June 21, 2008

Shirin Ebadi advocates sanctions against Iran

Shirin Ebadi tells the 'progressive' Nation magazine:

The only sort of sanctions she is willing to support are direct, political sanctions that target Iran's leaders, from those involved in the Iranian nuclear program to the country's highest officials. Such sanctions, she suggests, could restrict these officials' travel abroad and could order the seizure of privately held assets. In addition, Ebadi believes, the world's countries could collectively shun the Iranian state. "What I mean is that all the countries of the world should reduce or lower the level of their political relations with Iran, so that they convince Iran to improve the situation of human rights. This was you can isolate the government of Iran without really damaging the people," she says.

But the best course is one of dialogue. "The political sanctions should be used as a last resort," she says. "Dialogue has to take place at three levels: at the level of people and civil society, among members of parliament of both countries, and by heads of government of both countries. And negotiations have to be direct and public."

After all, she has to give them at least something back for all the financial and political support she has recovered in the past few years. This also includes her utter silence about the savage treatment the people of Gaza are getting from Israel.

Posted by hoder at June 21, 2008 4:06 PM| TrackBack

Comments
What's wrong with making life harder for members of an oppressive regime (and not the people)? Sound like a good idea to me. Hoder, only someone who has close ties with the regime or is out of his mind would interpret this the way you are doing. ---------- • Hoder: Where do you draw the line between what you call people and the regime in a representative and diverse political system like Iran?
- By: Ryan on June 25, 2008
---------
I haven't read your blog in a while, but I remember your 2006 visit to Israel and your statement that it's important to "counter both countries' nasty and demonising propaganda against each other." I agreed at the time and agree now. The worst thing that could happen is an israeli attack on Iran or vice versa, and I have strong distaste for the saber rattling by Israel as well as Ahmedinejad's rhetorical flourishes. It seems that in the interim you have changed your mind, though. You always impressed me as a thoughtful person so may I ask why? This is not a rhetorical question or a trap - I'd simply like to know. ------------ • Hoder: I haven't changed much politically. I have always supported the legitimacy of the Iranian state and its government. But now saying anything positive about Ahmadinejad has become a taboo, where as during Khatami, many had very nice things to say about him. Now I'm being demonised because of my support for this humble man who is doing what Khatami promised to do and delivered none. But I admit the philosophical grounding for my thinking has changed in the past year or so. But this is long discussion. I can just say I am much influenced by the works of Foucault, Butler, Laclau and of course Said.
- By: azazel on June 22, 2008
---------
I wonder if MS. Ebadi talked about "human rights" in the past regime, when she became the first female judge in Iran. O, I see. Iran was 'golestaan' (rose garden) back then!!!
- By: Suri Dalir on June 22, 2008
---------
Post a comment
bold (ctrl-shft-B)italics (ctrl-shft-T)link (ctrl-shft-A)
Name*:   
Email*:
URL:


Note:
* Required
The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments: <a> <b> <i>. To make line and paragraph breaks, press return (don't use <br> or <p>).
The bold, italics, and link buttons (and associated shortcut keys) only work in IE 5+ on the PC.