"Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran": What About Human Rights?

Following the execution by hanging this past week of Ehsan Fattahian, a 26-year-old Iranian Kurd, have a look at the website of "Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran" ("CNAPI"): http://www.newiranpolicy.org/401.html. More specifically, note that there is not a single mention of Iranian human rights abuses on their home page.

Now go to their "Campaign Mission Statement":

Supporters of the Campaign for New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI) believe new U.S. diplomatic leadership is urgently required to resolve tensions between the U.S. and Iran.

A military confrontation with Iran would have enormous human and financial costs and would plunge the Middle East into further chaos. Just the threat of military conflict elevates oil prices and fosters global insecurity.

While serious concerns regarding the Government of Iran's statements and behavior persist, we believe America must pursue new, far-sighted and responsible policies towards Iran aimed at stabilizing the region and bolstering America’s safety, economic security and international standing.

CNAPI supporters believe sanctions cannot replace diplomacy as a means of resolving differences between nations. They also decry hostile official rhetoric which exacerbates tensions and reinforces misunderstandings and false animus between people in the United States and Iran.

Effective U.S. diplomacy with Iran, coupled with more open engagement between Iranian and American societies, could yield progress on all outstanding issues and foster mutually beneficial cooperation in efforts to stabilize Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other conflict zones.

Supporters of CNAPI call upon the governments of both the U.S. and Iran to honor international human rights obligations and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They believe mutual respect for human rights and civil liberties should be intrinsic to any negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.

Supporters of CNAPI believe sustained, direct, bilateral, and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the governments of the United States and Iran represent a realistic way to resolve long-standing conflicts that destabilize the Middle East and by extension, threaten the global economy.

We invite you to join us in our efforts.

http://www.newiranpolicy.org/452/473.html

This "Campaign Mission Statement" acknowledges that "serious concerns regarding the Government of Iran's statements and behavior persist", but is this all CNAPI has to say on the issue of human rights? Ehsan Fattahian was just one of hundreds of Kurds, Baha'is, homosexuals, "adulterers", and political dissidents who have been executed over the past year in Iran.

According to the "Campaign Mission Statement", "CNAPI supporters . . . decry hostile official rhetoric which exacerbates tensions and reinforces misunderstandings and false animus between people in the United States and Iran." Should the U.S. avoid explicitly censuring human rights outrages? There is every reason for the U.S. to express its abhorrence, and there is nothing false about this animus.

The "Campaign Mission Statement" also calls "upon the governments of both the U.S. and Iran to honor international human rights obligations and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Is it even conceivable to draw parallels between the U.S. and Iran regarding respect for human rights, as seemingly implied by the CNAPI mission statement?

CNAPI lists among its "experts" "who endorse the goals of the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran and provide the Campaign with invaluable analysis and advice":

- Flynt Leverett, who, together with Hillary Mann Leverett, wrote two op-eds for The New York Times in 2009, calling for rapprochement with Iran.

- Thomas Pickering, former U.S. Ambassador to Jordan, Nigeria, El Salvador, Israel, the United Nations, India and Russia.

- William H. Luers, former U.S. Ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Venezuela.

- Dr. James Walsh, described by the website as "a Research Associate in the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he is leading two series of dialogues on nuclear issues, including one with leading figures in Iran."

Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett's May 24, 2009 New York Times op-ed, "Have We Already Lost Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html), and September 28, 2009 op-ed, "How to Press the Advantage with Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/opinion/29leverett.html), do not discuss Iranian human rights violations.

Luers, Pickering and Walsh authored a March 20, 2008 article in The New York Review of Books entitled, "A Solution for the US–Iran Nuclear Standoff", which begins by stating:

"The recent National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, together with the significant drop in Iranian activity in Iraq, has created favorable conditions for the US to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112

"Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003"? "Favorable conditions to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program"? Sorry, but you don't have an inkling of what's happening here or why.

This article concludes by asking that the U.S. leadership:

"take the initiative and encourage Iran, a powerful nation of proud people and ancient culture, to become integrated into the world community."

I would argue that there can be no "integration of Iran into the world community" while it perpetuates a "culture" of persecution and the vilest imaginable forms of human rights abuse.