Officials Do Not Fear Improper Meeting of ‘Seditionists’

Twenty Iranian lawmakers signed a petition demanding that the country’s intelligence chief explain the meeting that EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton had with two Iranian human rights activists at the Austrian ambassador’s residence in Tehran when she was in Tehran last week. The Majlis’s national security committee issued a statement and others also have asked for an explanation from the ministry of foreign affairs.

Ashton’s trip to Iran, the first in six years, ended on Monday but the waves it created continue to reverberate in Iran’s political quarters. Her spokesman Michael Mann told BBC that the meeting in Tehran was with the “knowledge” of Iranian authorities but the country’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the meetings were not “coordinated and were not official,” adding that a note had been sent to this effect to the Austrian embassy.

Narges Mohammadi a prominent civil rights activist and a vice-president of the Center for the Defenders of Human Rights organization and Gowhar Eshghi, the mother of Sattar Beheshti, a blogger who had died in prison, were among Iranians that Ashton met in Tehran. Some conservative hardline lawmakers called the two Iranians “seditionists”, a term Iranian officials use for those who actively protested the rigged 2009 presidential elections and who participated in public demonstrations against it. They called the meeting “undiplomatic and a clear interference in Iran’s domestic affairs.”

But Asghar Naimi, a member of the national security committee told Rooz that the summons of the minister of intelligence and possibly the foreign minister were not the official position of the Majlis but of a few of its members.

The twenty lawmakers who signed a statement said that Narges Mohammadi’s meeting with Ashton had been planned in advance and that the leaders of the hegemonistic block (a pseudo name for the United States) wanted to recreate the crisis atmosphere and dissipate the revolutionary spirit of the Iranian people. They wanted a response from the minister and asked, “Why did the ministry not prevent this meeting and why was the national security council passive on this.”

The national security committee of the Majlis also issued a statement calling the meeting “undiplomatic and a direct interference in Iran’s domestic affairs.” Naimi believes that the officials of the Islamic republic are not acting outside the norms of human rights and religious law to fear such visits and added that what some lawmakers have said is not the official view of the Majlis. “Officials of the Islamic republic want Ms Ashton and others to know that a country which has liberated itself from domination and has founded the Islamic republic wants to present the reality to world public opinion.”

He expanded his argument and said, “Officials of the Islamic republic are not afraid of anybody with any criminal record meeting with Ms Ashton because the crimes and punishments imposed on such criminals have been done through due process of law and are according to Iranian law. Our officials have not done anything unlawful so there is no reason to fear such meetings.”

In response to Rooz’s question about whether he thought Ms Eshghi whose son died under torture in prison and who is asking for justice and an investigation of her son’s case was a criminal, Naimi would not categorically confirm or reject the accusation.

“You said that officials of the Islamic republic did not fear a meeting between Ashton and Iranian activists but Iranian officials have summoned the minister of intelligence and foreign affairs over the meetings,” Rooz asked, to which Naimi responded by saying, “This is not the call of the Majlis. It is what some lawmakers have asked. Officials of the Islamic republic and the Majlis do not have this position.”

When asked about the reason for the anger over Ashton’s meeting with Iranian activists, Seyed Mehdi Mousavinejad, a member of the principlist faction of the Majlis, only said, “Meeting with seditionists for any reason is wrong and unwise.” Iranian officials view the protesters to the rigged 2009 presidential elections as seditionists. He had earlier told Fars news agency that Ms Ashton’s visit to Iran was “to discuss the nuclear issue and so she should not have been allowed to engage in non-related issues,” adding that the foreign minister had to provide an explanation for what took place.

Hardline Kayhan newspaper which is run by an editor directly appointed by ayatollah Khamenei, wrote, “Less than three months ago a visiting EU delegation to Tehran secretly met with two seditionists in a European embassy, whose detailed planning have never been revealed despite public uproar about the event. What is noteworthy is that after that visit, when the European team returned to their countries they highlighted the visit with the seditionists to be the most important event of that visit, and not the meetings with the senior officials of Iran. It is now clear that the EU is pursuing a policy of exerting pressure on Iran through a ‘human rights’ agenda. Unfortunately some domestic officials do not seem to be alert to this and some even go along and even facilitate this Western project against the Islamic republic.”

Resalat, another hardline newspaper, published a piece by Mohammad Kazem Anbarlooi which called Ms Mohammadi to be a mohareb (someone who is at war with God and thus deserves the death punishment). “This person who met with Ms Ashton has a political record of being a mohareb who had taken arms against the regime and whose husband is now a political refugee in France,” the article charged.