NGOs Discover Iran's Human Rights Violations
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and International Federation of Human Rights in Paris (FIDH) have issued a number of statements on the Iranian government’s suppression of demonstrations and related issues following the June 12, 2009 presidential election.
- Amnesty: 19 publications (8 stories, 4 press releases, 7 urgent action appeals);
- HRW: 5 statements;
- FIDH: 3 press releases.
This represents a major increase in NGO activity and focus on Iran, illustrating the degree to which these “human rights” organizations respond to events, rather than setting their agendas on the basis of independent assessments.
Background: NGOs have generally neglected Iran in their activities and agendas
Despite the repression and denial of human rights by the Iranian regime, these issues have generally received relatively limited attention from the major global NGOs that claim to be active in these areas. For example, while HRW has a large and very active Middle East and North Africa division, until 2005, it devoted relatively few resources to Iran. Following NGO Monitor’s detailed study of HRW’s agenda and resource allocation in the Middle East, and the election of Ahmadinejad in 2005, focus on Iran increased. Still, allegations directed at Israel continued to receive more attention from HRW than Iran in 2006 and 2008. 
Similarly, as NGO Monitor research showed, between 2003 and 2006 FIDH issued twice as many statements and condemnations of Israel than was the case with Iran.
In contrast to HRW and FIDH, Amnesty placed somewhat greater emphasis on Iran in 2006, 2007, and 2008 through “Urgent Action” alerts sent to its members, reflecting Amnesty’s original mission of defending “prisoners of conscience” and “detainees.”
However, if these narrowly focused, low-impact “Urgent Action” items are removed, the coverage of Israel was more intense than Iran’s in 2006 and nearly identical in 2007 and 2008. In terms of in-depth reports, which have the greatest impact, and Wire articles, Amnesty paid less attention to Iran in 2007 and 2008, in comparison to Israel.
In addition, these NGOs have failed to report on antisemitism and incitement promoted by the Iranian regime, or Ahmedinejad’s violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. They have similarly remained silent on Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism in Iraq, its funding and logistical support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and its nuclear ambitions threatening all countries in the region.
Iran in 2009
In the first half of 2009, Amnesty, HRW, and FIDH devoted about the same limited attention as in previous years to oppression and the violation of human rights in Iran. Iran was not a high priority for HRW and FIDH, while Amnesty continued to focus on the country’s “curtailments of freedom of expression, arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment, unfair trials and a high recourse to the death penalty.” Amnesty was the only of the three to publish a statement in anticipation of the election, reflecting its distinct agenda on Iran.
- Amnesty condemned a wide variety of “human rights concerns” in Iran, including unfair trials, juvenile execution, imprisoned journalist Roxanna Saberi, the death penalty, women’s rights, and minority rights.
- HRW also commented on discrimination against Bahais, political prisoners, and flogging.
- FIDH focused on human rights defenders and incommunicado detention.
Following the 12 June 2009 elections, allegations of fraud, mass protests and the violent response, the interest by these NGO superpowers in Iran increased significantly.
- Amnesty statements called for “restraint” and for an end to “attacks on students,” detailed “abuses” by the Basij militia, and demanded that “the deaths of the demonstrators killed...be urgently investigated by an impartial body”
- HRW repeatedly called for the “immediate investigation [into] the deaths” of the protesters and “acts of violence by security forces.”
- FIDH protested “fraudulent confiscation of the election results”, called for new elections “in the presence of international observers”, and a UN special representative on Iran, to examine “recent events in order to establish the responsibilities for those dead and injured during the peaceful protests.”
Iran is one of the Middle East’s most repressive regimes, with a dismal human rights record, but international NGOs have generally paid less attention to Iran than Israel, reflecting their political agendas. The increased attention to Iranian human rights issues and repression, beginning in June 2009, is a positive first step towards correcting this imbalance. In order to restore their claims to leadership and universality in human rights, these NGOs will need to continue to focus sufficient resources on Iran.
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Timon Dias
"Arab leaders are a reflection of their people. Arab leaders don't come from Mars or the sun, they emerged from among the people and share the same beliefs... I challenge any Arab citizen who may become a ruler to do anything beyond what current Arab leaders are doing." — Anwar Malek, Algerian author.
If anyone was trying to commit "genocide" during the Gaza War, it was clearly Hamas.
What the protestors in the Netherlands also revealed is that a killed Palestinian is only worth demonstrating for when the blame can be pinned on Israel.
The normalization and common approval of slogans that actually call for the destruction of the entire Jewish State, Israel, contribute to an atmosphere of hatred, violence and anti-Semitism that now seems as acceptable as it is overt.
by Anne Bayefsky
Why couldn't the UN... sponsor a conference on combating global antisemitism?
In theory the UN Charter demands equality of... nations large and small. In reality the UN mass-produces inequality for Jews and the Jewish nation.
The UN has launched a "legal" pogrom against the Jewish state. A "legal" pogrom is a license to kill.
Modern antisemitism targets Israel's exercise of the right of self-defense because self-defense is the essence of sovereignty.
by Vijeta Uniyal
In Europe, displays of ferocity were clearly not a "spontaneous reaction" to the developing situation in Gaza. They were an opportune moment for many to act on their anti-Semitism by dressing it up as a supposedly "genuine concern" for human suffering.
In India, youth groups rallied to show their support for Israel, a fellow democracy under terrorist siege -- a pain known only too well by Indians, who have lost more than 30,000 of their countrymen to terrorism since 1994.
A majority if Indians, whose culture is not tainted by anti-Semitism, can see that Israel not only has the right to defend itself, but an obligation to protect its citizens from terrorism.
The media elites of Europe seem unable to see the threat posed to the West by radical Islamist ideology, which drives countless terrorist outfits, including IS, Hamas and al-Qaida. They also seem unable to distinguish their friends from their foes.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Many Arabs and Muslims identify with the terrorists' anti-Western objectives ideology; they are afraid of being dubbed traitors and U.S. agents for joining non-Muslims in a war that would result in the death of many Muslims, and they are afraid their people would rise up against them.
Many Arab and Muslim leaders view the Islamic State as a by-product of failed U.S. policies, especially the current U.S. Administration's weak-kneed support for Iraq's Nuri al-Maliki. Some of these leaders, such as Egypt's Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, consider the U.S. to be a major ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sisi and his regime will never forgive Obama for his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Also, they do not seem to have much confidence in the Obama Administration, which is perceived as weak and incompetent when it comes to combating Islamists.