Let’s Believe in Our Rights
Heshmatollah Falahat-Pisheh
I was contacted last Sunday (after the proposed bill for the trial of US officials was approved by Majles) by a journalist who told me that some experts interviewed by his newspaper have doubted the effectiveness of the bill. American officials would never set foot in Tehran anyway, and our country lacks the required influence to pursue them for alleged perpetrated war crimes, he quoted those experts.
I put forward three counter-arguments and in the meantime I reminded him that, unfortunately, some Iranian observers have caved in to the dual standards practiced by major powers in today’s world. It is ingrained in the mind of those observers that ‘rights’ belong to others, while we only have ‘responsibilities.’
In 2008, when I visited The Hague and the International Criminal Court (ICC) as member of an academic delegation, I, along with other legal experts, partially grasped the real mechanism of today’s international legal system and the dominant Western precedents. This understanding eventually resulted in the drafting of a number of legal bills ratified by the majority of the parliament, including one binding the government to pursue the rights of Iranian victims of chemical attacks by Saddam Hussein’s army during the 8-year war with Iraq. Dutch businessman Frans van Anraat was sentenced to 17 years in prison and compensation was granted following our lawsuit. The bill even brought the consent of Iran’s then ambassador to Germany –another provider of chemical weapons know-how for Saddam Hussein-- Mr. [Ali-Reza] Sheikh Attar, who said “somebody did something at last.”
But back to my discussion with that journalist. I recounted three reasons for the ratification of the US officials sanction bill:
First, as an international initiative: in a world where even legal procedures are a function of power relations, proposing such bills against Americans is an imperative. Washington’s record in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq is discernibly horrid. Nonetheless, dual standards dominating the international legal and criminal institutions have precluded trials of those responsible for crimes in these countries. As a proof of the latter statement, during Israel's atrocious war against Gaza [Operation Cast Lead] I drafted a letter, signed by 200 MPs and submitted to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Mon, calling for referring the criminal dossier of Israeli commanders and politicians to the ICC. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon shirked responsibility in a diplomatic fashion, however, arguing that we should help peace and security return to Occupied Palestine. Majles’ recent bill is more evidence to condemn the self-proclaimed human rights advocates. It is also incumbent on our experts to illuminate the case by elaborating the crimes of American officials addressed in this bill.
Second, and to be hopefully executed in future: time and again, the United States or the European Union insert the name of a new group of Iranian officials in their so-called blacklists, banning them from traveling abroad or freezing their overseas bank accounts. Ironically, these officials neither visit the United States nor have any overseas accounts. The ultimate goal of these propagandistic acts is nonetheless the creation of an atmosphere of mental insecurity for the Iranians and tarnishing the image of the Islamic Republic before the international community. Now we now that the commander of the USS Vincennes, who shot down the Iranian civilian airliner in 1988, may never visit Iran, but does that clear him of criminal charges? The American officials mentioned in the bill are in one way or another indicted of similar crimes. If global public opinion supports human rights in its correct sense, the proposed cases of today pave the way for materialization of rights tomorrow.
Third, as retaliation: retaliation is an acknowledged right for the international community. While Americans are issuing ‘fake’ verdicts against the Islamic Republic, particularly through financial levers, our legal and criminal institutions have displayed a weak diplomatic record. Looking at today’s international legal procedures, it becomes clear that this terrain is the most fertile for acting based on the principle of retaliation.