Moral Backing Is What Iranians Need

By Claudia Schwartz
This commentary was published in The Daily Star on 05/04/2011

The adage that “dictatorships only seem strong until the moment they collapse” was perfectly illustrated by the ousting of two Arab strongmen. Tunisian President Zine al-Abedin Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak were overthrown after just 28 and 18 days of protests, respectively. For the people of Iran, who look at these successes with a combination of hope, envy and despondency, recent actions taken by the international community – not least passage of Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya and the naming of a U.N. human rights investigator for Iran – should serve as a morale booster.

Just as the demonstrations in Tunisia were triggered by the self-immolation of Mohammad Bouazizi, a frustrated vegetable seller, the fraudulent presidential election in June 2010 which returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to office was the trigger for the Iranian protests. Iranians had finally been galvanized to take a stand against 30 years of oppressive leadership under the ayatollahs.

The Islamic Republic’s brutal crackdown on the peaceful protests, coupled with the West’s strategic and moral inaction, gave Iranians no choice but to leave the streets and return to the misery of the status quo, their hopes shattered. According to the Human Rights House of Iran, the regime has arrested more than 1,250 people over the past year for demonstrating or for their political views. But as popular revolts have swept across the Middle East, Iranians have been reinvigorated, participating in the largest demonstrations since summer 2009, albeit on a lesser scale than elsewhere in the region.

Iranians have gained inspiration from the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and protestors have been heard chanting “Mubarak, Ben Ali, by the new year Sayyed Ali!” referring to their own supreme leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, like the crises in Libya and other Arab countries, have allowed Iran to fade from people’s consciousness, and for the regime to escape scrutiny.

The successes in Tunisia and Egypt however should serve as a reminder to the regime in Tehran that regimes’ fervent defiance of popular demands is not sustainable. In the words of British Foreign Minister William Hague, “governments that use violence to stop democratic development will not earn themselves respite for ever,” and eventually “will find themselves on the wrong side of history.”

The events of last year in Iran and the current Arab Spring should be enough evidence to refute once and for all the belief that democracy is solely applicable to the West. The upheavals today did not emerge from a vacuum; they were not caused by a sudden change of heart among people “not ready for democracy.” They had been brewing for some time. Assigning the values of freedom to the West, and by default withholding them from the East, is Orientalism at its worst.

The “responsibility to protect” doctrine, which came out of the international community’s inability to put an end to genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, affirms that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility. The doctrine therefore endorses international intervention in the affairs of sovereign states if they are engaging in genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.

Earlier this month, Resolution 1973 was approved on the basis of a responsibility to protect. It authorized the international community to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from assault by the forces of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. By not intervening, the international community would have effectively stopped the Arab Spring from spreading to other countries. Resolution 1973 should serve as a warning to all dictatorships that they may face outside intervention if they commit atrocities.

This may serve to motivate Iranians still waiting to taste freedom. In the same may, they may also take heart from the appointment by the United Nations Human Rights Council of a human rights investigator for Iran. The council voiced concern with Iran’s crackdown against opposition figures and its increased implementation of the death penalty. Given the ineffectual nature of U.N. decisions, some might argue that this step shouldn’t be given much credence. However, for Iranian citizens who have faced increasing repression it sends a strong message of support, and should not be underestimated.

The American president, Barack Obama has shown marked reluctance to intervene in the affairs of other states. His initial and protracted unwillingness to intervene in Libya, for example, was caused in part by a fear that American involvement would sully the organic nature of the Arab Spring. But as the historian Niall Ferguson has reminded us, “very few revolutions, good or bad, succeed without some foreign assistance.” Given the need for intervention and the fact that Western powers are blamed whether they do or do not intervene, the inevitable criticism should at least be made consequential.

The Arab Spring is unlikely to morph into a Persian Summer given the significant differences between Iran and Tunisia and Egypt. However, we in the West should offer as much moral encouragement as possible to all those who desire and are working for freedom.

We should also remember that democracy, coupled with a respect for human rights and the rule of law, is a basic tenet of prosperity and the only way to bring about a secure and stable Middle East.

Claudia Schwartz Mendoza is a research analyst at the London-based Legatum Institute. She wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.