UN General Assembly 3rd Committee strongly condemns Iran on gross human rights violations

The United Nations General Assembly’s Third Committee strongly condemned the clerical dictatorship ruling Iran over executions, torture of prisoners and human rights violations, the UN Website reported.
The Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran in his speech in the Third Committee called on Iran to release all political prisoners and executions to be halted.
Furthermore, representatives of various countries across the world including the European Union, United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, Czech Republic and Brazil condemned Iran for its crimes and called for a still in the executions.
UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran Ahmad Shaheed’s 23-page report to the UN General Assembly states that political prisoners continue to be deprived of medical services which have led to the death of at least two prisoners including Mansour Radpoor in Gohardasht Prison, west of Tehran. These reports also indicated the deteriorating health of political prisoners that are faced with poor hygiene conditions, deprived of adequate food and very rare access to their family members.
It is worth noting that PMOI member Mansour Radpoor passed away in May of this year in Gohardasht Prison after enduring 5 years in jail in the mullahs’ dungeons while enduring inhuman pressures imposed by the regime’s henchmen, interrogators and torturers. He bravely stood for the freedom of the Iranian people.
Following the Special Rapporteur’s speech, representatives of various countries in their speeches condemned human rights violations in Iran under the mullahs’ dictatorship. They called on the Special Rapporteur for measures to impel the regime to abide by its international obligations.
The US representative said repression in Iran is far worse than dreadful. Torture and execution of political prisoners are examples of violating international covenants of political and civil rights. Many in Iran are sentenced to death without undergoing any judicial procedure merely for attempting to practice their right of freedom.
The European Union delegation said it is deeply concerned over the human rights situation in Iran because all five global conventions on human rights are being violated by Iran. It is necessary, they added, for the trend of executions in Iran to be taken into special consideration.
Condemning human rights violations and executions in Iran, the UK representative called the Special Rapporteur for urgent action in this regard.
The Canadian representative condemned torture and other cruel punishments enforced by the Iranian regime, saying it is deeply concerned over the human rights situation in Iran. The Canadian envoy expressed worries over depriving rights, including freedom of speech and assembly and restrictions against women in Iran.
Also, the Norwegian representative expressed concerns over the widespread human rights violations and demanded the release of political prisoners.
Representatives of various countries including Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Brazil called for international action to stop executions in Iran.
Iran’s representative in this session had an outburst response in this session to the wave of condemnations from the Special Rapporteur and various countries.
Why aren’t human rights violations in Canada, the European Union and US taken into consideration, the mullahs’ representative complained.
It is worth noting that in contrast to previous sessions where the regime’s allies, consisting of various governments who themselves have records of human rights violations, rose in defense of the mullahs, in this year’s session only China – the world record holder in executions – supported Iran.It is Iran’s choice how to protect human rights, the Chinese government representative said in its infamous defense of the bloodthirsty mullahs ruling Iran. 

Home	About Us	Services	Terms of Use	Privacy Policy	Contact Us
Copyright © 2011 PressGlobe.blogspot.com , All rights reserved.

Commentary: Will Obama, Romney meet the Commander-in-Chief test?

Dr. Ivan Sascha Sheehan 
Special to McClatchy Newspapers

Kansascity.com, 22 Oct 2012 -Monday’s presidential debate is a chance for the candidates to meet the commander-in-chief threshold and address foreign policy matters before an expected audience of more than 60 million viewers in advance of the Nov. 6 election.
Middle East issues are likely to be of particular concern and immediate problems in Iran, Iraq, and Syria will take center stage. The temptation will be to address the challenges in each country separately. In fact they are inextricably intertwined.
The nuclear threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran leads some to think that it will be the most difficult to solve. It may be the easiest. And solving the Iran problem has significant implications for peace and stability in Iraq, Syria, and the Middle East more broadly.
Tehran’s clerical rulers are increasingly on shaky ground with an angry and restless population. With their currency in free-fall and a domestic economy hampered by international sanctions imposed to curtail uranium enrichment to weapons grade levels, many inside the country are asking whether there isn’t a better way.
The realization that there is a viable political alternative in the Iranian opposition has only increased calls for democratic change.
But as Iran’s internal woes have heightened, the regime has dug in by closing ranks with Shiite officials in Baghdad and expanding their violent arc of influence to include Damascus.
Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki maintains a strong grip on his fledgling country but the emerging realization that he is a puppet of the Iranian regime has diminished his stature on the world stage and led to criticism of his continued leadership by U.S. lawmakers.
Positive relations with Tehran have also made al-Assad’s twenty-month crackdown of domestic protest in Syria possible. Iranian shipments of weapons, munitions, IRGC officers, and tools for monitoring domestic dissent have facilitated Assad’s brutality, led to the displacement of more than one hundred thousand people, and resulted in more than thirty thousand causalities.
Increasingly aggressive denunciations of the U.S. and Israel have also become a means of distracting attention from Tehran’s mounting domestic woes.
The candidates can demonstrate facility with contemporary Middle East issues by indicating that their administration will support regime change in Iran. Such change is the only viable means of addressing problems in Iran, Iraq, and Syria in a sustainable way and realizing U.S. and Israeli security interests.
The recent removal of the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) from the State Department’s terror roster was a preliminary acknowledgement that Iran’s aggression must be checked.
The group is an integral component of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a coalition of opposition organizations that reject clerical rule and stand for democratic change. No coalition is more capable of exacerbating Tehran’s current troubles and promoting grassroots change from within.
The de-listing of the groups signaled the world that the Clinton-era policy of political engagement designed to appease the regime through concessions had come to end and that all options would be considered to manage the Iran threat.
On the heels of this diplomatic shift, however, more must be done to support the democratic cause in Iran and harness the opposition’s current momentum in support of U.S. security objectives.
Here’s what the candidates need to know about the Iranian opposition group:
• PMOI/MEK’s removal from the State Department’s foreign terrorist organization list was an acknowledgement that the group failed to meet the statutory criteria necessary for the designation. It was also an illustration of the bi-partisan consensus that the group’s resistance represented a useful internal check on the regime’s regional influence and the best hopes for a more peaceful and stable Iran.
• No opposition organization stokes the regime’s fears more than PMOI/MEK and U.S. support for the group does little to disabuse Tehran’s anxieties. In this regard, the U.S. embrace of the group provides a source of leverage to force the regime to comply with international obligations.
• Academics that have studied the group have long known that, vis-à-vis other opposition movements in the Middle East, including those that have received recent U.S. support, no group is more capable engendering broad worldwide confidence than PMOI/MEK. Neither does any other opposition group have such a vast and intricate network inside Iran.
• The group has been a valuable source of intelligence on Iran’s emerging nuclear weapons program and their new-found legitimacy is likely to reveal even more information that is useful to the west.
• A 2006 study carried out by the Iran Policy Committee found that the group’s positions were consistent with democratic principles. That the group stands for a non-nuclear Iran that upholds human rights, gender equality, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and positive relations with regional neighbors and the west provides further justification for the group’s embrace.
The candidates can meet Monday’s commander-in-chief test by demonstrating that they are committed to preventing Iran’s nuclear pursuits by further weakening the regime internally and rejecting the false choice of military confrontation or prolonged political engagement with Iran.
By calling for regime change in Tehran from within and linking broader security issues in the Middle East with the Islamic Republic’s current regime, the candidates can demonstrate leadership, a belief in peace through strength, and a willingness to support those who seek freedom and human rights.

About the writer:
Dr. Ivan Sascha Sheehan is the Director of the Negotiation and Conflict Management graduate program in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore. The opinions expressed are his own. He can be reached by email at isheehan@ubalt.edu. <mailto:isheehan@ubalt.edu>