We can (and should have, and must) defend human rights in Iran; without ripping up the UN Charter*

My thoughts are so very much with the people of Iran, who have endured staggeringly brutal human rights violations during 47 years of Islamic Republic rule. Will it ever be possible to count how many Iranians have been killed, while protesting in the streets, locked up in prisons, and sent out as sacrificial fodder on battlefields? And still, always, courageous Iranians have not relented and have protested and advocated for rights and justice, no matter the challenges, no matter how little they were supported, and no matter the harrowing personal cost. I have been humbled to admire, know and collaborate with many  remarkable Iranian human rights defenders who have taught and inspired me beyond words.

And thus, one of course wants nothing more than an end to nearly half a century of so much suffering, injustice and vicious cruelty.

But this?

The might of two of the world’s deadliest militaries – the United States and Israel – unleashed  in blatant, entirely indefensible breach of international law. And, predictably, unlawful retaliatory action by the Iranian military against countries throughout the region has followed.

No matter the circumstances, it is terrifying and inevitably lethal, when bombs rain down, wherever they land. And war spirals, in directions that were not expected or intended. Ever is it so. Those who always suffer most, are civilians. We have known that since, forever. Already the death toll grows, including 150 people reportedly killed in a missile strike against a girls’ elementary school in southern Iran.

What is the plan, for surely there is one when something of this terrifying magnitude is unleashed? Think again, for it has become apparent (surprisingly or not) that there is no particular plan, beyond more strikes today and tomorrow, and beyond assumptions that unquestionably superior and deadly US and Israeli firepower will lead to eventual capitulation by the Iranian regime, which will then smoothly open some sort of pathway to democracy. That seems to be the plan, despite the endless lessons from history that regime change wars never follow that playbook. Not even close. Think only of the staggering death tolls that are the legacy of years of mired conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that eventually led right back to where we started in the case of Afghanistan.

Which is why we have forged an international legal framework that prohibits the use of force by one state against another, except in very specific and limited circumstances which do not arise here. Because we know it is not the answer. Which is why we have forged an international human rights system which applies to all of us, universally (even as it is admittedly consistently undermined by states’ political, economic and other interests.)  Because we know that is the answer.

Looking back over these past 47 years of the world failing to take real action to address mounting human rights violations in Iran – through justice and accountability, through trade and economic measures, through genuine and sustained diplomatic pressure, through robust support for the Iranian people –  should shame us all.  

Much has been said and written about Donald Trump’s undisguised contempt for the international order. In Gaza (with global designs on the world at large), he has circumvented the UN by creating his own Board of Peace vanity project which supposedly is committed to undertaking “peace-building functions in accordance with international law.” Doesn’t seem he sought Board of Peace approval this time. It is a mockery and a facade. He clearly believes in a world of force, might, self-interest and empire; his own.

So where does Canada sit?  Prime Minister Carney has stated that “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” Not even a brief word of parallel recognition, let alone concern, about the fact that the US is “acting” in breach of international law. No consideration of what that means in other contexts, other conflicts, and other countries. No worries about further repercussions.

Having come clean, in his widely-praised World Economic Forum speech, about the fact that the commitment of states to the international rules-based order has been a disingenuous mirage over these past decades, is the Prime Minister now telling us that we can or even should completely turn our back on those rules?     

Surely we can do better than that.

Rather than expressing seemingly unqualified “support” for the United States (and, one assumes, Israel), this could be a powerful moment to demonstrate that the Prime Minister’s belief in the role that middle powers need to play in this time of global “rupture” (his word) is not empty rhetoric.  A moment to convene a genuine global effort to support Iranian human rights defenders and civil society, impose tighter sanctions against a corrupt and illegal regime, and pursue a meaningful justice and accountability agenda against those responsible for years of human rights crimes.

We can be fierce champions of democracy and human rights in Iran while, at the same time, firmly rejecting unilateral and unlawful military action by one state against another. Both are, after all, grounded in the same values and the same vision for humanity. Both take us in the same direction. 

*Photo credit, BBC.