Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 28 October 2004 - Strasbourg

12. Iran

  President. The next item is the debate on the following six motions for resolutions presented by:

- Véronique De Keyser and Pasqualina Napoletano, on behalf of the PSE Group, on Iran (B6-0107/2004);

- Cecilia Malmström, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on Iran (B6-0113/2004);

- Angelika Beer, Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, Véronique De Keyser, Hélène Flautre, Monica Frassoni and Joost Lagendijk, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group, on breaches of human rights in Iran (B6-0116/2004);

- Michael Gahler and Bernd Posselt, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, on Iran (B6-0118/2004);

- André Brie, Giusto Catania, Umberto Guidoni, Tobias Pflüger and Eva-Britt Svensson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group, on the situation in Iran (B6-0121/2004);

- Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the UEN Group, on Iran (B6 0124/2004).

  De Keyser (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, the health of a nation is measured using various different indicators: the rights of women, the freedom of expression of its press, the democratic nature of its political institutions and the strength of its civil society.

We in Europe regard Iran as a great country. Its deeply rooted culture – and I would even go so far as to say at times its genius – is reflected in its art, its literature and in the strident voice of its civil society. It is a great country that Europe respects.

Today, on the basis of these indicators, Iran is in poor health. A year ago, a few of us visited Iran and hoped, at election time, that the reformers that had been struck off the list of candidates would be reinstated. We were cruelly disappointed. Today, many of us hope that the women of Iran will regain the freedom to wear what they want, the freedom to laugh, the freedom to listen to music and the freedom to hold an opinion and, for example, to hold office as judges. But this is almost a detail.

Today we are concerned – and this urgent motion for a resolution proves it – for three reasons. Today, minors are being sentenced to death in Iran and one, Ateqeh Rajabi, aged 16, has been hanged. Freedom of expression of the press or on the Internet no longer exists. The motion includes the names of journalists who have been arrested, among them Omid Memarian, whom I had personally invited to visit the European Parliament in November. Stonings continue to take place despite the moratorium on stoning which I am still waiting to evolve into real legislation, and the dialogue between the European Union and Iran on human rights has not yet advanced beyond words.

Out of respect for this great country, I would like this situation to change. For the last two days, since tabling this motion, I have been inundated with letters from the Iranian Embassy saying, ‘No, your sources are not reliable, none of this is happening’. Iran should prove that, ‘none of this is happening’ and thus remain a partner which, in terms of both human rights and politics, we in the European Union can continue to value.

  Malmström (ALDE). (SV) Mr President, worrying reports are again coming out of Iran, in this case concerning a 16 year-old girl who has been publicly hanged for ‘acts incompatible with chastity’. Iran leads the international rogues’ gallery when it comes to executions. They are leaders with little to recommend them. This House always condemns executions, wherever they take place. We shall continue to do so, especially where minors are concerned. Execution is completely unacceptable and contravenes all the international conventions.

The Iranian Government has recently intensified its hounding of journalists and dissidents. Quite a few journalists have disappeared or have been imprisoned, tortured and killed. We must vigorously condemn this development and demand that those who are still alive be released, or that their families be informed.

The so-called human rights dialogue that we have been conducting with Iran for quite a few years has failed, and we must recognise the fact. It must either be concluded or be considerably redefined. Has it produced any results? No, we cannot point to any progress. We owe the Iranian people a strong EU commitment in Iran to democracy and human rights. If there is no progress in this area, it is, in the view of myself and of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, quite impossible to imagine any kind of association agreement with Iran.

  Beer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the human rights situation in Iran for the first time since the recent elections to this House. This debate has been prompted by deep concern at the deterioration of the situation, a concern echoed by the Council in October.

It would appear that the increasing number of reports of death sentences being imposed is only the tip of the iceberg. Scarcely any opportunities remain for us to really monitor what is happening. Four months after the parliamentary elections in Iran, we are faced with a situation in which a deliberate clampdown is being implemented against the small freedoms won and the progress achieved over recent years, such as freedom of movement for women, journalists, pupils and students, and in which the Iranian parliament systematically rejects government bills seeking to improve the rule of law, such as those relating to gender equality.

In this context, I should like to stress that announcements of expected improvements – and we have received a great many letters from Iran’s Ambassador to Brussels too – are not enough on their own. It is true that all progress, no matter how small, towards improving the human rights situation for those affected and those in danger is to be welcomed, but, to be quite frank, I must say that I find it far from satisfactory for a government bill on the suspension of stonings merely to be announced.

We must fight to ensure that stonings are not merely suspended but actually outlawed. In my opinion, statements that the Iranian Parliament, the Majlis, has been presented with a bill on suspending the death sentence for juveniles do not go far enough. After all, this means that in general the death sentence will continue to be legitimate and legal, and that cannot be the position adopted by this House. In this case as well, therefore, we welcome progress, but as yet this progress hardly corresponds to our ideas of democracy and the rule of law.

This parliamentary term has seen the European Parliament, for the first time in its history, set up an interparliamentary delegation for relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Despite the deterioration in the human rights situation, or rather precisely because of it, we have set up and supported this delegation. We in this House seek to make use of the few instruments available to us to provide help and to build contacts with the Iranian parliament. The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has assumed the chairmanship of this delegation, and despite all the problems I look forward to the cooperation between this House and the Majlis. We must endeavour to move dialogue forward so that those who fight as democrats in Iran hear a strong voice of support from Europe.

  Gahler (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, during the previous parliamentary term I was rapporteur for Iran, a task which I tried to perform with a great deal of good will and also a certain amount of faith in the Iranian authorities. This was made easier by the fact that Iran had a reform-minded Parliament throughout that period, we were initially able to establish good contacts with it.

Over the years, however, there have been moves not only to deprive the public systematically of the small freedoms that have just been mentioned, but also to bring pressure to bear even on members of the parliament, especially those from the judiciary and from the conservative sections of the clergy. As a result of this, unfortunately, this year has seen an increase in the number of reports of death sentences being carried out, including those imposed on juveniles, such as the 16-year-old girl who was hanged in August. It is of course out of the question for us to accept such a state of affairs.

It is therefore right and proper that there should be at present no plans for a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. If we are to be able to make a contribution, our Delegation for relations with Iran needs to attempt to make contact not merely with the parliament, but also with civil society. It is important that we should show those in Iran who want change – and there are many of them – that we are not merely observing them, but that we are also attempting to build contacts, as by doing so we will give them the courage to try to improve conditions from the inside. I agree that we should not take interventionist action from the outside, but that we should instead strengthen the forces which exist within Iran itself, so that they can build their own democracy.

  Meijer (GUE/NGL). (NL) Mr President, today, this Parliament once again intends to express its indignation at what is happening in Iran – the sustained discrimination against women, the torture, the censorship, the imprisonment of people who are not punishable according to European standards, the executions and, in particular, the killing of children. Although the aggressive and ultra-conservative Iranian Government is supported by only a minority of the population, it has little reason to worry about Europe’s solidarity with the Iranian people. The justified condemnations from Europe are overtaken by a practice of a completely different nature. Last week, the French press office AFP reported that the EU’s three largest Member States have forged a mutually advantageous agreement with Iran. In exchange for a restriction on Iranian developments in the area of atomic energy and possibly nuclear weapons, the Iranian democratic opposition in exile would remain on the list of terrorist organisations. In no way do we have a problem with these exiles, but the Iranian regime does. Applying the designation of ‘terrorist’ to organisations should not be something to be bartered with. While the neighbouring countries Iraq and Afghanistan are handled extremely roughly, why is everyone acting as if this government in Iran has eternal life?

  La Russa (UEN). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that it is a good thing that the European Parliament should act to ensure that freedom and justice prevail, not only in Europe – since in our continent too there are some countries where even today, unfortunately, freedom is lacking – but also throughout the world. I think that this is one of our duties, one of our principal goals. Therefore, I consider it our duty to take a particular interest in those areas where there is the greatest risk of the most fundamental human rights not being respected. Iran is certainly one of these areas and we must therefore consider our commitment to this country to be an absolute priority.

I would like to add, however, that recent reports have on more than one occasion proved to be totally contradictory. This leaves us with a picture of the current situation without any definite certainties. I say ‘definite certainties’, because we certainly have some idea already.

In these last few days, the Iranian authorities have stated that the information in our documents does not correspond to the truth. On this point, naturally, I cannot be in total agreement, but it seems likely that a few inaccuracies have been included. I certainly do not believe that we should take what the Iranian authorities say as the gospel truth, as we know that in the past, and perhaps now too, this country has certainly not distinguished itself for its transparency and democracy.

I believe, however, although this is perhaps not complying precisely with the rules of this Chamber, that it would now be wise to propose a postponement of the vote on this resolution. We should delay voting to another part-session, obviously not very far in the future, when we have succeeded in obtaining rather more accurate data. I do not intend, moreover, to call into question everything said by the Iranian embassy. In fact, the Iranian embassy sent a letter to our President Mr Borrell yesterday – I have a copy of it – following up on correspondence with Mrs Svensson, in which it contests the content of our resolutions.

I had thought that it was still not clear whether the death penalty was still inflicted on minors in Iran. According to the Iranian authorities, though, it would seem that in the last two years all capital punishment of minors has been suspended. In view of this, therefore, I propose that the vote be postponed to a later date, and that meanwhile we listen again to the Iranian authorities in order to have a more precise picture and to be able to reflect on our vote more calmly and collectedly. In any case, if we proceed to a vote, the UEN Group will obviously vote in favour of this resolution, while I will abstain in the light of what I have just said.

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, the laws of history and geography are not easily set aside. Throughout history Iran, or Persia, has always been one of the most important countries in the global region in which it is situated. This will remain the case in future, and the country is of tremendous importance, particularly for Europe.

It is precisely for this reason, however, that we must push for human rights to be monitored closely, as long-term stability can only be achieved on the basis of human rights, not at the cost of such rights. I must therefore object most strongly to Mr La Russa’s proposal, as if this House were to postpone human rights resolutions every time it received a letter from an embassy, it would make no progress whatsoever with its work in this field. We will, of course, maintain dialogue with Iran; since Iranian diplomats already appear to be following our moves so closely, however, I can tell them right now, as part of this debate, that they should inform the judiciary, politicians and administration of their country that this House has frequently discussed human rights violations in the past. This was followed by regime change, with those who committed these violations of human rights and repressions bitterly regretting having chosen the wrong side.

For many years, we held intense debates criticising the Iron Curtain and the regime behind it, as well as denouncing human rights violations. Today many of those who suppressed human rights during this time would be glad to have not done so or to be able to undo their actions.

We must therefore continue to focus a spotlight on events, as the only protection we can offer victims of persecution is that we will hold debates on issues, that we will face facts, and that we will bring these facts to the public’s attention. We must, of course, take the utmost care in doing so, which is always difficult when too many names are mentioned. The massive scale on which human rights are violated in Iran and the suppression of the freedom of the press, as well as the continued inclusion of the death penalty in the Penal Code, and – although they are perhaps not carried out today – the legal status accorded to stonings and the failure to prohibit them, as rightly noted; these are facts, and from them we cannot turn away. I therefore recommend that this resolution be adopted.

  Casaca (PSE), on behalf of the group. – (PT) Mr President, I wish to add a point to the wise words just spoken by Mr Posselt and by the vast majority of those who spoke before, a point that I feel is extremely important. I refer to the overwhelmingly urgent need to remove the name of the ‘People’s Mujahedeen’ from the list of terrorist organisations. We finally have documentary proof, issued by Agence France Presse, that the term 'terrorist organisation' exists solely as a negotiating tool with Iran, as a bargaining chip with the Iranian authorities, that this has no basis in verifiable fact, that it is an affront to justice, that it is an affront to truth and that it is an affront to all those people involved in the struggle for peace and freedom in the noble country of Iran. This, then, is the appeal that I should like to make to the European institutions and to all of you, ladies and gentlemen: it is essential that the ‘People’s Mujahedeen’ be removed immediately from the list of terrorist organisations.

  Pafilis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the sovereign imperialist powers which either supported or encouraged extreme religious fanaticism to take hold in numerous countries bear a tremendous responsibility. I am replying to the last speaker but one from the other side. In August and September 1988, thousands of progressive patriots, communists, trade unionists and democrats, including 38 leading cadres of the Tudeh Party of Iran, were executed, brutally tortured or imprisoned. There was, of course, no such consideration for them at that time.

The situation is truly intolerable. We express our solidarity with the people of Iran. We believe that the people themselves must bring down this regime. We also support the request submitted to the UN by the families of the victims of the 1988 slaughter for information about the fate of their relatives who disappeared. Nonetheless, I would point out that we face a new Iraq-type plan announced by the United States of America, which named Iran as one of the countries of the axis of evil. This plan has been adopted by ΝΑΤΟ, integrated into the general 'Middle East' plan agreed at the ΝΑΤΟ summit in Istanbul last June and accepted by the European Union. These forces are endeavouring, using as a pretext human rights, which are indeed dishonoured in Iran, or the production of nuclear weapons by Iran, to secure the consent or tolerance of the people to the unleashing of new wars, not for human rights, but in order to control the region and its oil.

This time, we warn you, the people will not fall into the trap. All of you dreaming of a new Iraq will be sorely disappointed, because the whole of mankind will rise up.

  Pęk (IND/DEM).   (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is an important debate and one that is not only about the irrefutable fact that Iran is a fundamentalist state where human rights are frequently violated. This is also a debate in which it must be stated quite clearly that two things must never be forgotten if we are to bring progress to other countries outside the EU. Firstly, equal opportunities and equality before the law must be implemented in the EU itself, where much remains to be done, to put it mildly. Only then will we have the moral right to reprimand others. Secondly, as the doctor’s creed says, ‘first do no harm’.

It is not difficult to adopt a resolution, but it is difficult to dispute facts that are unacceptable in terms of the European system of values we claim as our own. It should not be forgotten that the European system of values and the system of values that exists in Iran – a system of values bound up with the country’s religion – are two quite disparate worlds. Any attempt at taking short cuts in rebuilding this system may lead to unrest, with a legitimate goal proving to be the cause of even greater tragedies for the Iranian people. I am sure the House is full of good intentions, but we will not be able to make genuine improvements to the lives of the Iranian people by issuing condemnations or imposing isolation of any kind. The only way to achieve progress is through gradual development, and any attempts to cut short this process cannot fail to result in tension and a further closing off of the country’s system and regime. Any real influence we have on events inside Iran is extremely limited.

Whilst on the subject of human rights, it is worth taking this opportunity to present the other side of the story, which has had an impact right here at the heart of Europe. The system of values upon which European civilisation was built, and upon which European and Latin cultures were built, is now being rejected by this very House. This is also a short cut. It means all the nations and all the Member States of the European Union are still being forced to accept models imposed by a minority as the only politically correct ones. This is another approach that cannot fail to result in tension if unnecessary short cuts are taken, and this tension may be one of the key reasons why the European Union is unable to create a genuinely firm foundation for the edifice you wish to construct. In conclusion, therefore, I should like to warn against condemning and admonishing others as long as we remain incapable of putting our own backyard in order.

  Czarnecki, Ryszard (NI).   (PL) Mr President, it is not only Iran’s domestic affairs we are talking about today. We are discussing a country that is finishing work on an atomic bomb and on devices able to launch such bombs at Israel and at American bases. This poses the threat of supraregional conflict.

What image do we have of Iran today? One made up of a whole variety of aspects, such as the sentencing to death of teenagers, as referred to by previous speakers, public executions and stonings. This is not a matter of a European system of values, Mr Pęk, it is a matter of indisputable human values. We hear of executions on a daily basis, as if we were reading reports of road accidents in Europe. The figures are as follows: 22 executions were carried out in October, and 120 over the course of six months. These figures hide human tragedies that statistics may not fully reveal, and the situation is deteriorating, as those who favour a tough line increasingly have the say in Iran.

We should not allow a debate on persecution to pass without reference to an issue which has not yet been raised before this House. To my great surprise, Mr Pęk did not mention it either. I have in mind the persecution of religious minorities and of Christians. For example, 80 Christians were arrested in Teheran on 11 September. It is a shame that this escaped Mr Pęk’s attention. The situation we are discussing is a kind of never-ending story that just goes on and on. This being the case, Mr Meijer is entirely right to say that the inclusion of certain bodies, for example the People’s Mujahideen, in the list of terrorist organisations would be a mistake, as these are the very people who are fighting against the regime. The European Parliament must bring pressure to bear on Iran, and I should like to praise those Members of this House who lead the way on this issue and monitor developments in the field.

  Lamy, Commission. (FR) Mr President, as you are no doubt aware, the General Affairs and External Relations Council recently adopted conclusions on human rights in Iran. These conclusions are unequivocal: despite the commitment made by the Iranian Government to reinforce human rights and to promote the rule of law, very little progress has been made. That is, moreover, the reason why the Union decided in principle in September to co-sponsor the resolution on the human rights situation in Iran that Canada intends to table at the United Nations General Assembly.

Nevertheless, we believe that it is crucial – and I am sure that most of the Members here today would agree – to continue our efforts to establish a constructive and long-term relationship between the European Union and Iran. Seen in this light, the dialogue with Iran is an important tool for encouraging the democratic process, and we are determined to pursue this dialogue, which was initiated in December 2002 to consider in particular human rights. It is a useful tool for making contacts, not only with influential representatives of the judiciary, but also with representatives of Iranian civil society. I should like furthermore to underline the visits that the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on human rights have made to Iran since this dialogue began.

I clearly heard Mrs De Keyser’s comment that this dialogue amounted only to words. I heard Mrs Malmström suggest that we should, as it were, draw it to a close. This is not our position, not because of the extent of the results achieved at this stage – such results can only be assessed in the long term – but rather because of an absence of viable alternatives. We have also entered into discussions with Iran on economic and trade issues and held a number of negotiating sessions in the hope of reaching a trade and cooperation agreement. Nevertheless, in the light of increasing concern, particularly about nuclear matters, these discussions have been suspended for some time. I think that answers Mr Gahler’s suggestion.

As you are aware, the issue of the development of the Iranian nuclear programme continues to be dealt with at international level. In parallel, the Union has given its blessing to the negotiations currently being conducted in Vienna by the United Kingdom, France and Germany on the idea of a nuclear package. The Council of Ministers is obviously better placed than we are to report on this, if required, and also to respond to Mr Casaca’s point on the MKO, since the list in question is drawn up on the initiative of the Member States by the Council itself and the Commission does not make proposals in this field.

I will finish, Mr President, by saying, on behalf of the Commission, that the Iranians are perfectly aware of the fact that all of the political, nuclear, trade and human rights issues that we have just debated are inextricably linked and that, broadly speaking, we are in favour of constructive engagement, but that on no account does this mean granting Iran a kind of carte blanche enabling it to act irresponsibly in the areas that are giving your Parliament, the Commission and, I am sure, the Council serious cause for concern.

  President. Yes, Mr Casaca, you had requested the floor. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, you may ask a question or make a comment, but you must be very brief.

  Casaca (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, let me make things clear. I had the opportunity of an audience with the Council on the subject of relations between the EU and Iran. I had the opportunity to hear with my own ears that the Council deemed this dialogue dead in the water. I am therefore extremely surprised to see the Commission, against all logic, wishing to revive something that is no more than a completely failed project and criticising those Members of this House who spoke very well on the subject.

  President. Thank you very much, Mr Casaca.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place after the debates.