, you should look again at the statistics
that I gave you on the participation of the people in the elections. That is
a good indicator of the support of the people for the government. Mr. Khatami
got 22 million votes, and Mr. Ahmadinejad, as I told you, during the second
round of the election, when all the other competitors were out, got only 14
million votes.
Actually, I think what was typical of these elections was the fact that people
were absent from the elections, did not participate in the elections.
The right wing in Iran, on the whole, gets 15 percent of the vote. So you can
be sure that they will always get that 15 percent. That 15 percent is there.
But when the people actually want to participate in the vote, they always lose
it. There is absolutely no guarantee of their winning it. On the election of
Mr. Khatami and on the renewal of the previous parliament, we had a very blatant
case of failure—a blatant case of failure—for the people.
The other thing is that people also have lost hope with what we call the reformists
in Iran. Because of the very low rates of participation, the fundamentalists
could win easily.
Why did the reformists lose the vote? There are several reasons for that. One
of the reasons is our constitution. All the powers are concentrated in the hands
of a very few.
The world also did not help, really, our reformists—just as it did not help
Yasser Arafat.
And the result is that Hamas
has the power now.
I think it’s in the interest of America and in the interest of all the
countries in the world to give their protection and support to those representing
democracy.
I have always said that giving support and protection to nondemocratic countries
is like shooting at yourself. The same thing stands true if you do not support
those who represent democratic ideas. I would not like to refer to the tragedy
of 9/11 and make you all sad, but when the United States was helping the Taliban,
it should have thought about 9/11. The closest allies of America in the region
are countries that are not democratic countries, like Saudi Arabia.
Please—this is my plea to you—don’t give any help or assistance
to countries that are not democratic.
QUESTION: You gave a fairly clear answer on the American money. What
do you think about the human rights dialogue policy promoted by the European
Union? Do you think it is helpful at all to the Iranian people, or do you think
it’s harmful? If it is so, what do you expect the international community
to do? What policy would you like—a totally hands-off policy?
SHIRIN EBADI: On the whole, I am for the dialogue. But dialogue should
be targeted and should be limited in time. It should not be a tool in the hands
of the government of Iran to temporize, to have time on its hands. The European
Union has had this dialogue for over three years with Iran, and I don’t
think we can really talk about any progress in the field of human rights during
this period in Iran. On the contrary, during this same period, we had the Seventh
Parliament which was elected, and also the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad—both
cases where we see a victory for fundamentalists.
So we can perhaps say that the dialogue did not produce the results we needed.
Every time there was a meeting in the framework of the dialogue, I requested
to be present and to take part in it, and the government of Iran did not even
answer any of my requests. Of course, in a way, they were right. Obviously,
had I been there, I would have talked in a way that they would have not liked.
QUESTION: My question is, if democracy doesn’t take root in time
and Iran gets nuclear weapons, what is your greatest fear about what might transpire?
SHIRIN EBADI: If a country is not a democratic country and it does have
the nuclear bomb, it can represent a serious threat to the world, but perhaps
not to the extent that you think. Is Pakistan, for example, a very democratic
country? What about Korea?
I wish that no country would have the atom bomb, and I wish that the monies
that are spent in order to acquire that sort of capability would have been spent
for the betterment of the lives of people. But, obviously, if a country has
that capability, it, perhaps, can use it against somebody else. Had it not had
that capability, it could be the subject of an attack ten times worse, perhaps.
The thing is that there is a kind of dissuasive effect here. That is to say,
for example, if a country knows that it can use its nuclear bomb, it knows that
there will be retaliation, and it could be subject to an attack which would
be ten times worse.
In any case, my wish is that all the nuclear bombs in the world would be destroyed.
QUESTION: I’m an American citizen. My country of origin is Iran.
Would you please comment—and I will repeat the question, if Dr. Ebadi
wishes, in Persian—on how the interference of other countries is going
to delay democracy in Iran, in the country where all young people are against
this government.
SHIRIN EBADI: It occurs in a very natural way that the people create
movements, pro-democracy movements, in a country. For example, we have a feminist
movement in Iran which is very strong. We also have student movements that are
also very strong. We also have a number of journalists and writers who are also
against the government and who are talking about improving democracy.
If an attack is done against Iran, then nationalist feelings will be awakened
amongst the population, and the people will defend Iran. They will forget about
democracy and human rights. This is precisely what happened in the war between
Iran and Iraq. People were very critical of the government then as well. But
then, when Saddam
Hussein attacked Iran, people just put aside all those opposition ideas.
They took the guns and they went to fight for their country.
Now that I mentioned Saddam Hussein, maybe I should add one more thing. You
remember that when Saddam was waging war against Iran, Saddam was a friend of
America. We have seen the pictures of the meeting between Mr.
Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein several times.
When we talk about protecting democracy, we have to be really honest.
QUESTION: What are your views on the Iranian overture to have discussions
with Ambassador
Khalilzad in Iraq and Iranian representatives concerning the future of Iraq?
SHIRIN EBADI: I’m for direct negotiations between America and Iran.
I think that this negotiation should encompass many, many subjects. One of those
subjects can be Iraq. I think that this should be an open and transparent negotiation.
It should not happen behind closed doors.
Why do I say that I don’t want things to occur in hiding behind closed
doors, in confidentiality? Because the people of Iran have very painful memories
of negotiations behind closed doors occurring between Iran and America. I am,
of course, referring to secret negotiations that occurred between the government
of the shah and the United States that resulted in the downfall of Dr.
Mossadegh, who was a national hero in Iran. Had that coup not occurred,
then Iran would have found itself in a very different situation.
I think that when we talk about negotiations between Iran and America, this
is a negotiation that has to occur on three levels. It should occur at the level
of the heads of the states, at the level of the parliaments of the two countries,
and at the level of the NGOs. Mrs.
Jody Williams, who also won a Nobel Peace Prize in America, and I have made
the arrangements so that several NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, from Iran
and NGOs from America could meet together in order to see how to prevent a military
attack. I think that it’s only if there are all-encompassing negotiations
that we can really solve our problems.
I do agree that the policy pursued by my government was wrong during the past
years. I do condemn any hostage-taking, and I’m sorry about the hostage-taking.
I am very sorry to see when the American flag is put to fire. But then the Americans
also should accept that their policy during the past fifty years vis-à-vis
Iran has not been totally without blame.
But at a certain point, we should be able to put aside our differences, and
we should accept that the past is the past and it is a closed chapter. We should
look at the future. That is possible only through direct negotiations.
JOANNE MYERS: Dr. Ebadi, I want to thank you very much for being with
us today.
|
