Mahmud Saeedzadeh is a senior specialist on the Middle East and a member of the policy making group at the Advar Tahkim Vahdat student alumni organization who spoke with Rooz on the execution of five activists last month. “The ruling circles imagine that by creating fear and threats they have succeeded in containing the leaders of the Green Movement in a limited dialog; that they have institutionalized the insiders and outsiders inside the movement,” he said. Here is the interview.
Rooz: How do you interpret the execution of Farzad Kamangar and other political prisoners in light of the current political conditions in Iran?
Mahmud Saeedzadeh (Saeedzadeh): I think one could look at this from a systemic perspective where the country or system has an inside parameter and an outside one. The system is impacted by both of these factors. From an international perspective, Iran is pursuing populist and ineffective policies while the most basic principles of international affairs are disregarded. Even diplomatic rules are not observed. Addressing a president in a press conference and then insulting the same person at a domestic forum, or raising theological and non-operational issues in specialized meetings is indicative of political suicide in the foreign policy apparatus of the country. We know that Iran’s nuclear issue is being discussed at the UN Security Council under the name of threat to international peace and security. At the same time, this issue is on the undisclosed agenda of the countries in the region. I think domestic measures are not independent from Iran’s foreign policy. I think Iran is trying to signal to international human rights groups that if the country is isolated, then the opposition in Iran will be dealt with even harsher.
Regarding the domestic situation, I present three perspectives. The first is the optimistic one which is that the Iranian judiciary is in the hands of regressive forces who through the use of government institutions are pushing back different sections of society. Optimistically, these regressive forces are unaware of the public outcry and dissatisfaction. In other words they do not have a trusted mechanism to learn of what is going on outside and therefore they do not get the proper feedback from their own policies and measures. This means they are operating on wrong assumptions. The second is that because of the overt and covert actions of the Iranian government and the conflict of these actions with the interests of the countries in the region, and those outside the region, and America’s successful tactics of presenting Iran as the war-monger a situation has emerged where a number of countries have decided to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran and have allocated substantial funds for this. Iranian officials themselves have repeatedly talked about discovering suitcases with money coming from outside Iran. While this is certainly a possibility, I think this money comes from the domestic security apparatus. No reasonable mind can accept this claim that foreign intelligence and spy agencies would take the risk of recruiting a common provincial teacher, Farzad Kamangar, someone who has no access to classified information and whose profile does not fit into a spy category. Had he not been executed, his name would not have come to prominence. I think this money had to be spent somewhere where this would produce results. For example, this dirty money could have been used to kill Shavane Ghaderi and then display her body around town and thus incite the emotional feelings of the locals, all aimed at creating chaos in Kurdistan. Do you think it could be used to execute Farzad Kamangar so that the Islamic republic would once again be presented to the world as a killer of a teacher?
Take a look and see how many senior security and military officials of Iran have defected and how many senior security authorities have had a hand in the medical deaths of individuals? It became finally clear that foreigners had succeeded in infiltrating the backyard of the security apparatus. The third perspective is that the most pessimistic one but one that can be real is that the regime has realized that it cannot fight the pro-democracy opposition with the methods that it has used so far and so is simply taking revenge on the public. This view assumes that the ruling circles have come to believe that they have contained the leaders of he movement to a limited dialogue inside their movement, meaning that they have recreating the institutionalization of the insiders vs. outsiders inside the movement. For example, they believe that the leaders of the movement would generally not very sensitive to the recent executions which would reduce its effectiveness during the first anniversary of the 2009 presidential elections in June.
If the leaders of the green opposition movement do not respond appropriately to these actions and the regime continues such actions as the opposition remains generally silent, then the territorial integrity of the country will be threatened and the groundwork for a civil war will be in place. This is because such measures will certainly have a negative impact on the main body of the movement.
The conflict of interest in the ethnic group vs. ethnic group or religious group vs. religious group, which has existed from the first days of the 1979 revolution, now includes the town vs. province, educated vs. uneducated dichotomies as well. This is also visible in the religious vs. non-religious groups, all of which are dangerous for a post-Islamic republic Iran. This is a similar situation to what happened in South Africa when talks for transition were underway. Between 1990 and 1993 some 3600 political activists were killed or Zulu thugs were incited by the government to attack citizens, resulting in the killing of 30 people with the support of the police in 1991. Had it not been for the moderating influence of Nelson Mandela, that kind of battle may have been going on till today. Unfortunately I must say that in the Islamic republic of Iran there is no comparable Mandela nor is there a higher agency that can guide these conflicts. Because of this, the leaders of the movement can now act as a strong break vis-à-vis these group conflicts and battles.
Rooz: So you believe that the execution of these individuals is against the national interest of the country?
Saeedzadeh: I was really shocked at the news of the execution of these individuals. I cannot speak from a legal perspective, but this act does not make any logical or political sense. You cannot execute someone on terrorist charges when the public at large does not share that sentiment and in fact views the person to be a pro-peace model.
I am shocked at the silence of the public institutions of the regime such as the Majlis. Qazi Mohammad, the founder of the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad was executed some 70 years ago. He was not the founder of the Republic of Kurdistan. But his execution elevated him to the status of leadership in the four neighboring countries. Abdol Rahman Ghasemloo, the leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran was assassinated while peace talks with the Iranian government were under way. Following that, Sadegh Sharafkandi was killed in Mikonos restaurant. Can one not see that the practical result of such actions has been the elevation of the problem from domestic talks to the international community, even breaking off relations between Iran and the EU for some time?
As specialists in this field, we have the right to ask what the results of such policies and measures are. In 1980, the Kurdish Democratic Party had only about 450 party cadres. It was so small that it could not even win the local Sanandaj town elections. Today, after all media, economic and military power has remained in the hands of the government for 30 years and the party has not had any open activities, the government should conduct its own survey to see whether the popularity of the party has increased or decreased. If it has not, then why are they repeating these failed policies? Tangible and objective results speak of the fact that despite all the acrobatics of the Islamic republic and its security managers in Kurdistan, political activism has penetrated the families and villages. Still, do not doubt that that the activities of this simple teacher Farzad Kamangar who shared the pains of other and desired freedom, could not have even covered the town of Kamyaran. This event will turn into yet another symbol to strengthen the identity of the Kurds. I can categorically say that if Mr. Janati, as the protector of the constitution of the Islamic republic and Farzad Kamangar’s mother, the supposed terrorist, became candidates for elections, the votes that each will get will be incomparable and people will choose the Farzad’s mother. From the very first day after the execution of Farzad, you can expect his mother’s house to turn into the place where people will expect justice and you can be certain that nobody can disassociate a person from the heart of people.
Rooz: What do you think will be the consequences of this act?
Saeedzadeh: Normally a judicial measure brings about a sense of justice, order and peace to society. The execution of Farzad Kamangar did not provide these. People view this act to be just the opposite of justice and the law. The people of Kamyaran and the representative of the leader in Kamyaran had requested the judiciary to free Farzad. Peace has not returned to society because Kamangar was never the agent for fear or disruption. ON the contrary, even the little relative peace that existed has gone and people feel insulted. The regime did not even try to satisfy the public and justify its action.
The non-return of the body of this individual is another story. Was Farzad a worse criminal than Saddam Hussein? Iraqi officials respectfully returned his body to his next of kin. In all faiths, cultures and even agreements on human rights a dead body is respected and stressed. I do not understand what kind of administration is this that decision-makers decide to execute a person but have no plans for his body. They are now contemplating whether to return or not return the corpse, which is a better place to return it, where is it cheaper to do it! Furthermore, all Kurdish towns have now been turned into security cordons. I do not understand the meaning of this act which contradicts all principles of religious and tradition and is contrary to international conventions but remains supported by the regime. The consequences will certainly be damaging to Kurdistan. Killing a person whom the public has a different opinion that the regime is in a sense a humiliation of the public who will not accept it.
Rooz: It appears that Kurdistan has not participated actively in the Green Movement. Do you agree with this assessment?
Saeedzadeh: I disagree with this. From a Kurdish perspective nothing unusual has taken place. The Green Movement is asking what happened to the vote of the people and is asking for it. The people of Kurdistan have been saying this and have been dealing with this issue for years. The Kurds are second class citizens, particularly if they are Sunnis. They absolutely lack the right to have a presidential candidate. So they view the demands of the movement to be superficial and narrow. Any act that does not call for the modification of the constitution translates into religious and ethnic discrimination. This regime is already 30 years old. Disregarding the provisions of the current constitution is still a normal and a routine event. Why must these laws not be modified? Women, who constitute half the population do not live in equality. Religious and ethnic minorities are asking for their rightful rights. These shortcomings are obvious in the constitution. Why do you think the Kurds should pay a price for the legitimacy that is provided to these discriminations? I think if the Kurds are not doing anything (along with the Green Movement), this should be a sign of concern because I think people here have become callous. If this insensitivity is not addressed there will certainly be unpleasant consequences which will push us towards conflict.
