Shirin Ebadi, Berlin, Sept. 18, 2012. Thomas Trutschel/Photothek via Getty Images
July 21, 2013
After Iran’s revolutionary regime
stripped Shirin Ebadi from her position as a judge in 1979—she had become one
of the country’s first women magistrates in 1969—it might have learned a
lesson: don’t mess with Iranian women. The move fed Ebadi’s determination to
battle injustice in the Islamic Republic. With tenacity and courage, she became
a founder of the country’s women’s rights and human rights movements. She took
on the most dangerous cases, representing political prisoners as well as the
families of intellectuals murdered by government death squads.
In 2003, Ebadi
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts for human rights and
democracy—the first Iranian and the first Muslim woman to receive the honor.
Her acceptance speech in Oslo underlined her embrace of humanity and clarity of
thought, qualities that have made her a unique moral voice. She decried global
poverty, and the deaths of millions from AIDS; she went on to rebuke the United
States for using terrorism as a pretext for war. And she warned, six years
before the Green Movement protests in Iran, that if nations fail to respect
human rights, “human beings will be left with no choice other than staging a
rebellion against tyranny and oppression.
For
thirty years, Ebadi’s office was a cramped basement lined with bookshelves
below her modest family apartment in Tehran. These days she mostly works on
planes and in hotel rooms as she moves around the world delivering talks and
attending conferences, defending human rights and raising Iran’s case wherever
she can. Death threats escalated after the regime crushed the democracy
demonstrations four years ago, forcing her into exile in London. Iranian
journalist Nazila Fathi interviewed Ebadi for the Cairo Review via Skype on June 23, 2013.
NAZILA
FATHI: How do you interpret the election
results?
SHIRIN
EBADI: First, I need
to explain that the elections were not free in a true sense, and so the
reformist faction was not able to nominate its real candidate because it knew
that he would not survive the vetting by the Guardian Council. Their ideal
candidate was [former president] Mohammad Khatami, but they knew that the
Guardian Council would not approve him. So then, they shifted to Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani, thinking that he could attract voters. Rafsanjani was the head of
the Expediency Council and no one imagined that the Guardian Council would bar
the head of the Expediency Council from running. Hassan Rowhani was not the
reformists’ first choice at all. But none of their candidates survived the
vetting and so the reformists were divided: those who favored supporting
Mohammad Reza Aref or Rowhani, because they were closer to the reformists’
position; and those who decided to boycott the election altogether. It was
toward the last days of the campaign that the reformists noticed that Rowhani
could win, if Aref pulled out of the race. Aref did withdraw, and so the
reformists threw their support behind Rowhani.
NAZILA
FATHI: What does Hassan Rowhani’s victory
mean?
SHIRIN
EBADI: People are
extremely happy because the regime did not rig the vote the way it had in the
past. People had expected Rowhani’s election, and so they see the honest
vote-count as a step forward. But I must say that it’s a bit early to judge and
say that Rowhani’s election is really going to be a step forward. We need to
wait.
NAZILA
FATHI: How do you interpret the turnout
and the high vote for Rowhani, considering the anti-regime uprising and the
repression four years ago?
SHIRIN
EBADI: The Iranian
people are very unhappy with their situation and want change. But don’t forget
that in the past thirty-four years, they have lived through a revolution and
eight years of war with Iraq. People are tired of violence and bloodshed. They
want to live peacefully and bring about peaceful change. That’s why they saw
the honest vote-count as a step forward and were thrilled. People are extremely
discontent, but they are aware that if they resorted to violence, the regime
would brutally confront them. Iranians don’t want to follow the Syrian model.
NAZILA
FATHI: Saeed Jalili was Supreme Leader
Ali Khamenei’s favorite candidate, yet he managed to garner only four million
votes. What does this say about Khamenei’s popularity?
SHIRIN
EBADI: According to
the Iranian constitution, Khamenei holds maximum power while the president
holds minimum power. It is natural that when people are discontented, they blame
the most powerful leader for their problems.
NAZILA
FATHI: What is your opinion of Hassan
Rowhani?
SHIRIN
EBADI: Well, it depends from which angle you want to look
at him. Rowhani made a comment that made headlines. He said, “It’s good for the
centrifuges to spin, but the economy must spin, too.” Some people
optimistically think that Rowhani will be the man who can end the standoff with
the West over Iran’s nuclear program. And perhaps by resolving that problem,
the sanctions would be lifted, and therefore, part of the pressure on people
would be eased. But I want to point out again that it is the leader, Khamenei,
who makes major policy decisions, and based on what we know so far, Khamenei
has not changed his position on nuclear policy. Therefore, Rowhani’s statements
are merely slogans. If he wants to change those policies, he needs to have
influence over Khamenei. Otherwise he cannot do anything. Let’s remember that
Khatami was a reformist president for eight years and during four years of that
time, he had a parliament dominated by reformists on his side. For four years,
the reformists had their grip on the two major branches of government, the
executive, and legislative, but they couldn’t implement any of their plans
because Khamenei blocked them.
NAZILA
FATHI: What do we know about Hassan
Rowhani’s relationship with Khamenei? Does he have influence over the leader?
SHIRIN
EBADI: Political
relationships and decision-makings are often carried out behind closed doors.
People don’t see anything, meaning they are strangers in the Islamic Republic
and don’t need to know those details. I have no idea what kind of relationship
the two men have.
NAZILA
FATHI: Will the human rights environment
improve under Hassan Rowhani’s presidency?
SHIRIN
EBADI: It’s too early
to say anything. But if he wants to improve human rights, Rowhani needs to
require everyone within the establishment to abide by the law. He must take a
step to secure the release of Mir-Hossein Moussavi, his wife Zahra Rahnavard,
and Mehdi Karroubi. None of them was ever put on trial or heard the charges
against themselves. It is not even clear who gave the orders to put them under
house arrest. And to keep them under their current conditions is clearly
illegal. The need for their release has nothing to do with the fact that they
were leaders of the Green Movement, but with the fact that keeping them under
arrest is illegal. If Rowhani can secure their release in the first week of his
presidency, that shows he is willing to use his authority as president to
improve human rights.
NAZILA
FATHI: What impact
did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency have on Iran?
SHIRIN
EBADI: Unfortunately,
his presidency over the past eight years has been destructive. His performance
in all areas was negative. He doesn’t earn a positive point on the economy,
foreign and domestic policy, or human rights.
NAZILA
FATHI: What’s your assessment of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad’s impact on foreign policy and the economy?
SHIRIN
EBADI: They are all
related. When foreign policy is bad, it isolates the country. When a country
becomes isolated, its trade with the outside world decreases. When trade
decreases, it directly undermines people’s daily economic lives. Tourists don’t
travel to a country that lacks security, which again undermines the economy.
Therefore all problems are linked and I cannot separate one from another.
NAZILA
FATHI: What is your personal opinion
about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
SHIRIN
EBADI: During his first term, he presented himself as a
man utterly obedient to the leader. But during his second term, after he felt
he had power, he began making statements that were different from his earlier
positions. Maybe he hoped that he could build a support base for himself among
the people. I believe he is an opportunist.
NAZILA
FATHI: What is the meaning of the 2009
uprising in Iran?
SHIRIN
EBADI: It has had a great impact on our history because the Green Movement is
and was a peaceful movement that shows people’s discontent towards the regime.
It was a massive movement that embraced people from different backgrounds. It
is not a party-based movement—it is network-based and grows horizontally. This
movement is still alive, and the best sign was the slogans that people were
chanting just last week. One of them was: “Moussavi, even though it was late, I
got your vote back.”
NAZILA
FATHI: How do you describe the political
situation in Iran today, considering that the 2009 uprising did not turn into a
force like the Arab spring?
SHIRIN
EBADI: Iranians are
extremely unhappy but are not willing to get caught in violence. In the
meantime, the regime is willing to resort to any measure to repress dissent.
Under such circumstances, people have no choice but to resist so that in the
long run, the regime gives in. This is a long-term process.
NAZILA
FATHI: How do you see the role of the
reformists? Can they survive?
SHIRIN
EBADI: This will
depend on the international situation and the sanctions. If Rowhani manages to
ease sanctions and release political prisoners, it will help reformers to solidify
their position.
NAZILA
FATHI: How is the human rights situation
in Iran today?
SHIRIN
EBADI: It is in its worst situation. Political prisoners cannot enjoy the
rights that other prisoners are given in prison. Their living conditions are
tough, meaning they don’t get enough food, their health is bad, and they
receive almost no medical care. Several prisoners have died in prison over the
past four years. The latest victim died this week, Afshin Osanloo, a labor
activist. He had served three-and-a-half years of his five-year jail term and
was supposed to be released in eighteen months. He had a heart attack in
prison. The government claimed that he passed away at the hospital where they
took him. But his sister said in an interview that he had died by the time they
dropped him at the hospital. He was only forty-two or forty-three, which
reveals the poor living conditions in prison. There were still signs of torture
on his body from the time of his arrest.
NAZILA
FATHI: How many political prisoners do
you think there are since 2009?
SHIRIN
EBADI: The government
never gives such numbers. What we learn is based on what prisoners’ families
tell reporters. The government tries hard to discourage them from speaking out.
It warns the families that speaking to media outlets outside the country is a
crime and that if they speak to reporters overseas, the authorities will arrest
them. There was a Kurdish activist named Shirin Alamkouhi, who was executed in
2010. Authorities detained her sister and mother for three months after they’d
killed Shirin because they had given interviews to the BBC Persian service.
NAZILA
FATHI: Why do you say the human rights
situation is worse?
SHIRIN
EBADI: The human rights situation has not
been good since the beginning of the 1979 revolution. That was why the United
Nations appointed a special human rights rapporteur to report on Iran’s human
rights violations. There was always a rapporteur for Iran until the election of
reformist president Mohammad Khatami in 1997. Khatami tried to improve Iran’s
standing in the international community as well as its human rights record.
However, the situation worsened after his presidency and so in 2011, the United
Nations appointed a new rapporteur, Ahmed Shaheed, who is a Muslim.
Unfortunately, Iran has refused to cooperate with him. The human rights
situation is very bad in Iran. Many have died. The situation for political
prisoners is worse than the situation for prisoners who have committed major
crimes.
NAZILA
FATHI: How do you assess the state of
women’s rights in Iran?
SHIRIN
EBADI: Fortunately, despite pressure, the women’s
movement is alive and active. Members of the movement get together regularly.
For example, they meet and visit families of political prisoners, gather for a
birthday event or other reasons. They are active, and the reason for that is
because this movement is a civil movement not a political one. Women will
pursue their demands no matter who comes to power. Women have become very
creative in terms of coming together and keeping their movement alive. For
example, if you recall, the regime executed over three thousand, and according
to some accounts, even a higher number of political prisoners, in 1989. Their
mothers have come together and established a group called Mothers of Laleh
Park. The hold a vigil in Laleh Park regularly and this reminds people of what happened.
NAZILA
FATHI: Your lawyer, Nasrin Soutoduh,
remains in prison. What are her prospects?
SHIRIN
EBADI: She is a
lawyer and my colleague. One of the charges against her was her cooperation
with me at the Center for Human Rights Defenders. She was sentenced to six
years in prison and has already served three years. She is innocent and has
committed no offense. She should be released, but unfortunately there is no
sign that she will be released.
NAZILA
FATHI: What role does the Internet play
in Iran today?
SHIRIN
EBADI: The Internet
plays a very positive role. In 1989, the regime secretly executed more than
3,000 political prisoners and because the Internet was not available, people
didn’t find out about the executions. But today, you see that the entire world
learns about the death of a prisoner like Afshin Osanloo in a matter of half an
hour. Without doubt, the flow of information helps improve the situation. If
people are unaware of realities, they cannot improve the situation.
NAZILA
FATHI: How do you view the impact of
international sanctions on the Iranian regime?
SHIRIN
EBADI: Iranian
authorities make their decisions behind closed doors. Perhaps the sanctions
have had indirect effects on decision makers; by that I mean by not rigging the
votes, the regime wanted to show the international community that the system is
democratic.
NAZILA
FATHI: Have the sanctions hurt the people
or the regime?
SHIRIN
EBADI: People have
suffered the most. They feel intimidated by them, but the sanctions have led to
a drop in the regime’s oil revenues too.
NAZILA
FATHI: Labor
movements in particular seem disturbed by the effects of sanctions. Will
workers influence the regime’s calculations?
SHIRIN
EBADI: I have a
different view. I believe when the sanctions pressure the regime, the regime
goes after its own people. The Islamic Republic is at its weakest position,
economically and politically, and it has lost its popular legitimacy.
Therefore, it is using extreme pressure against civil movements. The regime’s
oil revenue has dropped dramatically and the value of the country’s currency
has plunged by a third. And inflation is skyrocketing.
NAZILA
FATHI: What is your opinion about
sanctions?
SHIRIN
EBADI: I am against
economic sanctions and I am in favor of political sanctions. And by that I mean
measures that undermine the regime without hurting people. For example, the
Iranian regime is broadcasting programs in sixteen different languages via
satellite. It depends on Eutelsat, Asiasat, and Arabsat for beaming the
programs. Why not block access to these satellites and cripple its propaganda
arm? These kinds of sanctions do not hurt the people but hurt the regime. Or,
for example, Western countries can blacklist authorities who violate human
rights, ban them from getting visas to travel outside the country, and seize
their bank accounts overseas.
NAZILA
FATHI: What is your position on Iran’s
nuclear program?
SHIRIN EBADI:
It is all wrong. Many countries are shutting down their nuclear reactors for
safety reasons, while Iran insists on building its own in Bushehr. Iran’s
reactor is situated on fault lines and in fact, an earthquake shook Bushehr
just this week. People are very concerned that a nuclear disaster like the one
in Japan could repeat itself in Iran. In the meantime, Iran gets a lot of
sunshine but the regime has not invested even ten dollars in solar power
plants. Nuclear power plants are not safe for the environment. What do they
want to do with the nuclear waste? I believe that we need to suspend uranium
enrichment immediately—immediately—so that we can ease the sanctions.
NAZILA
FATHI: Is Iran developing a nuclear
weapon?
SHIRIN
EBADI: I cannot make
a comment because I have no information on that.
NAZILA
FATHI: How can the dispute between Iran
and the international community best be resolved?
SHIRIN
EBADI: Iran must stop
enriching uranium.
NAZILA
FATHI: What are your concerns about the
possibility of a foreign attack on Iran?
SHIRIN
EBADI: I don’t see
such a threat.
NAZILA
FATHI: Can Iran learn lessons from the
Arab democracy movements and change in the Arab world?
SHIRIN
EBADI: These
countries are very different from one another, but I hope that the Egyptians learn
a lesson from the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Within four months after the victory
of the revolution, before we had a parliament, a constitution, or a president,
the Council of the Islamic Revolution voted that an Iranian man could marry up
to four wives. That was the day that the regime laid the cornerstone for one
discriminatory law against women after another. Because Khomeini was a
charismatic character, Iranians did not oppose these laws. And so women began
losing their rights and this became a trend to oppress other social groups as
well. I hope the Egyptians and the Tunisians remember this and do not allow
this to happen to their women.
NAZILA
FATHI: How do you view the role that Iran
has played with the Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria?
SHIRIN
EBADI: I am very sorry that by sending
financial aid, weapons, and even fighters, the regime is helping Assad to kill
civilians. Iran has to end its interference in Syria as soon as possible. It is
the Syrians who should decide the fate of their country, not foreign states.
NAZILA
FATHI: What is the focus of your work
today?
SHIRIN
EBADI: I left Iran in
2009. Many of my colleagues are still in prison. It is impossible to do any
kind of human rights activity inside the country. That is why I live outside
Iran. I travel around the world because I see myself as the spokesperson of my
people. Because of censorship in Iran, the world cannot hear the voice of the
people. It is the duty of Iranians outside to echo the voices of those inside
Iran. I publish human rights reports every month in English and Persian and
send them to international institutions. If you want to know where I live, I
must say that I spend most of my time in airports and on planes. I have an
office in London to organize my activities. In 2010 I founded a
non-governmental organization called Center for Supporters of Human Rights. We
hold various events, including seminars on women’s rights. We have an event
during which we examine the impact of the women’s movement on Iran’s democratic
movement. This project has attracted universities and they are co-sponsoring
seminars on the subject.
NAZILA
FATHI: What kind of pressure do you
receive from the regime?
SHIRIN
EBADI: Authorities
went after my sister and my husband after they realized they could no longer
arrest me. They arrested both of them. They tortured my husband to a point that
he agreed to make false confessions against himself and me. They videotaped his
confessions and broadcast it nationally for two consecutive nights. My sister
came down with heart disease because of both mental and physical pressure in
prison. Fortunately, both of them have been released, but the authorities
constantly send me death threats through them. The regime seized all my assets
and properties and put them on sale. With my Nobel Prize financial award I had
bought an office for the Center for Defenders of Human Rights. They sold the
office and took the money.
NAZILA
FATHI: Tell us about your exile.
SHIRIN
EBADI:I had made a commitment to speak at
an event in Madrid months before the date for the [2009] election was
announced. Therefore, I left Iran a day before the election with only a
carry-on bag. I was flying KLM and had two stops before getting to my final
destination, so I thought it was wiser if I travelled light. By the time the
conference was over, Iran was no longer the country that I had left. Several of
my colleagues were arrested and my family back in Tehran urged me not to
return. My daughter was an intern in the Hague at that time. Instead of going
to Iran, I showed up at her apartment. Since then, I consider myself a
spokesperson for the Iranian people. A court sent a letter to my home in Tehran
and summoned me. I have decided not to return as long as I cannot do human
rights work inside the country.