Then, Mousavi was prime minister, Khamenei was president and Rafsanjani commanded the Revolutionary Guards. They implemented a secret fatwa which ordered the mass murder of left-wingers in prisons nationwide.
The victims were mainly student protesters who had been arrested and sentenced for leafleting and demonstrating against Khamenei's revolutionary republic in the early 1980s. They sympathised with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, an armed Islamic group with Marxist leanings, or with communist and socialist organisations that did not believe in God and certainly not in the ayatollah's theocracy.
As the war with Iraq ended in 1988, the regime decided it was too dangerous to let these dissidents live, so its leaders plotted a "final solution". On July 28, a week after the ceasefire, the secret fatwa was issued, at first decreeing death for all who remained "steadfast" in their Mujahideen sympathies.
They were hauled from their cells and were paraded before a death committee - a religious judge, a prosecutor, and a man from the Intelligence Ministry - and hung from cranes, four at a time, or in groups of six from ropes hanging from the stage of the prison assembly hall. Their bodies were buried by night in mass graves, the locations of which are still withheld from their families. Between July 28 and August 13, several thousand Mujahideen-e-Khalq members were killed in this manner.
After a short break for a religious holiday, the death committee began to kill the left-wingers. All prisoners who were Marxists, communists and members of other political groups and had been born Muslim but who did not believe in the official version of Islam, were deemed apostate. If male, they were sent straight to the gallows after a brief trial with no notice or right of defence. Women were sentenced to torture (severe whipping five times a day) until they repented and prayed or died from the lash.
The second wave of killings also claimed several thousand victims and was accompanied by the same secrecy. Eventually, several months later, relatives were called to the prison and handed a plastic bag with their children's effects. By October many thousands of prisoners had been killed without trial, appeal or mercy.
When word of the mass murder began to leak out, Iran's diplomats and politicians began a cover-up. They pretended the victims were few and were planning to take over the prisons by violence. Mousavi played a particularly shameful part, urging "Western intellectuals" to see him as an Allende-like victim, who had acted in time against encircling enemies. His election meetings last year were interrupted by shouts to explain his role in 1988; he has never come clean about his part in this international crime.
Nor, of course, have the other perpetrators. Most notably the present Supreme Leader, Khamenei, who passed it off at the time with a brutal remark: "Do you think we should give them sweets?". Rafsanjani, still politically active, played an important part: he dispatched the Revolutionary Guards to carry out the slaughter.
The death committee members remain in senior positions in the judiciary and several are government ministers. They cannot hide behind a defence of ''superior orders'' - not even a fatwa can protect them from legal responsibility for an international crime. (I exclude the President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: although he was a Revolutionary Guard and one witness claims to identify him as a torturer, this has not been corroborated.) Khamenei, as head of state, has some immunity but, as Charles Taylor discovered, this does not fully protect sitting heads of state from indictment for international crimes.
For the past year, I have conducted an inquiry into the 1988 massacres for a Washington foundation and my report sets out the evidence justifying the international law indictment of a number of Iranian leaders. Those who conducted the prison massacres in 1988 are not only guilty of directing torture and murder but of implementing a plan to exterminate a group on the basis of its religious belief (the Mujahideen prisoners who believed in a different form of Islam) or, in the case of the Marxists, its non-belief.
That amounts to genocide and there is an international obligation on all nations under the Genocide Convention to bring them to book.
The men who implemented the fatwa did so knowing they were committing an international crime. They were well versed in the Geneva Conventions because they were always complaining about Saddam Hussein's breaches. By refusing to explain the fate or identify the burial places of the victims, Iran's present leaders perpetuate the crime.
The Security Council would be entitled to use its power to set up an ad hoc international court to indict the Supreme Leader and others in his government. This may be a better way to deal with a theocracy whose inability to punish, or even admit, the barbaric behaviour of 1988 provides the greatest reason for concern over its future access to nuclear weaponry.
Geoffrey Robertson, QC, is a London barrister. His report on the massacre of Iranian political prisoners is at www.doughtystreet.co.uk
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/iranians-involved-in-1988-massacres-remain-in-public-life-20100613-y5uo.html
Comments 18 comments
Aha, finally criticism from the left of a fundamentalist Muslim regime. Finally someone from a left wing human rights group prepared to stand up and criticise one of the worst examples of Islam in the world. Usually all we here from left wing human rights groups is how bad Israel is you know with its elected government, free press, and independent judiciary (a lot like here in the west) This is a good article. I wonder if anybody is going to call the author racist or threaten him with death as a result.
Dave C | Flinders NSW - June 14, 2010, 7:15AM
It's interesting. The first person to comment immediately attacks other posters for something that they haven't even done yet. Uh, Dave, you're the first person to comment, and as far as I can said nobody has called Robertson racist or threatened him with death (where did you come up with that?). Also, I love how you immediately came to Israel's defence (as if it needs your defence, of all people) when NOBODY has attacked it!
It's also interesting that this great, if idealistic, article has nothing to do with politics or the left/right divide, yet here we have a conservative focusing on its left-wing nature. A little obsessive aren't we Dave? Pathetic.
Oh, and Iran is NOT one 'ne of the worst examples of Islam in the world' as it is an extremist interpretation of Islam. There is a difference. Although the massacre referred to actually has very little to do with Islam, or religion, and is mostly to do with power. But, hey, let's not let small details get in the way of your obsession.
Dan - June 14, 2010, 7:49AM
Atrocities such as these have very little if anything to do with religion. The perpetrators could have any religion, or no religion, but their true adherance is to temporal power. Getting it, wielding it, keeping it, at the cost of anyone's life save their own.
In fact it sounds remarkably similar to the way Pinochet tortured and massacred left-wing opposition, real or imagined. So for the buffoons who take these events in Iran as some kind of universal indictment of Islam, I'll tell you what: feel free to make that claim, as long as I'm free to claim that the Pinochet regime's bloodbath is directly linked to its atavistic Roman Catholicism. Deal?
Redsaunas - June 14, 2010, 8:55AM
Dan, lets see " love how you immediately came to Israel's defence (as if it needs your defence, of all people) when NOBODY has attacked it!" Me of all people is that a personal attack I see hmmmmm. Do I "of all people" have no right to defend Israel. Maybe I am wrong but it seems your denigrating my right to an opinion but as I said maybe I am wrong. Nobody is attacking Israel hey? well not on this blog topic but did you see the protest rally last week attacking Israel and the usual anti american left wingers come out. Paul Sheehans article last monday summed it up well. This is a left wing/right wing debate as those on the left always attack Israel (hence the rally last week) and never focus on Muslim countries like Iran. Up until this article of course and well done to the author again. As for Redsaunas did Pinochet harbor international terrorists like the Taliban, did Pinochet claim that a Jewish nation such as Israel be "wiped" of the map. Name me one public speech by Pinochet where he used religion to justify his murderous regime. In fact name me a catholic leader in the last 40 years who has advocated violence against another country or a "holy war" of catholics against non catholics. Show me catholics dancing in the street when a terrorist acts occurs against a non catholic nation.
Finally if Iran and The Taliban are not true representations of Islam and terrorist acts such as Sept 11th, Bali twice, Madrid, London Mumbai etc are not representative of Islam then WTF is the rest of the Muslim world doing about these "extremist interpretation of Islam". ???
Dave C | Flinders NSW - June 14, 2010, 10:25AM
Good point Redsaunas. All oppressive regimes survive by finding internal enemies to focus their peoples fear and hatred. Its certainly not unique to Islamic regimes. Dictatorships from across the spectrum of politics and religion throughout history have done this.
I'm glad Geoffrey is still bringing attention to those who commit such crimes against humanity. I'd comment on Dave C's bizarre response, but Dan has done a fine job of that already.
bikegeek | terrigal - June 14, 2010, 11:00AM
Lets try and stay on topic next time eh, Dave C?
You are spouting arguments that belong on other articles and haven't once mentioned the article at hand's discussion of internal Iranian politics.
Drew | Surry Hills - June 14, 2010, 10:57AM
This is obviously a serious act of crime but the named perpertrators, but the problem is, what are we going to do about it? Let's say the Security Council really does indict the Supreme Leader. What then? Are they just going to rock up to Iran and ask: "Can we please arrest Khamenei without any sort of resistance by the government and/or the army which will result in hundreds of civilian deaths?" Of course not. Let's face it, we all knew this stuff had happened; the real issue is what to do about it. And Geoffrey Robertson's suggestion is not the way.
Wufeng | Canberra - June 14, 2010, 11:55AM
@Wufeng | Canberra - June 14, 2010, 11:55AM.
"We all knew this stuff had happened." I for one didn't know about all this horrendous "stuff", and if publicity and international courts are not the way to expose a clique of tyrants who only thrive via secrecy and the rewriting of history, then what would you suggest? Nuking the whole country?
pattythepleb - June 14, 2010, 12:32PM
Iran first, then the USA then Israel. Send a harsh message to world leaders that slaughtering innocent civilians will be punishable whatever retoric you choose as an excuse. Although the world has a giant "get out of jail free card" now - they were terrorists.
smilingjack - June 14, 2010, 2:03PM
Many thanks to Geoffrey Robertson for his excellent article. I knew Mousavi had blood on his hands, but I wasn't aware of the details. The Islamic Republic is vicious, bloodthirsty and reactionary - and Mousavi's differences are merely tactical.
The issue at hand, however, it what to do. And, while Khamenei, Rafsanjani & Mousavi could, in theory, be dragged to an ad hoc UN court, I confidently predict that nobody will ever be indicted there, or in the ICC, for a massacre of Leftists.
Justice for the victims of the Iranian political genocide will be achieved when the theocratic regime is over-thrown. A key reason the movement against the stolen election last year was defeated is precisely that Mousavi is so committed to the theocratic system.
The young radicals on the receiving end of the Basij's thuggery have not yet built a movement large and strong enough to come out from under Mousavi's wing. But they will.
And they will do it without "help" from the United States.
Greg Platt | Brunswick - June 14, 2010, 2:45PM
|
