Middle East Transcript: Hillary Clinton at Qatar Town Hall Meeting (15 February)

ABDERRAHIM FOUKARA, AL JAZEERA: Madam Secretary, if the criteria for judging U.S.-Muslim relations is the issue of Palestine, as millions of Arabs and Muslims seem to feel, they would say that those relations, taking that criterion into consideration, are not in very good shape right now. What say you to that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I am delighted to be part of this exciting interview and town hall at Al Jazeera. And thank you for participating.

The Latest from Iran (16 February): Un-Diplomatic Declarations

The first thing I would say is that, obviously, our relations with people around the world is much broader than any one issue, even an issue as important as the future of the Palestinian people and the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. I think it is a mistake to only look at the United States and our role in working with other countries through any single prism. But I accept the fact that this is a critical issue. It’s a critical issue to us.



One of the very first decisions that President Obama made was that the United States would not be on the sidelines, that we would actively participate in trying to bring the parties into negotiations that would lead to a final resolution, and that it would result in a state for the people of Palestine, that they would have a chance to have their own future, fulfill their own dreams and aspirations, and that it would provide security for the people of Israel, that they too would be able to live side-by-side, in a two-state solution.

We have worked over this past year with both parties, as well as other interested countries, to try to bring that about. And I am hopeful that this year we will see the commencement of serious negotiations that will cover every issue that is outstanding. Obviously, those are the ones that have to be decided between the parties; no one can dictate to either the Israelis or the Palestinians what the outcome should be. They must make those decisions themselves. But the United States is very focused on being a facilitator and a help in every way possible to achieve that outcome. And we are working hard on it, we are working hard on it every day. And we hope that we will see the kind of break-through this year that everyone is anticipating.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, a lot of people look at the issue of settlement into the West Bank, and they wonder if the United States gives priority to the concerns of the few thousand settlers over its interests and its relations with over a billion Muslims. How do you account for that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the fact is that we do not, that our position is that settlement activity is illegitimate, and that the final resolution of borders has to be worked out that will give both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, the secure borders that they deserve to have. And both sides recognize that development and swaps will be necessary in order to achieve the outline of the Palestinian state. But, of course, it will be based, as I have said many times, on the 1967 lines, with the agreed swaps, and taking into account subsequent developments. Those are the very clear parameters that the United States believes that the parties should negotiate over.

So that is, then, our condition. It remains our condition. And we think the best way to resolve the ongoing concerns that are reflected in the question and the feelings that so many people have is to get the parties into a negotiation facilitated by the United States, and to assist them in whatever way we can to reaching a resolution on borders, on refugees, on security, on Jerusalem that will, once and for all, end the conflict.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, I have a few more questions, so I will be talking to you again, one-on-one, in a little while. But for now I would like to take a few questions from the audience, if that is okay with you.

QUESTION: Hello, Madam Secretary. My name is Kasi Irae. I am from Iran. But I was born and raised in Dubai. My question is about the war in Iraq. So, ever since -- throughout high school and subsequently in my university years, I have been watching the Iraq war. People are dying, you know, bombs are going off, and there are several (inaudible). And something I just -- I wonder if America were -- if Iraq didn’t have any oil. And my question is, would America be in Iraq if Iraq didn’t have any oil?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that what is happening in Iraq is very important on a number of fronts. And we are going to be leaving Iraq, and when we leave Iraq, as has been agreed to with our military -- and we are on schedule to do that -- we will, hopefully, have a relationship with Iraq as we would have with any other country. We hope to have a strong civilian partnership.

And I think that the short answer to your question is we will be in Iraq as we would be in any country, whether or not they have natural resources. And the Iraqis themselves are making the decision about the future of their oil industry. You may have followed the recent bidding that has been done, giving contracts to countries from all over the world, companies from China to Europe to the United States to the Middle East.

That’s the way it should be. The people of Iraq, through their democratically elected government -- something they did not have in the past -- should be making those decisions for themselves. That is really what the United States hopes will be the future of Iraq, that it will remain democratic, a strong democracy, a pluralistic society, where every part of the country gets to participate, that there isn’t any tilting of power for or against any group within Iraq, and that, as part of their democratic future, the Iraqi people will have the benefit of their oil revenues. Not one group, not any individual, but the Iraqi people.

And it is my hope that that becomes the reality for the Iraqis, that they benefit from their own natural resources, that they invest in education cities, that they build great health care facilities and housing for people. That is what we hope for them, and that is the direction that the Iraqi Government seems to be headed, themselves.

So, the United States is very pleased at the progress that Iraq is making. And the oil industry is broadly dispersed among many different companies and countries, at the decision of the Iraqis themselves. That is the way it should be, in our view.

MR. FOUKARA: Can I take the next question in Arabic, and preferably from a female voice, if that’s okay?

QUESTION: Hello, Madam Secretary. (Inaudible.) I was wondering in regards to your (inaudible) in Doha, the campaign is pretty much emphasizing to cut off support for Iran’s nuclear program, since you have evidence that they are, indeed, building nuclear weapons. How do you plan to implement that, especially in the Middle East?  (Inaudible) the vast majority of the companies (inaudible) Iranian, and you have much (inaudible) Iranian. How do you (inaudible) that issue?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. I think it’s important to remember that when President Obama went into office a little over a year ago, he made it very clear that we wanted -- the United States wanted -- a different relationship with Iran. We have not had a very good relationship for over 30 years. And President Obama decided that it was time to try to change that. And I agreed, that we wanted to reach out to the Iranian leadership and look for ways that we could begin to cooperate and have something of a more normal government-to-government, people-to-people relationship. And President Obama has reached out, and has publicly and privately made it clear that we are extending a hand. But it is a two-way street to have any kind of engagement.

We also believe that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was very destabilizing for the entire region. People of Iranian descent may live in Qatar, but I think part of the reason why we’re so focused on the nuclear threat from Iran is that it would be very destabilizing to all the countries in this region. And we believe that it is in violation of Iran’s obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and violation of a number of United Nations resolutions for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

We have made it clear -- and it’s on the front page of the paper in Doha, what I said yesterday -- that Iran, as any country, has a right to peaceful, civil nuclear power. We drew that distinction. Unfortunately, there has not been the kind of response that we had hoped for from the Iranian leadership.

And, therefore, we have pursued a dual track approach. The engagement offered is still there. But it is important for us to work with like-minded countries here in the Gulf, in the broader region, and around the world who share our concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And the world community has made those concerns very clear. We have worked with Russia and Germany and France, the United Kingdom, and China to continually, over the course of this past year, make clear that we did not believe that Iran should pursue nuclear weapons.

So, where are we today? Well, on the nuclear front we see Iran being exposed for having a secret facility at Qom. We see Iran refusing an offer from Russia, the United States, and France to help it get the enriched uranium it needed to run something called the Tehran Research Reactor, which makes medical isotopes, something that we are willing to support Iran to do, for medical purposes. We see the president of Iran ordering the nuclear program to do its own enriching, and to begin to move toward the level of enrichment that certainly is troubling to us, because of what it well could be, with respect to nuclear weapons. We hear a lot of very negative language coming out of Iran.

And we are deeply concerned about the way Iran is treating its own people, and the way that it has executed demonstrators, imprisoned hundreds and hundreds of people whose only offense was peacefully protesting the outcome of the elections. Sitting here in this extraordinary campus, where you are encouraged to think and speak freely, it is hard to imagine what it must be like now to a young person in Iran, who wishes to have the same opportunities.

So, we are still hoping that Iran will decide to forgo any nuclear ambitions for nuclear weapons, and begin to respect its own people more on a daily basis, provide opportunities that the young students of Iran deserve to have for their future. But we cannot just keep hoping for that. We have to work to take action to try to convince the Iranian government not to pursue nuclear weapons.

And so, that is our policy. And that is what we are attempting to do. And we think it is very important for this region, but it is also important for the world.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, as a follow-up to what you said about giving young people in Iran an opportunity, a lot of Arabs and Muslims look at Gaza. They look at the young people in Gaza, and they say, “Well, aren’t those also worthy of an opportunity? And is the U.S. working to (inaudible) on Gaza, so that they can enjoy that opportunity?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: And they are right. That is exactly how we view the situation in Gaza. We consider it a humanitarian crisis. It is something that I have worked on, ever since I became Secretary of State. The United States has contributed many, many hundreds of millions of dollars to try to assist the people of Gaza. We have worked to encourage the lifting of the boycotts, and tried to get more important materials into Gaza. And I deeply, deeply feel the terrible situation that all the people of Gaza are experiencing.

We have begun to deal with the immediate necessities of food and medical supplies. But we need housing for people to live in. We need hospitals rebuilt. We need schools tha t can function and provide an education. And we are continuing to push very hard for that to be realized. And we hope that once we get into the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, we will see more progress.

We would also love to see Hamas renounce violence, agree to recognize Israel, and be part of that future. Because, clearly, we want to see a secure and stable policy in place that would include Gaza. And that can only happen if Hamas decides that it wishes to be part of the solution, going forward.

So, this is a very, very serious humanitarian challenge that we feel very strongly about, and are working to try to address. That is part of the larger political challenge that we think can only be resolved through finally ending the conflict and creating a state for the Palestinian people to live in peace and security and pursue the kind of everyday activities, like educating their children, that should be the birthright of everyone.

MR. FOUKARA: Just for the sake of diversity, I am going to try to find and get a question in Arabic (inaudible), Madam Secretary.

QUESTION: (Speaks in Arabic.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I hope so. That is certainly our goal. And it is President Obama’s vision and hope that we would overcome stereotypes and misinformation, misconception. Because, clearly, the raw diversity of the Islamic world is something that Americans are learning more about, and recognizing to a greater degree.

But I think we have work to do. And so what we are trying to achieve is a broad program of outreach. And I have two young people here with me today, and I will ask them to stand up, so that you can see them. One of them is our new special envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussein, who the President has just appointed. He is a trusted advisor to the President, works in the White House and in the State Department on behalf of this important position. The other is Farah Pandith, who is our special representative to the Muslim community, particularly young people. And Farah has been working non-stop, traveling the world, talking with and listening to young people in Muslim communities from Morocco to Malaysia. It has been a very concerted and broad outreach.

So, both of these young people are part of President Obama’s and my outreach, because we want to have the kind of conversation we are having today. We will not agree on everything. I don’t know any family that agrees on everything, let alone countries that have differences in experience and cultural views and the like. But we believe it is very important to have this kind of dialogue.

We are also investing hundreds of millions of dollars in more educational opportunities for Muslim students to come to the United States, because the young woman’s question raises one of the challenges. After 9/11, as some of you may know, America became very focused on protecting our citizens, and made it more difficult for people to come to study and work in the United States. We are trying to, you know, reverse that.

We are also sending out science and technology envoys. We have Nobel Prize winners and other very distinguished scientists who are traveling the world, coming to countries, talking about what we can do in partnerships on science and technology. Entrepreneurships is an important area of our emphasis. And at the end of April, April 26th to 27th, President Obama will host an entrepreneurship summit at the White House, where we are identifying and bringing young people from across the Muslim world to be part of that networking and opportunity experience.

So, we are working hard on this, and we would hope that many of the Muslim communities around the world will, you know, reciprocate by inviting American students, inviting American professors, inviting American business leaders, media personalities, because that is the kind of dialogue that we think will help to move us beyond this very narrow focus that we, unfortunately, see too much of in the past.

MR. FOUKARA: How do you feel about veering to this side a little bit now?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Indeed. Don’t want to leave anyone out.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, why did the current U.S. Administration turn its back on UN and NATO central European allies’ calls, specifically, in the context of the missile shield program, and instead chose to accommodate Russia’s demands, which are more appropriate for the Cold War era?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Very good question, because I have the opportunity to explain our policy. And for those of you who may not have followed this issue, in the prior Administration of President Bush, a decision was made to deploy a so-called missile shield into Europe, particularly central and eastern Europe, as a defensive measure against potential missile attacks, particularly nuclear attacks.

When the Obama Administration came in, we conducted a very thorough review of the prior policy. And we concluded that it was not aimed at immediate threats, so much as longer-term threats, and that we could, with some changes in the architecture of the missile defense, be much more effective. And so we adopted a new approach. We did not eliminate missile defense, we changed how we were going to deploy it, and the various technologies that would be used for it. And you may have noticed in the last week there were announcements of placement in Poland and Romania.

Now, our belief is that there is a greater potential threat from Iran, with its missile -- with the development of its missile program, and with other potential rogue regimes or networks of terrorists who get a hold of missiles, than there are from a European-Russian conflict. We just do not see that as a problem, going forward. We may have political difficulties that we have to work out between the United States and Russia, or between Europe and Russia, but we don’t see that as a kind of long-term threat, the way we unfortunately see Iran with its missile development, and its (inaudible) nuclear weapons.

So, the missile shield, which would protect into the Caucasus and down to Turkey, would provide some additional guarantee against threatening behavior. And we also are talking at length with a lot of our friends in the Gulf, as to what more they need defensively, in the event that Iran pursues this nuclear ambition.

So, we still are very committed to missile defense, but we think we have a better plan that is more effective than the one we inherited.

QUESTION: May I follow up? During the Aegis program, the Navy-based program that is going to be implemented now, didn’t it fail most of its tests, the most recent one being (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: But it succeeded in most of its tests. I mean, that’s why you test, you know. You test -- there were some radar problems with it, and it didn’t hit a target. But we have a lot of data that shows it being successful. So I think you can rest assured that we are going to have a very robust, respected missile defense system that is of the variety that we think will actually meet the threats that are on the horizon.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. FOUKARA: Just as a follow-up to what you said about Iran, Madam Secretary, you said in your speech before the U.S.-Islamic World Forum that more pressure should be applied to Iran. And there are a lot of people in the Middle East wondering if the United States is planning, at any one time, whether before the withdrawal from Iraq or after the withdrawal from Iraq, planning to launch a military attack of one kind or another against Iran.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. We are planning to try to bring the world community together in applying pressure to Iran through sanctions adopted by the United Nations that will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guard which we believe is, in effect, supplanting the government of Iran. I mean, that is how we see it. We see that the Government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted, and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship. Now, that is our view.

And so, what we are trying to do is to send a message to Iran, a very clear message, that we still would be open to engagement, we still believe that there is a different path for Iran to take. But we want the world united in sending an unequivocal message to Iran that, “We will not stand idly by while you pursue a nuclear program that can be used to threaten your neighbor, and even beyond.” And we hope to try to influence the decision making within Iran. And that is our goal.

MR. FOUKARA: So, Madam Secretary, now you are saying there is no plan on the part of the United States to launch an attack? Not in the immediate future, not in the middle term, not in the long term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are interested in changing Iran’s behavior and -- now, we will always defend ourselves, and we will always defend our friends and allies. And we will certainly defend countries here in the Gulf who face the greatest immediate nearby threat from Iran. But we have pursued a dual track, not a triple track, but a dual-track approach of engagement and potential pressure, and that is what we’re focused on.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, I would like to take a short break with your permission and with the permission of the audience, a very short one. When we come back, we will take more questions from the audience.

(Applause.)

MR. FOUKARA: (Speaks in Arabic.)

QUESTION: (Speaks in Arabic.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, our goal, eventually, is to have a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. In fact, the President has set a goal of eventually (inaudible) zero nuclear weapons in the world. I mean, that is our stated goal. We know that it will take time, and we are negotiating right now with the Russians to reduce our nuclear arsenal, because we are very committed to demonstrating our -- the importance that we place on this goal. So that is our goal.

Now, I have spent a lot of time talking with the leaders, and leading influential people from the Gulf and the broader Middle East. And they worry a lot about Iraq having nuclear weapons. And they tell me all the time that this is something that would cause them to have to react. And they don’t want to. That’s not something that they want to spend their money on, that they want to be involved in. But, on the other hand, they don’t want to live in a region where they feel threatened.

So, our goal is to try to convince countries not to pursue nuclear weapons. And Iran signed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And they really bound themselves not to do so, and now are, we believe, reconsidering if not violating that.

So it is an ongoing challenge that we think the world has to face up to. The Non-Proliferation Treaty conference will be held in May. President Obama is hosting, in April, a nuclear security summit. And maybe it’s because we have to worry about all kinds of scenarios all the time. We know that a lot of countries around the world share our concerns. And, therefore, we want to talk about how we prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, how we control nuclear material that could fall into the wrong hands. We have reason to believe that al-Qaeda would be very interested in getting its hands on nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb.

And this is not the Cold War. In the Cold War the feeling was that you could deter each other, that no rationale actor, no rationale state would use a nuclear weapon on another, because they would immediately be destroyed. So that has kept everything in balance. When you have people who are willing to kill themselves, and kill many others at the same time, that upsets the balance. So it’s not like it was 40 years ago. Now we are looking at threats that are much more difficult to evaluate and control, which is why we would like to move everyone towards a world in which we don’t have nuclear weapons. We know that will take time, but we are pursuing it, and we are committed to it.

MR. FOUKARA: (Inaudible) question is what if Qatar or another ally of the United States decides to go for nuclear capability? How would you handle that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we would do everything we could to discourage it, because even though we have great relations with our friends here in the Gulf, we don’t think it is smart for more countries to be developing nuclear weapons.

And, given the legitimate concerns and even fears that some countries might have that others would have it and they wouldn’t have it, we would work to provide more defensive capability. Going back to the young man’s question about missile defense, we would do more to try to persuade our friends that they would be protected, and that they wouldn’t have to do this on their own. So that would be our response.

MR. FOUKARA: Israel. Everybody in the region knows that the Israelis have nuclear weapons. What if another state, another ally of the United States, decides openly that they want to have nuclear capability for military purposes? How would you handle that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I would give you the same answer. I mean, we have had these conversations, as you might guess, going back many years. A number of countries that thought about it -- and this is public information -- like a Brazil or South Africa, decided not to pursue it. I mean it is a very expensive undertaking. It requires enormous commitment of technical expertise and financial resources. And in this world, as it exists today, it is not at all certain that it makes you safer.

So, I think a lot of countries who have done the balancing test have concluded not to pursue it. If a friend, an ally of ours, were to say, “Look, I worry about living in a neighborhood where a country that we are not friendly with has it and we don’t have it,” which is only a conversation that I think has been really active in the last year or two because of Iran, which is the focus of these conversations, again, we would say, you know, “We would hope that you would not do that,” and we would try to reassure our friends that we would provide the defense and provide them with the defensive capability that they need to protect themselves from whatever that threat might be. That, I think, is the best way for us to proceed, and for our allies and friends to proceed.

MR. FOUKARA: (Speaks in Arabic.)

QUESTION: (Speaks in Arabic.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have to look at how we can best work with or influence or coexist with Iran. And that is really at the heart of your question: What is the best way to get along with Iran?

I can only tell you what so many leaders tell me, which is that they worry about Iran’s intentions. They worry about whether Iran will be a good neighbor, and will live peacefully. They know that Iran has funded activities that are against a lot of countries and people in the region. They know that Iran directly funds terrorist activities. So I think people have reason to worry.

And the question is, what can Iran do in order to allay the worries and the fears of their neighbors? And that is what we are trying to encourage Iran to consider. And yet, I don’t see much progress there, to be honest. I just wish that we could tell you that there was more progress.

And I don’t know whether the reaction that the Iranian Government had to the election, and now the opposition trying to express itself -- which we fully support their right to do so -- has made the Iranian Government even, you know, more unwilling to open up and talk with their friends and their neighbors about how to prevent the concerns from escalating. I wish that Iran would take a different approach. The United States, under President Obama, would really welcome a positive, normal relationship with Iran. But you can’t do that unless there is something coming back to you. And there hasn’t been. So, I wish that we could be having a town hall in Tehran. I wish that we could be having this conversation with members of the opposition and members of the government, and students from all points of view. But we are not.

So, our challenge is, how do we try to influence Iran to be a good neighbor and to treat its own people fairly and decently? And anyone who has answers to those questions, I really would love to hear them.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, we want to get off the subject of Iran, and use your time with us to talk to you about other topics. I have one question for you before I go back to the audience.

Madam Secretary, you are obviously a Secretary of the United States of America. Part of your job is to look after the interests of the state that is your country. But you are also a human being. We all, as human beings, feel the need to see justice, whether in the Israeli-Palestinian issue or any other issue. How do you find that balance, between being the Secretary of State and just Hillary Clinton?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I find the balance because I think that my country and the people of the United States want very much to see other people around the world have the same rights and opportunities that we have. And it is heartbreaking when you see people mistreated or abused or deprived of those rights, or suffering from natural disasters or war or oppression or other terrible events.

We can’t be everywhere at all times, despite the size and the reach of the United States. But the United States has been extremely generous and concerned about meeting the needs of people. And I personally believe strongly that that is part of our obligation on this earth, to reach out and provide help and support to those in need. So, I think that the balancing act is not that hard. The prioritizing is hard, because there is so much need, and there are so many people who are suffering.

I took a very long trip to Africa last summer, and had a wonderful visit in many different places. But you go to a place like Eastern Congo, where more people have died in the conflict in Eastern Congo than any conflict since World War II -- more than 5.5 million people -- yet we rarely talk about it. We rarely see it on television. Women are raped and mutilated. People are driven from their homes. It is a horrible humanitarian disaster. And we are struggling to try to figure out a way to end the fighting, and to give people a chance to go back to their small homes and grow their food and raise their children, which is just the kind of common, everyday living that everyone should be entitled to.

So, when you look around the world, there are so many challenges that -- the balance is not the hard part. It’s trying to figure out what we can constructively do, how the United States can best intervene, how we can bring people together, how we can work with others to end suffering in Darfur, or to try to provide a better life for girls to go to school in Afghanistan. It is a very long list. But I think you have to keep your heart open, and you have to keep your mind alert to try to find opportunities to help wherever you can.

MR. FOUKARA: (Speaks in Arabic.)

QUESTION: (Speaks in Arabic.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that women everywhere should be able to pursue an education, and to have the opportunity to make important choices for themselves. But not every woman everywhere wants the same things in life. And we have to be respectful of our differences. But I do believe that there are certain basic rights that every woman and girl should have, and then for women to choose how to pursue your life, how to live with your family, and all of these choices that are so important to us.

I have been very blessed over many years to have a number of close friends and associates of women who have been from Gulf countries or other places in the world, who are Muslim, who have a great pride in their heritage, but who also are very independent and very strong-minded, and who make their own way in life.

And I think that the education that you are receiving here is absolutely critical, because you will then have more opportunities. And it’s not so much about what one wears as what is in one’s mind and one’s heart, and the kind of person one becomes. And I think that should be the emphasis as to how we look at girls and women’s lives around the world.

And, you know, I have spent a lot of time working in Afghanistan. When President Karzai became president, there were a little less than a million children in school, and they were all boys. Now there are closer to 7 million children, and 40 percent of them are girls. And many families, even though they are conservative, want their daughters, just as their sons, to be educated.

And so, that’s what we should be striving for. And that’s why what Education City represents -- and I am sure you are aware of this -- is so important, not only in Qatar, not only in this region, but far beyond. And the fact that young women and young men go to school together, study together, learn together, sends a strong message to the entire world.

So, that is my hope, that each young woman has a chance to fulfill her God-given potential, just as I hope the same for each young man.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, I just want to say thank you. I hope we will have another opportunity to do something like this down the road. And I want to thank the Qatar Foundation, and everybody who has taken part in this program. Thank you.

(Applause.)

Iran: Why The Beating of Mehdi Karroubi's Son Matters

Mr Verde writes for EA:

Imagine for a moment that the son or daughter of a Presidential or Prime Ministerial candidate in the US or Britain had been taken away by plainclothes security forces and kept in an unknown locations for days. Imagine that he or she had been beaten and threatened with rape. Think of the headlines and furour.

Consider that this is what allegedly occurred in Tehran last Thursday. According to the son of Mehdi Karoubi, Hossein, his younger brother Ali was detained when Karroubi's entourage was confronted by security forces. Fatemeh Karroubi, Ali's mother, has written an open letter to the Supreme Leader, detailing the claimed torture and rape threats, which allegedly took place in a mosque. Ali Karroubi’s wife, Nafiseh Panahi, has said that her husband suffered a broken arm and fractured skull.

The Latest from Iran (16 February): Un-Diplomatic Declarations

The response of the regime? Tehran’s Prosecutor General, Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi stated that there was no warrant for the arrest of Ali Karrroubi and that he concluded, from his enquiries of the police, intelligence agencies and Revolutionary Guards, that such a person was never detained. He added that Ali Karroubi shoulld prove his allegation by stating why he was detained and where. (Fatemeh Karroubi had already stated in her letter that the location of the alleged detention and abuse was Amir-al-Momenin Mosque in Tehran. It should also be noted that it is normally the arresting party who puts forth a reason for detention, not the suspect.)


With the Prosecutor’s denial of any such detention, let's work through the scenarios:

1. Ali Karroubi was never touched by anyone and the entire story is a fabrication. In that case, his brother Hossein, his mother, his wife, and he should be arrested immediately: the first three for lying and Ali for posing in a photo with the alleged bruises. (Many people have been arrested and handed harsh sentences for allegedly causing far less damage to the Islamic Republic’s reputation than alleging torture and threat to rape in a mosque.)

2. Someone other than the Iranian authorities kidnapped and tortured Ali Karroubi. Hossein Karroubi says that Ali Karroubi was snatched in the Sadeghiyeh area, just north of Azadi Square where the official 22 Bahman event was taking place. There is also footage of Mehdi Karroubi being attacked by tear gas in that area.

In this case, the Tehran Prosecutor General is admitting that the regime, despite massing security forces last Thursday, was unable to prevent the kidnapping of the son of a senior revolutionary .

3. Ali Karroubi was snatched by authorities, tortured, and threatened with rape in a mosque, but they lied to the Tehran Prosecutor, who is so gullible that he publicly repeated that lie without checking out the facts. Where does this leave the credibility of post-election prosecutions and court sentences, including capital punishment?

4. Ali Karroubi was snatched by the authorities, tortured, and threatened with rape in a mosque. The Prosecutor General is aware of this but is lying. If a high-ranking official is attempting such a fabrication, what credibility does Iran's Judiciary have?

Iran Document: The 10-Demand Declaration of 4 Labour Unions

From Iran Labor Report:

Thirty-one years have passed since the February 1979 revolution. At that time millions of Iranian people, full of hope for a better life, took to the streets in order to break the yoke of despotism and repression. A nationwide strike lead by workers at the National Oil Company, the vanguard of the Iranian working class, shut down oil pipelines, ultimately tearing the despotic regime asunder. Masses of people chanted, “Our oil workers! Our resolute leader!” Power fell to the people.

February 11, 1979, a day that marks an end to despotism, is a day that calls forth unforgettable memories of men and women, young and old, who had grown tired of repression and injustice; people embraced one another in the streets, cried out with joy, and, with tears in their eyes, looked forward to a liberated future.


Now, 31 years have passed since those glorious days full of enchantment and rebirth. Yet, today the feelings of hope, enchantment, and glory, has been transformed into nothing but misery, destitution, unemployment, sub-poverty wages, and subsidies cuts—unbearable agony for millions of workers and wage earners.

Life continues. And, the Iranian people still have a burning desire for change. They have not lost their hope for life, their yearning for happiness, freedom, dignity.

Born of democratic struggle, strikes, protests, and the campaign to establish independent organizations on its behalf, the working class has fought for its right to survive. Many of us now sit in jail for attempting to organize the working class and build a better life.

But these jail cells do not mark the end of the road. We millions are the producers of wealth, the wheels of production. Society moves only because we move it. We have at our back the historical experience of the united and grand strike of the oil workers during the February revolution. Relying on this experience and the power of our millions we inspire the best and most humanistic aspirations of the 1979 revolution. Today, after thirty-one years, we present our minimal demands and call for immediate and unconditional realization of all of them:

1. Unconditional recognition of independent workers organizations, the right to strikes, to organize protests, the freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom to associate with any political party.

2. An immediate stop to all executions, and the immediate and unconditional release of labor and other political activists from jail.

3. Immediate increase of the minimum wage based on workers input through their representatives in general workers assemblies.

4. End to Subsidies Rationalization Plan and delayed wages of workers should be immediately paid without any excuses.

5. Job security for workers and all wage earners, the end to all temporary contracts and blank signatures, removal of all government-run organizations in the work place, institution of new labor laws through direct participation of the workers in their general workers assemblies.

6. Halt to all firings under any circumstances. Anyone expelled or at employment age must benefit from social security in line with human dignity.

7. End of all discriminatory laws against women and insuring full and unconditional equality of women and men in all aspects of social, economic, political, cultural, and family affairs.

8. Insuring all the retired with a life of welfare, devoid of economic anxieties, putting an end to all discriminatory payment practices, and allowing everyone to benefit from social and medical services.

9. All children, irrespective of their parents’ economic and social status, gender, nationality, race, and religion, must be granted free and equal educational, welfare, and health care benefits.

10. May 1st must be declared a national holiday and included in the official calendar; all legal restrictions on its celebration must be removed.

Tehran and Municipality Bus Workers Syndicate
Haft Tapeh Sugar Refinery Workers Syndicate
Free Assembly of Iranian Workers
Kermanshah Electrical and Metal Workers Guild

Iran Document: Shadi Sadr at the UN on Abuse, Justice, and Rights (12 February)

From the blog of lawyer, journalist, and human rights activist Shadi Sadr:

When I was sitting in an interrogation room, with my face to the wall, my eyes covered with a blindfold and my body with a chador, I never imagined that one day I would be at the United Nations Headquarters giving my testimony about this very day. So I am very glad that I have the chance to be here, especially when many other political prisoners are still locked up inside the prisons or, even among those who were released, have to remain silent and neutralized out of fear. Let me start with my own experience, which is just one example of among many human rights violations that have occurred in Iran since the July 2009 Presidential Election.

Iran: Shadi Sadr’s Speech Accepting “2009 Human Rights Defenders Tulip”

On 17 July 2009, I was arrested while heading toward Tehran University for the Friday Prayers led by Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani. I was walking on Keshavarz Boulevard with several other female activists when individuals in civilian dress approached us. Refusing to identify themselves or justify their actions, they forced me into a waiting car. After I had briefly escaped, my companions were restrained as I was beaten and forced back into the car. I was taken to one of the intelligence Ministry detention centers, called “the Follow-up Office” and after 4 hours interrogation, I was moved to Evin prison, where I been previously detained in March 2006.


In the middle of the night, I was taken to solitary confinement after all of my personal belongings, including my clothes, my notebook and even my glasses were confiscated. They allowed me to have my glasses in the cell only after I refused to eat anything for three days. I was interrogated five times, each time for more than four hours. First, they wanted me to give them the username and passwords of all of my email accounts and blogs. It was a preliminary question for them, like asking my name and address. Then, they started to ask several questions about everything I had done or related to me, from our activities in women’s movement to my personal life, from the conferences in which I participated in foreign countries to the names and information of my friends in Iran and abroad. They described me as a doll or puppet of western countries, specially the United States, who has a mission to overthrow the government by changing society through women’s demands and the idea of gender equality. But they never formally charged me with a crime.

According to the Iranian law, which I as a lawyer know very well, I did not have to answer any questions before I was formally accused of a crime. But this regulation, like many others guaranteeing prisoner’s rights, have been left completely unenforced. In contrast with procedure defined by the Iranian code to “Respect the Legitimate Freedoms and the Protection of Citizenship Rights”, they placed me in a solitary confinement where a light was turn on all the time. I could not see the faces of my interrogators because I had to sit with my face to the wall wearing a blindfold – all of which is totally illegal. I was not tortured physically but psychologically. One day, they took me and about fifteen male prisoners to a room inside Evin and while I was sitting facing the wall, at least twenty interrogators started to question the male prisoners who were made to sit behind me. These men were brutally beaten while I was forced to listen.

In the beginning, I could answer the interrogator's questions about very simple and nonviolent activities such as distributing printed materials during the demonstrations. But after a few seconds I could not hear any more, and I felt like my head was being crushed between two iron plates. Less than one hour later, I was called for interrogation as my legs and hands were trembling and my brain was totally empty. I really felt like I was being tortured.

Regarding rights violations, so many others had experiences worse than mine, especially among those who were not well known among the public. According to officials, more than 4000 people were arrested in Tehran and several other cities during the post-election events. They were apprehended either in the streets or in their homes and workplaces. Several reliable sources now report that prisoners are suffering from widespread violations of their rights.

In addition to the numerous examples of human rights that are systematically violated within the past three decades of the Islamic Republic, during the post-election events, basic and fundamental human rights remain in serious peril, such as equality of persons before the law, the right to peaceful assembly, the rights of political prisoners, and the rights of human rights defenders and civil society activists. According to the fact-finding committee of Iran’s parliament, launched in July 2009 to investigate the complaints of torture and killing of detainees who were arrested in post-election protests, 3 detainees have been tortured to death in Kahrizak detention center. The committee recognized Saeed Mortazavi, Tehran’s former prosecutor general, as the main person responsible for the death of these 3 young men in a report published on January 10, 2010. Unfortunately, however, he has neither been summoned to the court nor has been officially questioned or accused, while many women’s movement activists, journalists, and human rights defenders are accused of attempts to overthrow the government because of their peaceful activities!

Right now, at least 60 women’s rights activists are in prison. Some of them have never been able to call or see their families. In some cases, nobody knows in which prison they are detained. The judiciary refuses to inform prisoner’s families about their situation or cooperate with their lawyers.

Not only are the rights of women's rights defenders being violated, but the rights of all Iranian women are in jeopardy. For example, the Government has recently proposed a new draft of the Family Law (entitled "Protection of the Institution of the Family") and is currently being discussed in the Parliament. This draft is very discriminatory and gender-biased. The draft facilitates polygamy and temporary marriage, both of which are favorable to men and socially unacceptable.

For these very reasons, women’s rights activists, since 2007, have regularly expressed their objections to this proposal and succeeded in delaying the vote that would legalize it in September 2008. But now, when many activists are either locked up in prisons or repressed, the Parliament is once again discussing it and unfortunately, is expected to pass it. Regretfully, the Islamic Republic defined this discriminatory draft as one of the upcoming legislation to improve the human right situation in its national report for the Universal Periodic Review.

Therefore, based on my own experience and reliable facts, I would like to finish my talk with some recommendations for the Islamic Republic of Iran, which I believe should be raised by the delegations of other countries during the UPR session:

• Besides Iran’s international commitments to respect human rights, there exist many rules and legislations domestically, within Iran’s legal system, that concern the rights of prisoners, including the code to “Respect the Legitimate Freedoms and the Protection of Citizenship Rights,” in addition to other procedures, laws, and the Constitution, that are meant to guarantee fundamental rights. I strongly urge the Iranian police and judiciary to respect and enforce these international and domestic laws that guarantee the prohibition of arbitrary detention; the right to have and visit a lawyer; the right to regular family visits; the prohibition of solitary confinement; and the prohibition of physical harassment and torture.

• The Iranian authorities must stop giving impunity to Mortazavi and pursue him as well as all the commanders and perpetrators who have been involved in the widespread violation of citizens’ rights during the post-election protests.

• The Iranian government must withdraw all discriminatory laws against women, especially the draft of the Protection of the Institution of the Family, which is in complete violation to Iran’s international commitments, especially Articles 2 and 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Latest from Iran (15 February): Withstanding Abuse

2300 GMT: Urgent Correction on the Labour Front. Earlier today (1600 GMT) Tehran Bureau reported that the Tehran Bus Workers had called for civil disobedience over the case of jailed activist Mansur Osanloo. Tonight Iran Labour Report has issued an effective retraction of the story:

On February 12, a statement appeared on various Iranian websites, including Balatarin which is one of the largest Persian-speaking community websites in the world, in the form of a poster. The poster called for solidarity with the imprisoned leader of Tehran’s bus drivers union, Mansoor Osanloo, through acts of civil disobedience beginning on March 4 around Tehran’s Valiasr square. The statement purported to be an offcial statement of the union (formally known as the Syndicate of Vahed Company Workers of Tehran and Environs). Subsequently, in an article for the popular web journal Tehran Bureau, a staff member at Iran Labor Report wrote an analysis of the union statement as it had appeared on the various websites.

It now appears that the poster-statement was not authentic and that the union’s leadership had not issued the statement. Moreover, the provenance of the statement is still not clear. The union had apparently not published an official disclaimer earlier on due to the recent disuptions with internet use in Iran. Subsequent to this, the union requested that the inauthenticity of the statement be made public and that henceforth no reference would be made of it.

NEW Latest Iran Video: US Analysis (Gary Sick) v. Overreaction (Stephens, Haass)
NEW Iran: The IHRDC Report on Violence and Suppression of Dissent
NEW Iran: Human Rights Watch Report on Post-Election Abuses (11 February)
Iran Analysis: What Now for the Green Movement?
The Latest from Iran (14 February): Step by Step

2145 GMT: Labour Rights. The joint statement of three Iranian unions --- the Syndicate of Tehran Bus Workers, the Syndicate of Haft Tapeh Sugar Cane Company, and The Free Union of Workers in Iran --- to the United Nations Human Rights Council has been posted:

[Workers'] most urgent and most basic demands at the present time are:


- Abolishment of executions, immediate and unconditional release of labour activists and all other social movements activists from jails;
- Rescinding all charges against labour movement arrestees;
- Immediate and unconditional freedom in formation of labour unions, without the need to have permission from managements, compliance with all labour related international conventions, eradication of all non-labour establishments from working environments, and to prosecute the suppressors and deniers of workers’ human rights;
- Unconditional rights to strike, protest, and freedom of speech;
- Complete equality between men and women at work and in all other aspects of social, economical and family lives;
- Total abolishment of child labour and providing educational and medical environment for all children.

2050 GMT: Miss-the-Point Story of the Day. A lot of trees are dying for battling news items on the Iran nuclear front: "Iran Says Studying New Nuclear Fuel Deal" v. "U.S. denies Iran given new fuel swap proposal".

Let's save the trees. Turkish Foreign Ahmet Davutoglu will be in Iran tomorrow to discuss a "swap" of 20 percent uranium, outside Iran, for Tehran's 3.5 percent stock (see 1225 GMT). "New" or "not new" makes no difference to that central discussion.

2008 GMT: On the Economic Front. Mohammad Parsa, a member of the electricity syndicate, has declared that 900,000 workers of electricity companies are on the verge of dismissal as the Government 5 billion toman ($5.06 million) to the electricity industry. Parsa says the industry is operating on an emergency basis with managers fleeing their posts.

2005 GMT: Another Ashura Death. Peyke Iran has identified Mehdi Farhadi Rad from south Tehran as the victim of an attack by police and plainclothes officers, shot in the head and chest.

2000 GMT: The Radio Farda "Spy Ring". Minister of Intelligence Heydar Moslehi has declared that, of eight people arrested as agents for the US Government-sponsored Radio Farda, only one is a journalist, who has confessed his "relationship to foreign elements". The other detainees are his relatives.

1940 GMT: Another Battle for Ahmadinejad. Back from an academic break to find a series of challenges to the President over his budget. Mostafa Kavakebian of the Democracy Party has declared that he will not accept a proposal that needs "fundamental changes": government spending is too high, but there are no funds for unemployed youth and the payment of civil servants is not considered.

Abbas Ali Noura has complained that the financial relationship between Iran's national oil company and the Government is not clear and last year's budget was not fully spent on development of oil industry (a hint at misplaced funds?). Abbas Rajayi adds that Ahmadinejad has not kept promises on funding for modernisation of water supply for agriculture. Ali Akbar Oulia has denounced "one of the weakest and most debatable budgets", with over-optimistic projections on Government income and inflation.

1600 GMT: Tehran Bureau reports that the Tehran Bus Workers Union, in a statement on 12 February, has aligned itself with the Green Movement. The Union also declared, "Starting March 6, We the Workers of Vahed Company Will Wage Acts of Civil Disobedience (or white strike) to Protest the Condition of (labour activist) Mansoor Osanloo in Prison. We Appeal to the Iranian People and to the Democratic Green Movement--of which we consider ourselves a small part--to join us by creating a deliberate traffic jam in all directions leading to Vali-e Asr Square."

1550 GMT: Iranian media is reporting that President Ahmadinejad is going to fire his Minister of Oil for reporting reducing production.

1545 GMT: The Iranian Students News Agency reports that Mohsen Aminzadeh, the reformist leader sentenced to six years in prison, has been released on $700,000 bail during his appeal.

1335 GMT: We've posted video of contrasting analyses from the US, with Gary Sick's thorough consideration of the Iranian political situation offset by generalisation and overreaction from Richard Haass and Bret Stephens.

1230 GMT: Children's rights activist Mohsen Amrolalayi, arrested on 23 January, is still in solitary confinement in Evin Prison.

1225 GMT: One to Watch. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu will hold talks with Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, on Tuesday over uranium enrichment issue.

What is not noted in the Agence France Presse article is that Davutoglu may have already met President Ahmadinejad's advisor Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai: both have been in Qatar over the weekend.

1215 GMT: The UN Human Rights Meeting on Iran. A few hours of diplomatic theatre in the UN Human Rights Council this morning, as Britain, France, and the US put forward a co-ordinated attack on Iran's treatment of post-election protest. French Ambassador Jean Baptiste Mattei asserted:

The authorities are waging bloody repression against their own people, who are peacefully claiming their rights. France recommends that Iran accept the creation of a credible and independent international inquiry mechanism to shed light on these violations.

The US and British Ambassador made similar statements and called on Iran to allows visits by the United Nations investigator on torture and other human rights experts.

Supported by Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela, Iran judiciary official Mohammad Javad Larijani declared,"With the victory of the Islamic revolution, the situation of human rights has consistently been used as a political tool to apply pressure against us and to advance certain ulterior political motives by some specific Western countries."

Larijani claims steps to improve women's access to education, health, and social status, to protect children and religious minorities, and to combat the tradition of forced marriages: "The Iranian society is a successful model of brotherly and amicable coexistence."

1200 GMT: Not-So-Subtle Propaganda of the Day. Our inset photograph is a reproduction of the lead image --- an altered picture of Mehdi Karroubi --- in today's Javan, which is close to the Revolutionary Guard.



1025 GMT: Nothing to Do With Us. Tehran's Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has denied that Mehdi Karroubi's son Ali was arrested on 22 Bahman.

Which begs the follow-up question, "So did Ali Karroubi beat himself up?"

0940 GMT: Detaining the Writers: "Arshama3's Blog" updates our list of journalists held in Iran's prisons, covering 66 cases. A 67th named can be added: Na’imeh Doostdar of Jam-e-Jam and Hamshahri was arrested on 6 February.

One piece of good news: writer Alireza Saghafi was released yesterday.

0925 GMT: Rah-e-Sabz reports that there is still no number of those detained on 22 Bahman. Some detainees have been allowed to have short phone calls with families.

0910 GMT: Who is the Foe? That is the question asked by Ebrahim Nabavi, who argues that the true opposition to the Green movement is not Ahmadinejad, the Supreme Leader, the Revolutionary Guard, the Basiji, the plainclothes men, Western imperialism, or British-directed mullahs. The enemies are ignorance, poverty, tyranny, and injustice are the Green's real foes.

Nabavi refers to Mohsen Rouholamini, who died at Kahrizak Prison last summer, in predicting that there are many more like him within the regime who long for freedom. He emphasises that the Green movement wants freedom for the soldier who opposes it as well as for people who are forced to comply with the regime for financial reasons.

0905 GMT: The German-based Akhbar-e-Rooz has taken aim at the Green Movement. Two articles are notable: an opinion piece takes aim at the Green website Rah-e-Sabz for attacking those "who did not vote for Mousavi". This follows an editorial complaining about the Green movement's indifference to trade unions, including the failure to challenge the transfer of the labour activist Mansur Osanloo to solitary confinement.

(Apologies that, in processing information this morning, I confused this with the latest from Khabar Online, mistakenly attributing the attack on the Greens to the pro-Larijani website.)

0900 GMT: The Spirit of 22 Bahman. The reformist Association of Combatant Clergy has issued a statement thanking Greens for their involvement in last Thursday's rallies and condemning Iranian authorities for "hijacking" their efforts.

0850 GMT: Well, This Will Break the Silence. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pronounced this morning in a speech to students in Qatar, "Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship. That is our view."

Really? No President with authority? No Supreme Leader? I suspect Clinton may have put this line not only as part of the tactic of united Arab countries against the Iran "threat" but to justify the sanctions against the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps. Still (and I haven't seen the context of the full speech, only the reports), the declaration seems a bit simplistic, even for public spin.

0720 GMT: A slowish day on the political front, as Iran moves towards the end of its holidays for the anniversary of the Revolution. The only ripple is Iranian state media's promotion of President Ahmadinejad's declaration, in an interview with a Russian magazine:

Iran can defend itself without nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are of no use anymore and have no place in current international equations. Could the Soviet Union's stockpile of nuclear weapons prevent its collapse? Have they been of any assistance to the US military in its wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? Atomic bombs couldn't secure a victory for the Zionist regime in the Lebanon and Gaza wars.

The statement might be read in the context of an Ahmadinejad reassurance to the "West" that Iran will not pursue a military nuclear programme and thus as a signal that he wants to maintain discussions on uranium enrichment.

In the meantime, however, we are focusing on human rights this morning with two reports: the Human Rights Watch findings on detentions, abuse, and torture and a study by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center of post-election suppression of dissent.