Iran and the New Human Rights Rapporteur

31 March 2011 | 02:46 Code : 10822 Middle East.

By Dr. Mahmoud Reza Golshan Pajhooh, director of human rights and democracy studies at the Strategic Research Center

IRD: On Thursday, March 24^th,the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution based on which a special rapporteur will be appointed for Iran to review and monitor its human rights situation. The obvious political approach of the US and Europe to Iran’s human rights issue shall not prevent us from having an expert’s look at this process, understanding the reality and thus the vulnerabilities and positive points available in it. Accordingly, paying attention to some points concerning this resolution and its related issues is necessary for achieving the above-mentioned purposes.

1- The resolution was the result of a slow process adopted by the US and Europe—not an instant decision. The London Daily Telegraph published a document in February 2011 from the Wikileaks site, in which it cited the conversations between the director of Democracy and Human Rights Office in the British Foreign Ministry and probably the American ambassador to London. In this document it is clear that the US and Britain, based on a pre-designed plan, were trying to pressure Iran during its UPR session on human rights issues with the help of other like minded countries; and were preparing the ground for proposing the idea of a special rapporteur for Iran. Issuing the resolution during the sixteenth meeting of the council in April this year showed that this process was a slow one, but even though it took a year it was nonetheless successful.

2- The Human Rights Council has 47 member states and the remaining countries are considered observers. 50 countries supported the case for a rapporteur for Iran. Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland , Italy, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Morocco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Macedonia, United Kingdom, United Sates of America and Republic of Zambia. The support of Maldives, which is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and also Zambia (a member of the African Group), requires consideration and contemplation.

3- The resolution consists of a very short text and was apparently prepared to serve one clear aim: appointing of a special rapporteur. This resolution refers to the 65/226 General Assembly resolution on December 21^st 2010, in paragraph 11, in which the Secretary General was asked to submit a provisional report to the Human Rights Council and expressed grief over Iran’s lack of cooperation with the General Assembly; therefore the decision to appoint a special rapporteur to investigate human rights issues in Iran was announced. Accordingly, this rapporteur is to report to the sixty-sixth Assembly meeting and also submit a report to the nineteenth Human Rights Council session. Therefore, the rapporteur will most probably be chosen in the next upcoming council meeting next June, so that he will find the opportunity to provide the General Assembly with his report.

The resolution also asks the Islamic Republic of Iran to fully cooperate with the special rapporteur, and to provide for the possibility of his presence in the country and give him access to all the information that he needs to perform his duties.

4- While voting in the council, 22 countries agreed with appointing a special rapporteur, including: Argentina, Brazil, Belgium, Chile, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Maldives, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Moldova, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, the US, and Zambia. Regardless of the consistent hostile position of the West toward Iran, Brazil’s vote requires contemplation. The positive votes of Senegal and Maldives also require consideration.

5- Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, Russia, Cuba, Ecuador and Mauritania voted in favor of Iran; Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Uganda and Uruguay abstained. It is worthwhile to mention that most of these countries had voted in favor of Iran in the third committee and in the General Assembly itself.

6- In analyzing this subject, we have to pay attention to two points. First is the issue of votes, and second is the consequence of the resolution. The votes regarding this resolution show that unfortunately for whatever reason many countries have believed the narrative that " human rights in Iran are violated and an international mechanism is needed to prevent this trend". This is a very dangerous process and Iran must utilize all its diplomatic capacity to immediately stop this perception. Certainly, America’s conspiracy, the Western media’s abusive portrayal of Iran, and the politicization of the subject of Iran’s human rights are undeniable issues; which have naturally played a great role in the passing of the resolution. Nevertheless, what is important is that this resolution will put Iran under international supervision, after the former Human Rights Commission put an end to this process in 2002. At this time, we should put all our energy into the management of this phenomenon. The issue of human rights and the West playing this card is not an unfamiliar concept for Iran, and this could be considered one of our strengths. Surely, the regime has the required capacity and experience for patiently taking intelligent, non-commercial measures in order to turn this threat into a great opportunity for stabilizing the Islamic Republic of Iran.