World Order/Series2/Volume 18/Issue 3/Text

←Issue 2

World Order, Series 2 Volume 18 - Issue 3

Issue 4→

Return to PDF view Proofread once

[Page -1]

Spring 1984

World Order

Waging War against Torture—

A Senate Hearing

Senator Charles H. Percy

Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams

James H. Michel

Amnesty International

Firuz Kazemzadeh

Michael H. Posner

World Views and the Shape of

Communities

Will. C. van den Hoonaard

[Page 0]

World Order

VOLUME 18, NUMBER 3 • PUBLISHED QUARTERLY

WORLD ORDER IS INTENDED TO STIMULATE, INSPIRE AND SERVE THINKING PEOPLE IN THEIR SEARCH TO FIND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS AND PHILOSOPHY

Editorial Board:

FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH

BETTY J. FISHER

HOWARD GAREY

WORLD ORDER is published quarterly by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, IL 60091. Application to Mail at Second-class postage rates is pending at Wilmette, IL. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to WORLD ORDER, 536 Sheridan Road, Wilmette, IL 60091.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, or of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts should be typewritten and double spaced throughout, with the footnotes at the end. The contributor should send three copies— an original and two legible copies—and should keep a carbon copy. Return postage should be included. Send manuscripts and other editorial correspondence to WORLD ORDER, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, IL 60091.

Subscription rates: U.S.A., 1 year, $10.00; 2 years, $18.00; single copies, $3.00. All other countries, 1 year, $18.00; 2 years, $34.00; single copies $3.00.

Copyright © 1985, National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, All Rights Reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.

ISSN 0043-8804

IN THIS ISSUE

1 Waging War against Torture

Editorial

3 About This Issue

4 Opening Statement

by Senator Charles H. Percy

6 The Problem of Torture

Testimony of

Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams

11 Toward Eliminating Torture in Central America

and the Caribbean

Testimony of

Assistant Secretary of State James H. Michel

15 Torture in the Eighties

Testimony of Amnesty International USA

21 Torture of the Bahá’ís in Iran

Testimony of Firuz Kazemzadeh

27 Torture: The United States Response

Testimony by Michael H. Posner

32 Riḍván at Bahjí

poem by Judith Ehrich

32 Untitled

poem by Victoria Wyszynski Thorsen

33 Currents

poem by Greg Brown

35 World Views and the Shape of Communities

by Will C. van den Hoonaard

43 Meditations

poem by Gerald B. Parks

Inside back cover: Art Credits

[Page 1]

Waging War against Torture

EDITORIAL

IN THE arsenal of horrors man perpetrates against man few weapons are as depraved as torture. In comparison, even slavery appears benign, for slavery, at least occasionally, in remote epochs, had some redeeming features. Torture has never had any. Yet it has been practiced throughout history and shows no sign of dying out.

In a number of documents the United Nations has expressed opposition to torture. Recently a draft convention for its abolition has attracted considerable attention. However, without strong popular support anti-torture sentiment will not be transformed into a worldwide campaign that, like the anti-slavery campaigns of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, would result in ending this ancient evil.

The Bahá’ís are keenly interested in the outlawing and abolition of torture. Ever since the Bahá’í Faith originated in mid-nineteenth century Iran, countless Bahá’ís have been tortured. Some were bastinadoed; others had their nails pulled. Some had lighted candles inserted into holes cut in their bodies; others had horseshoes nailed to their feet. This year, and in the past four years, there have been dozens of instances of Bahá’ís being tortured and several cases of torture resulting in death.

The struggle for the elimination of torture will not be easily won. It is too deeply ingrained, too useful for those who would use any means to achieve their ends. Yet the magnitude of the challenge must not frighten us. The abolition of torture is a practical goal. We must, and we will, pursue it.

[Page 2]

[Page 3]

About This Issue

THE PERSECUTION of the Bahá’ís in Iran and the violation of their human rights has taken many forms: the deprivation of education, the cutting off of pensions, the expulsion from homes, the confiscation of property, and ultimately for some, death. Perhaps even more frightening than death is the torture inflicted on Bahá’ís killed and those allowed to live, for torture degrades not only the one tortured but the torturer. Torture is a denial of humanity, a rejection of all restraints, the willingness to gain ends at the maximum expense of another human being. Even if torture has been practiced throughout history —and continues to be practiced in many countries throughout the world—it has come to be seen as an evil as great as slavery, and one that must, like slavery, fade from memory.

When humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International launched a campaign for the elimination of torture, when the United Nations placed the elimination of torture on its agenda, governments began to respond. On June 26, 1984, the United States Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations, in anticipation of a proposed United Nations convention on the elimination of torture, invited members of the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International USA, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, and the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights to testify on torture. It was under these circumstances that the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States brought before the Foreign Relations Committee the facts on torture applied to ever-growing numbers of Bahá’ís in Iran. The testimony that World Order publishes inevitably recalls the public documents concerning the persecution of the Bahá’ís in Iran published in its Spring 1982 and Winter 1983-84 issues. These new documents, not only about the persecuted and harassed Bahá’ís in Iran, but also about fellow sufferers around the globe, bear eloquent testimony to the inhumanity of the perpetrators and demand international action that would make such barbarous acts impossible.

THE EDITORS

[Page 4]

Opening Statement

BY SENATOR CHARLES H. PERCY, CHAIRMAN, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

THIS MORNING the Committee on Foreign Relations meets to hear testimony on a grim and difficult problem—the practice of torture by governments. Some may think that torture is not a worldwide problem; that Its use is limited to a few countries: If that were true, then this hearing would not be taking place today. The facts tell a much different story. Amnesty International, the Nobel Prize winning international human rights organization, believes that the problem is pervasive and has launched a worldwide campaign to expose and end the use of torture “as a tool of state policy.” Its recently published report, Torture in the Eighties, cites allegations of torture or ill treatment of prisoners in nearly one hundred countries. The State Department annual country reports on human rights practices also cite numerous reports of torture by governments.

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the practice of torture by foreign governments to find out why it occurs with such alarming frequency. Equally important purposes are to examine what the United States government is doing right now to influence governments not to practice torture and to identify other additional measures that we might take to curb this terrible human rights abuse.

As a first step, following this hearing I will introduce a joint resolution that requests the Secretary of State to instruct representatives of the U.S. government abroad to engage in efforts to combat torture in countries where it is practiced. The Resolution will also require all military and law enforcement training provided by the United States to foreign personnel to include instruction in international human rights standards, addressing the practice of torture and the policy of the United States in this regard.

We hope through this effort to continue to expose the practice of torture and convince the practitioners that it is not in their interests to pursue this illegal conduct. This will require an enormous effort to succeed. But if there is ever to be an end, then there must be a beginning.

As a former President of the UN General Assembly once remarked: “a crime against humanity means also a crime against every one of us. . . . Every time a helpless individual is being tortured, our own dignity is being diminished and degraded.” The challenge is at hand for all of us here today.

I welcome our witnesses. We will hear first from Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, and James Michel, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, who will testify concerning the ongoing efforts of the Administration to curb the practice of torture.

[Page 5]

[Page 6]

The Problem of Torture

TESTIMONY BY ELLIOTT ABRAMS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS

IT IS A PLEASURE and a privilege for me to appear before this Committee today to discuss the issue of torture. I will be as brief as possible in my opening remarks, so as to allow more time for questions.

The Government of the United States is profoundly and unalterably opposed to any and all forms of torture. There can be no justification for such abhorrent practices, which offend the conscience of mankind and violate every moral law. Yet, despite the various international covenants and conventions designed to promote universal adherence to human rights, the tragic fact is that torture is widely practiced by governments today. According to Amnesty International’s recent report, Torture in the Eighties, prisoners have been tortured or cruelly treated in at least one out of every three countries within the past four years. The methods of torture which Amnesty International documents, ranging from the primitive to the sophisticated, are a terrible reminder of mankind’s capacity for inhumanity and evil. Clearly, torture is a human rights problem of enormous magnitude.

The fact that torture is practiced by so many governments in so many parts of the world suggests that there is no one explanation to account for its persistence. Some regimes lack popular legitimacy and resort to torture in order to punish and intimidate dissidents. Other regimes feel themselves under siege by terrorists, and regard torture as a means of self-defense. Still other governments believe that certain minorities—the Bahá’ís in Iran are an obvious example—deserve to be treated cruelly and inhumanely. In short, it is very difficult to generalize about the causes of torture.

There is one conclusion about torture, however, which can be advanced with a good deal of certainty. Generally speaking, democratic governments are far less likely to engage in torture than non-democratic governments. This is because such institutions as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and association, and free elections have built respect for human rights into the very foundation of democratic government. Thus, although cases of torture can and do occur in a democracy, democratic institutions are designed to bring these cases to light and punish the culprits. Bringing torture to light is absolutely crucial. For as Justice Louis Brandeis once observed, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Among non-governmental human rights organizations, none have been more active than Amnesty International in publicizing cases of human rights abuse. Amnesty’s recent report on torture is a case in point. We welcome this report, Mr. Chairman, both for its wealth of information and for the specific recommendations it contains. I have already met with representatives of Amnesty International, and I am pleased to report that one of Amnesty’s recommendations, concerning the need to provide more information about secret detention centers, is already receiving sympathetic consideration by the Department.

With its report, Amnesty has repeated its twelve-point program for the prevention of torture. I want to call attention to two particularly important points in this program.

Point two calls for limits on incommunicado detention, and point three apposes secret [Page 7] detention. Amnesty International has made a valuable contribution in calling attention to the dangers of incommunicado detention and, above all, of secret detention. These practices greatly increase the opportunities to torture undetected, and thus increase the chances that it will take place. In dosed societies where we have little precise information on torture I agree that we should take prolonged incommunicado detention and secret detention as red flags—they should alert us to the very real likelihood that torture is taking place. Accordingly, the Department is, as I have said, considering how we might give these factors greater recognition in its human rights reports.

I would also like to draw special attention to a section of the Amnesty report documenting allegations of torture in specific countries. These reports are generally consistent with our own information, contained in our annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In fact, the Amnesty report and the Department of State report complement each other quite well. The principal differences between the two reports concern the time periods covered, and the amount of detail each contains. The Amnesty report covers the years 1980 to 1982, while the most recent Department Human Rights Report focuses on 1983, and, in a few cases, the first month of 1984. The Amnesty report tends to go into greater detail than the Department report, perhaps because it deals exclusively with torture, whereas our report deals with all other forms of human rights abuse, as well. And, [Page 8] of course, the Department’s report covers 160 countries, whereas the Amnesty report surveys 66 countries. Both sets of reports, however, usually reach similar conclusions about the practice of torture in the countries they survey.

My one criticism of the Amnesty report concerns what I would regard as an error of omission, rather than of commission. Thus the Amnesty report largely ignores reports of torture in Cuba, in Nicaragua, and in Grenada. Similarly, while it contains a report on the practice of torture in the Republic of Korea, there is no corresponding report on North Korea. I find the omission of real problem countries, such as Cuba, quite troubling. I would prefer to believe that these omissions simply reflect problems of access. Because we often do not have very much information about human rights abuses in closed societies, these societies often tend to receive less attention and criticism than relatively open societies. Overcoming this built-in bias in favor of closed societies is a problem which all human rights reports—including the Department’s —must grapple with. I only wish Amnesty International had done more to overcome this problem. This criticism notwithstanding, however, I think Amnesty International is to be commended for a report that is a challenge to the conscience.

MR. CHAIRMAN, we in the Bureau of Human Rights, and throughout the Reagan Administration, regard ourselves as activists in the struggle for human rights. Over the past three years the United States Government has employed a broad range of instruments and techniques in responding to specific cases of human rights abuse, such as the torture or cruel treatment of detainees.

In dealing with friendly governments our initial response, upon receiving reports that someone is being illegally detained and may be undergoing torture, is to engage in the kind of frank diplomatic exchanges often referred to as quiet diplomacy. The phrase “quiet diplomacy” fails to convey either the intensity of our efforts, or the depth of our concern, on behalf of victims of torture and brutality. Let me stress, therefore, that “quiet” diplomacy refers only to the confidentiality of the channels we use and not to the intensity of our representations. The truth is that this kind of diplomatic activity has proven its effectiveness in a number of countries.

When diplomatic approaches have not availed, or where our influence with foreign governments is minimal, we have dissociated ourselves from odious human rights practices by utilizing established law and by vigilant application of this Administration’s human rights policy. Human rights considerations are a key factor in examining and determining military assistance levels and are thus, along with security and economic considerations, integral to the process. In addition, we can and have used the tools at our disposal to deny economic assistance, vote against multilateral development bank loans and deny export or munitions and crime control and detection equipment. In some cases, we have issued public statements denouncing human rights violations.

The United States has also supported the creation of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. This organization, which seeks to provide victims of torture with assistance in their physical and mental rehabilitation, is currently collecting contributions. We hope, in the not-too-distant future, to provide funding for it. We are currently providing funds, under the authority of Section 116(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act, to a wide variety of human rights projects around the world designed to assist the development of indigenous organizations and legal structures which respect the law and basic human rights.

No discussion of torture in the modern world can be complete, Mr. Chairman, without pointing out that there are extremist groups which deliberately seek to provoke government repression and torture in an effort to polarize society and undermine democratic institutions. As the Brazilian communist Carlos Marighella put it in his classic terrorist tract, Minimanual of the Urban [Page 9] Guerrilla, by helping to provoke the use of counter-terror and repression, guerrillas can transform “the political situation in the country . . . into a military situation in which the militarists appear more and more to be the ones responsible for terror and violence, while the problems in the lives of the people become truly catastrophic.”

In all-too-many Third World countries governments have fallen into the trap set by the revolutionaries, as security forces brutalize the population in a vain attempt to restore order. However, the experience of the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, and Japan suggests that it is possible to develop a humane anti-guerrilla strategy, and this, in turn, underscores the need to provide governments under siege with the necessary assistance and training to develop such a strategy.

Unfortunately, the role of the United States in eliminating human rights abuse is constrained by Section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which precludes the use of foreign assistance to fund police training. The Report of the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America had Section 660 in mind when it wrote:

Another obstacle to the effective pursuit of anti-guerrilla strategy is a provision of current U.S. law under which no assistance can be provided to law enforcement agencies. This dates back to a previous period when it was believed that such aid was sometimes helping groups guilty of serious human rights abuses. The purpose of the legislation was to prevent the United States and its personnel from being associated with unacceptable practices. That concern is valid, but, however laudable its intentions, the blanket legal prohibition against the provision of training and aid to police organizations has the paradoxical effect, in certain cases, of inhibiting our efforts to improve human rights performance. For example, while it is now understood in the Salvadoran armed forces that human rights violations endanger the flow of United States assistance, in the police organizations there is no training to professionalize and humanize operations.

Mr. Chairman, all of us, I am sure, agree that the intention of Section 660—to prevent the United States from being associated with police forces which engage in brutality—is altogether praiseworthy. However, if the effect of Section 660 were to block efforts at improving human rights performance, then I strongly believe that a reconsideration of its provisions would be warranted. As Secretary Shultz has pointed out, “Human rights policy cannot mean simply dissociating or distancing ourselves from regimes whose practices we find deficient.” We must also seek to improve situations we deplore. To inculcate in police and security forces more professional standards of conduct is one way of doing this. And training by American law enforcement professionals may well play a powerful role in inculcating such standards, given the prestige of the American example. It is not an accident that “training procedures” is one of the elements in Amnesty International’s twelve-point program against torture.

There are still many police forces in the world where it is simply not understood that demonstrations can be kept in bounds without indiscriminate violence, that detainees can be handled without brutality, that facts can be uncovered without torture. I believe that we should examine whether, if police in some of these countries had greater opportunities to observe our law enforcement methods, they would see that humane methods are not only compassionate; they are also more effective.

There was a time in history when police and security functions were attended by brutality and torture as normal practices in almost every country. In many countries this time is now very distant. One of the significant factors producing this historic transformation is surely professionalization of police and security forces. In the process of professionalization, police and security forces cease to think of themselves as just a clutch of people with weapons and power, but as a definite profession, a calling, with its own standards of conduct. In this way group pride and self-respect come to the aid of humane instincts.

[Page 10] I have suggested that, if we want to address the problem of torture in a practical and realistic way, we may well need to rethink the provisions of Section 660. In saying we should examine the continued usefulness of this provision, I do not mean that we should abandon the notion of distancing ourselves from police or security forces whose brutality is systematic and inhuman. There are extreme cases where we should simply dissociate ourselves from another government. But I think we should also weigh the legitimate motive of distancing ourselves from inhumanity against the equally demanding imperative of actually eliminating inhumanity. The professionalization of police forces may be an area where we can do more to eliminate torture. We stand ready to work with your Subcommittee in examining this question.

Let me conclude these remarks by pointing out that just as there is no simple cause of torture, so, too, there is no panacea that can eliminate it completely. As I have already noted, democracy is the nearest thing we have to a guarantee of human rights. For this reason President Reagan has made the encouragement of democracy a central goal of our foreign policy. Yet, until many more of the world’s governments are democratic, it is safe to assume that torture will remain a human rights problem of the first magnitude. For this reason we must continue to oppose specific human rights violations, such as torture, over the short term. That such a policy is bound to be frustrating does not at all detract from the fact that it is the only honorable course of action open to us as Americans, and, indeed, as human beings.

[Page 11]

Toward Eliminating Torture in
Central America and the
Caribbean

TESTIMONY BY JAMES H. MICHEL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 5TATE FOR INTER-AMERICAN AFFAIRS

MR. CHAIRMAN, Members of the Committee: I am grateful for the opporortunity to appear before you today to describe an emerging United States government program which I believe can contribute to efforts to eliminate torture in our hemisphere.

As Assistant Secretary Abrams has testified, there are many varied motives for this reprehensible phenomenon. I would suggest, however, that the following conditions are likely to contribute to the use of torture:

—a sense of danger to the national security from criminal elements whose misdeeds cannot be controlled by the criminal justice system;

—a belief that members of the police or security forces will not be held accountable under the law for mistreatment of suspected subversives or criminals;

—a lack of respect for legal institutions and skepticism of their integrity;

—an inability to obtain persuasive, admissible evidence through scientific tests and professional investigative techniques.

These conditions do not justify abuse. But to the extent they exist in less developed societies which lack a strong, independent judiciary and an effective, fair, and accessible system of justice, the police and other authorities may believe that extreme methods are necessary. They may believe that wrongdoers who deserve punishment will be released by the courts and that a policeman, no less than the criminal, is justified in taking advantage of the incapacity of the legal system. In such circumstances extrajudicial punishment to obtain information and to deal with suspected wrongdoers can be deplorably common.

A basic U.S. policy to help consolidate democratic governments and strengthen democratic institutions is central to our efforts to end such practices. The development of a fair, independent, accessible, and effective system of justice is essential to protect political, economic, and other human rights. A sound legal system is necessary to guarantee that democratic rights can be enforced and thus preserved.

Most of the legal systems of hispanic Central America do not meet this need. There is no strong tradition of judicial independence. The inadequacy of legal institutions to deal with terrorism, including political violence from both the right and left, has contributed to extralegal actions by law enforcement agencies. Abuses include prolonged pretrial detention (a problem, throughout the Western Hemisphere), corruption, intimidation, failure to investigate politically motivated crimes, and overreliance on confessions to prove a case. The inability of legal processes to redress and deter a vicious cycle of self-perpetuating violence has produced a situation in which legal systems in some instances are virtually unrelated to what is happening in the society at large.

Accordingly, we began last year to develop [Page 12] a program to stimulate and assist efforts by governments and private groups in Central America and the Caribbean to strengthen legal institutions and to improve the administration of justice. I would like to describe for you how that program has progressed and where we see it going.

Genesis and Development of the Program

THE PROGRAM is initially focused on the criminal justice systems of the Central American democracies. We are also beginning, however, to work with other countries and hope that the program’s geographic scope can be expanded as experience is gained. Also, we believe that actions which help to enhance the competence and independence of the judiciary will have ramifications beyond the criminal justice field.

We began with a visit last spring, by a United States government interagency team to three Central American countries. That team conducted a preliminary survey of the needs for external assistance to the legal systems of Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador.

The survey revealed that, despite the differences among them, the countries in the region face a number of common problems. In general, their judicial systems are seriously underfinanced. Both salaries and administrative infrastructure are inadequate. The quality of professional investigative capabilities is low in both the judicial and executive branches. The professional competence of judges, judicial staff, prosecutors, and other public sector lawyers tends to be undermined by the great disparity in working conditions and remuneration between public service and private practice.

An important conclusion reached by the team was that, although these nations face common problems in common legal systems, they had not to date pooled resources, developed professional contacts across national boundaries, shared experiences, consulted on possible joint solutions, or otherwise addressed these problems in a cooperative manner.

Underlying Philosophy

THE PROGRAMS I will describe for you are an effort to get at root causes. They will help, if they are sustained, mostly in the longer term. In the best of circumstances, few will produce measurable, short-term improvements. I also want to stress that we are very conscious of nationalistic sensitivities in the area of legal and judicial reform and of the understandable attitude in the area that the United States, with its common law system, lacks the expertise to involve itself substantively in problems of civil-law systems. We also recognize that our own criminal justice system is far from perfect.

Another consideration is that countries with civil-law systems traditionally emphasize the legislature, not the judiciary, as the primary instrument for defining the law and the role of legal institutions. The important role which this most political branch of government plays obliges us to recognize that, absent political will to strengthen the administration of justice, there are limits to what the application of outside resources can accomplish.

Our approach has, therefore, been to stimulate regional cooperation within and among national and regional institutions. We have found that the talent and interest in strengthening the administration of justice exists, in abundance, within Central America and the Caribbean. But there is definitely a role that we can usefully play—providing resources and acting as a catalyst for intraregional cooperation.

By channeling our efforts through institutions qualified to identify specific needs and sensitive to local concerns we hope to avoid a perception that U.S. models or legal approaches are being exported. We are strongly oriented toward projects that have practical application and benefits. We are trying to avoid overly general projects and conferences that don’t lead to specific follow-on activities.

The approach is also interdisciplinary, inasmuch as many of the problems stem from administrative and other failings as well as deficiencies in the criminal justice system per se. Our experience to date indicates that governments [Page 13] and private groups of the region welcome such an approach and assistance.

Program Content

THE PROGRAM consists of a number of interrelated initiatives.

The United States Agency for International Development has contracted with ILANUD, a UN-affiliated agency in San Jose, Costa Rica, that specializes in criminal justice issues, to survey more comprehensively the needs of Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Honduras. ILANUD teams of Latin American experts are coordinating their surveys through national legal reform commissions that have been established in El Salvador and Honduras. They have been meeting with public and private sector lawyers, government justice ministries, courts, law faculties, and bar associations in order to identify and help develop concrete projects that can benefit from United States and other outside support.

ILANUD has independently undertaken similar surveys in Panama and the Dominican Republic, which will also be shared with us. ILANUD’s contract with us is now nearing completion. It met last week with representatives of the five countries with which it has been working, and we hope to have the results of their work soon.

We have also financed scholarships for graduate legal study in agrarian and administrative law for Salvadorans, Hondurans, and Costa Ricans at the University of Costa Rica Law School. The program next year will add criminal law study. A proposal to assist the library of this law school is included in the program.

The government of Costa Rica’s Supreme Court judicial School and ILANUD are jointly developing a training course for judges from Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic. The initial four-week course will be held in August. ILANUD has organized a pilot course for prosecutors from throughout the hemisphere to be given in October 1984.

We will help finance the participation of candidates from those countries in these initial regional training programs.

We are also organizing a visit by experts from ILANUD and the Costa Rican and Venezuelan judicial schools to observe U.S. training institutions for judges and prosecutors.

With United States government encouragement, the Inter-American Bar Association organized a panel on the administration of justice at its annual meeting in Panama in February. Led by Costa Rican Foreign Minister (formerly Minister of Justice) Carlos Jose Gutierrez, experts from Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Venezuela and other Central American states discussed legal reform initiatives in civil law countries of the Caribbean Basin.

With U.S. financial support the Costa Rican bar association held at the end of March this year a conference of Central American and Panamanian bar associations to consider the role of the private bar in strengthening the administration of justice. We are hopeful this will lead to continuing contact and follow-up activities.

With United States encouragement the Organization of American States at its November 1983 General Assembly approved a resolution to establish a legal development program.

I have brought with me copies of the resolutions adopted by the Inter-American Bar panel, the Costa Rican conference, and the OAS. I respectfully request that they be made a part of the record of this hearing.

Under authority of a provision (the Specter Amendment) contained in the Fiscal Year 1984 Continuing Resolution, the Administration is developing with the government of El Salvador programs to:

—improve judicial investigative capabilities;

—protect participants in the legal process; and

—support the work of the legal reform commission that has been created by the President of El Salvador.

The United States program has been developed by an inter-agency group chaired by the Department of State. The Department of Justice and the Agency for International Development are key participants.

[Page 14] We anticipate that this incipient effort to help strengthen the administration of justice will have a permanent place in our assistance policies. The National Bipartisan Commission on Central America gave this concept a strong recommendation. The foreign assistance authorization bill passed by the House on May 10 (H.R. 5119) would permit the use of up to $20 million annually to support these activities.

For the longer term, we want to reduce the government’s direct role and make the program more self-sustaining. For that reason we wish to encourage private involvement in sustaining the program.

Looking Ahead

LOOKING AHEAD, our major near-term objectives are to institutionalize our efforts with local and regional bodies in Central America, to identify one or more nongovernmental entities to assume a major role, drawing on academic, governmental, and private resources, and to assist in the establishment of a permanent training facility open to the nations of the region. We think that the training courses that ILANUD is sponsoring this year for judges and prosecutors might be the genesis of a more permanent regionial training effort that could be broadened to include investigators, court management personnel, and others involved in the judicial process.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reemphasize that our efforts can accomplish no more than to stimulate and to provide resources needed by Central American and Caribbean reformers. It is they who must have the political will and the determination to strengthen the administration of justice as they seek to consolidate democratic government. I believe that the desire exists within the region and that our assistance over time can make a valuable contribution to the protection of human rights and the replacement of violence by the rule of law.

[Page 15]

Torture in the Eighties

TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA

TODAY more than one-third of the world’s governments systematically torture. Amnesty International’s recently published report Torture in the Eighties (excerpts of which I would like to submit for the record), cites allegations of the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners in ninety-eight countries. This kind of government abuse is not confined to the East or the West, the right or the left. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have been brutalized. from security headquarters in Spain to prison cells in Iran, from secret police centers in Chile to interrogation houses in Afghanistan.

I am now going to read a partial list of those countries from which Amnesty International receives persistent reports of torture. Behind every name stand the damaged individuals who have suffered in ways most of us can only begin to imagine. Afghanistan, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mexico, Namibia, Pakistan, Paraguay, the Philippines, Peru, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Uruguay, the USSR, Zaire, and Zimbabwe.

The practice of torture as a tool of state policy is universally condemned, yet shockingly widespread. Amnesty International is committed to do all it can to end this practice. The core of Amnesty International is its work for the release of prisoners of conscience, fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners, and an end to executions and torture. In April Amnesty International launched a special two-year Campaign for the Abolition of Torture. We commend your willingness to face this issue and appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We urge the United States Congress to use its power and influence to end the practice of torture.

The United Nations defines torture as any severe physical or mental pain intentionally inflicted for punishment, intimidation, confessions, or information by or at the instigation of a public official. Thus, concentrated in the torturer’s electrode is the power and responsibility of the state.

With the government’s support the torturer controls everything, even life itself. An Argentine woman, Graciela Guena, remembers the guards telling her, “We are God in here,” as they repeatedly applied electric shock to her body. She lay handcuffed to the springs of a metal bed, her cries echoed by the screams of other victims and the laughter of their torturers. “They called us ‘the walking dead,’” she said, “reminding us constantly that the only thing to be decided was the time of death.”

Degradation, humiliation, and unbearable pain are key in the torturer’s efforts to break down all traces of human dignity. Prisoners endure insults, sexual threats or assaults, and the forcible eating of excrement. They suffer the pain of constant beating, electric shock, and having their flesh burned with cigarettes.

Sometimes the torturer utilizes specialized techniques and equipment. A Syrian tool is the “black slave,” an electrical apparatus that forces a heated metal skewer into the bound victim’s anus. Doctors in the Soviet Union administer pain-causing drugs to prisoners of conscience detained in psychiatric hospitals. In Chile doctors are present to ensure that victims survive for further torture and to prevent them from escaping through unconsciousness or death. If the doctors fail, they [Page 16] often certify cause of death as suicide or disease.

Some torture is devastatingly simple. In Rwanda prisoners have been held for more than a year in cells totally devoid of light. One Iranian prisoner was blindfolded for more than two years. A fellow prisoner, later released, noted, “After twenty-seven months he sits, largely in total silence, nodding his head from one side to the others. Sometimes he just sits knocking his head on the wall.”

Torture victims include people of all social classes, age groups, trades, professions, and beliefs. They may be criminal suspects or political detainees. Children in El Salvador have been tortured, and in Iran they’ve been forced to watch their mothers brutalized. Wives and husbands have endured the sights and sounds of their spouses being beaten, burned, or killed. One prisoner in Turkey witnessed the torture of a married couple in 1981. I will not repeat what he told us—it is unspeakable— but it is absolutely incumbent on all people to understand that every act of inhumanity imaginable is realized in today’s world.

Torturers are usually members of special military or police units or prison employees. How they become torturers varies, but insight into their training in at least one country emerged during the trials of accused torturers who worked under the military junta in Greece from 1967 to 1974. It is clear from this case that torture does not occur simply because individual torturers are sadistic, even if testimonies verify that they often are or become so.

Torture occurs because a government has chosen it as a part of the state-controlled machinery to suppress dissent. Its purpose is to intimidate victims and others from political activity and/or to obtain information or confessions with little regard for their veracity. In the Republic of Korea students detained for demonstrating and leafleting have been abused routinely at police stations and then released without charge. Some governments have tried to increase their control over whole population groups through torture and murder. This happened in Guatemala in the early 1980s, when the government terrorized rural peasants to discourage them from supporting guerillas. Tortured, dying villagers were displayed to relatives and neighbors. Newspapers published photographs of mutilated bodies, ostensibly to aid families seeking their missing relatives, but also to warn all Guatemalans.

There is no apology for torture, bur apologists exist. They claim that the destruction of a few individuals can protect the lives of many. This argument is morally and historically bankrupt. When torture is allowed once, twice, half-a-dozen times, almost inevitably it will be used for broader purposes against a greater proportion of the population. The interrogator forces his prisoner to speak, to give information that may be false or confess to crimes he didn’t commit—anything to stop the unbearable pain. Encouraged by apparent success, the torturer goes on torturing. Other methods of interrogation begin to seem slow and inefficient, and like a disease torture spreads. Elite corps of security personnel are created, trained in sophisticated methods of brutality and degradation. Laws that protect the populace are broken constantly by the very officials meant to enforce them.

Torture is fundamentally undemocratic, and any government that tortures is not ruled by or for its people. If a government purports to uphold justice, torture must be banned because it subverts a basic tenet of just punishment —a prescribed penalty for a proven offense. Since most national constitutions as well as international law explicitly prohibit torture, any government that subscribes to the rule of law will forbid it.

Following the tragic events of World War II, it was universally recognized that a government that uses terror at home is also a threat to peace abroad. For this reason the United Nations established as one of its first acts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It stated, “No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” This right is absolute; no nation may derogate from it even in times of war. This principle was reaffirmed [Page 17] in the 1949 Geneva Convention and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 1975 the United Nations unanimously adopted the Declaration against Torture. Now that organization has drafted two proposals that would strengthen previous declarations. The first would establish that a torturer could be brought to justice no matter where he is (the concept of universal jurisdiction) and would protect individuals from being forced to return to a country where they would be tortured (the concept of asylum). The second would outlaw specific conditions of secrecy that allow torture to occur and be hidden. Amnesty International supports both initiatives.

International laws against torture are important because they set a legal standard torture victims and their families can appeal to for protection and redress against their own governments, and organizations can use to hold offending governments accountable. They are not, however, enough. When the United Nations’ delegates gather to decry torture, one-third of them must wrestle with the knowledge that their own governments condone in practice what they condemn in public.

Work Against Torture

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL calls upon all governments to give meaning to their too often hypocritical declarations against torture by taking specific action toward its abolition. It’s not enough to deny that torture exists. Torture does not occur in a vacuum. Certain conditions facilitate this most serious abuse of prisoners and allow its cover-up. Amnesty International has worked against torture for more than twenty years. We have not worked alone. Lawyers’ groups, medical associations, church groups, and trade unions have worked to combat torture in their own countries. From and with them Amnesty International has developed the following Twelve-Point Program that must be implemented by any government serious in its commitment to abolish torture and work for its end worldwide.

Amnesty International’s Twelve-Point Program

1. Government leaders should make it clear that torture will not under any circumstances be tolerated.

2. Governments should ensure that acts of torture are punishable offences under criminal law.

3. During the training of security personnel it should be made clear that torture is a criminal act.

4. All reports of torture should be impartially and effectively investigated and findings made public. Complainants and witnesses should be protected from intimidation.

5. Those responsible for torture should be prosecuted no matter where the crime was committed or where they are. There should be no safe haven for torturers.

6. Confessions or other evidence obtained through torture should never be invoked in legal proceedings.

7. In some countries torture occurs in secret centers after victims are “disappeared.” Prisoners should not be held in secret detention.

8. Torture often occurs when victims are unable to contact people outside who might help them. Thus, incommunicado detention should be strictly limited, and prisoners should be allowed access to relatives, lawyers, and doctors.

9. Detainees should be informed of their rights, including the right to lodge complaints about their treatment. There should be regular, independent inspections of places of detention. Authorities responsible for detention and interrogation should be separate.

10. The physical and psychological effects of torture can last a lifetime. Victims and their dependents should receive financial compensation, appropriate medical care, and rehabilitation.

11. International agreements containing safeguards and remedies against torture should be ratified.

12. Governments must use all available channels to intercede against other governments accused of the ill-treatment of prisoners. Inter-governmental mechanisms to expose [Page 18] and abolish torture should be established. Governments should ensure that military, security, or police transfers or training do not facilitate the practice of torture.

Because torture is so widespread, some people view it as a regrettable, but ultimately incurable disease. This was once a common attitude toward slavery, which is now all but extinguished throughout the world. The same fate is possible for torture. All that is lacking is the political will to halt this calculated assault on human dignity. Governments can stop torture—in their own countries and abroad.

Recommendations to the United States Government

CONGRESS has exercised its moral and political responsibility to enact legislation that incorporates human rights into United States foreign policy. Congress must now use its authority to insist that the United States government uphold these laws. Past and present administrations have expressed great loathing for violations of human rights, but a chasm still divides this rhetoric from the reality that links the United States to repressive regimes without corresponding evidence of efforts to combat effectively their repressive practices. The time has come to close that gap and renew our commitment to government that protects rather than brutalizes its citizens.

1. Congress should reaffirm through a resolution its absolute condemnation of torture as a gross violation of internationally recognized human rights. This resolution should also reaffirm that the practice of torture, as defined by the United Nations, triggers the implementation of the legislation that links human rights violations and United States assistance programs. Further, where credible allegations of the practice of torture are made, this resolution should place the burden on the offending government to clear its name through the adoption of specific efforts directed to the eradication of torture such as those incorporated in Amnesty International’s Twelve-Point Program referred to above. This resolution should insist that the United States government use its good offices to combat torture. This is especially important in those cases where it has been decided that security considerations ultimately override human-rights considerations in United States foreign policy.

2. Congress should pass legislation that increases the State Department’s responsibilities with regard to torture. Ambassadors should play an aggressive role in disassociating the United States government from human-rights violations. They should investigate allegations of torture, paying close attention to the questions of secret and incommunicado detention and access of family, lawyers, and doctors to detainees. Ambassadors should meet with human-rights groups in these countries to hear their testimony. They should use their influence to intervene in individual cases brought to their attention. They should report semiannually on this specific aspect of their work and include in their annual Department of State country reports an analysis relating the Twelve-Point Program to conditions in these countries. Based on our experience, we know that such action can save lives.

United States legislation charges Congress with the responsibility of refusing aid to a government guilty of gross violations of human rights, unless the Administration determines that extraordinary circumstances exist that necessitate the continuation of assistance.

3. While the human-rights legislation is a pledge of Congressional faith in the values upon which this nation was founded, it is sorely ineffective. Again and again, we see aid programs going ahead in countries with patterns of gross human-rights violations. Once the American dollars have been spent, we often see no discernable progress in the eradication of torture and other abuses.

New legislation should mandate that if the Administration recommends that aid be given to a country in spite of its flagrant disregard for human rights, a full accounting of the extraordinary circumstances that warrant this must be submitted to Congress automatically —instead of by request—along with [Page 19] the specifics of how the United States is combatting in that country those specific human-rights violations that go to the security of the person.

4. Congress must take upon itself the responsibility for determining whether a government’s human-rights abuses call for aid cuts within the framework of existing legislation and to recommend other means by which the United States government can use its influence to combat this practice. To do this effectively, the legislature should have the capacity for independent data gathering to corroborate or challenge the Department of State’s country reports, to undertake on-site investigation, and to intervene in individual cases where appropriate. We recommend that it appropriate adequate funds and hire staff for this purpose. The focus should be on the human-rights violations defined in 502B: “torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denials of the right to life. liberty, or the security of the person.” Such a focus would complement and support the recently established structures to promote democracy.

5. The United States must never again furnish governments with the tools for torture. The abhorrent sale of shock batons to South Africa—a torturing government—should never have happened. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate should actively and assertively monitor transfers of crime control equipment, requiring quarterly reports from the Department of Commerce on the export licensing of crime control equipment. Further, shock batons, leg shackles, and other objects known to be used in abusing prisoners should be assigned a specific number for publication in the Commodity Control List in order that the public can also monitor their export.

6. Congress must ensure that human rights and humanitarian law form a significant part of the training of United States and foreign military and security personnel. Congress should request a list of the United States training facilities and their individual curricula to ensure that all trainees are fully educated in the importance of upholding international and national laws against torture and other human-rights abuses. Further, we recommend Congressional visits to these training facilities to ensure that the personnel are fully aware of the concern and involvement of the United States Congress in oversight of this program.

7. The United States should pass legislation in accordance with the United Nations draft proposal providing universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of torturers. Victims and their families should be able to bring civil suits against their torturers when both are in this country.

8. In addition, government officials considering applications for political asylum should be instructed to give particular weight to the danger of torture for the applicant if he returns to his or her country of origin. The United States government cannot in good conscience deliver men and women to the door of the torture chamber.

9. Those individuals who come back through that door walk away from their torturers with physical and emotional injuries that may haunt them for life. The United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture was established to distribute voluntary contributions for humanitarian, legal, and financial aid to victims and their families. We understand Congress is in the process of appropriating funds for this purpose, and we applaud this gesture and recommend generous annual appropriations to this fund.

Conclusion

TO CONSIDER human rights in conflict with national security interests or an ideological weapon to be used in some cases and ignored in others avoids the fact that the universal observance of human rights is the ultimate guarantee of world security, stability, and justice. Moreover, United States support for individual human rights in a country with a [Page 20] repressive government—no matter what the ideology—wins the friendship of that country’s citizens. If we support oppression, we gain only their hatred and ultimately threaten United States security.

A few weeks ago Americans gathered in another part of this city to break ground for the Construction of a museum devoted to the memory of six million people who were slaughtered by the forces of Hitler as the world closed its eyes. Too often we look back to the Holocaust as an isolated reign of terror unimaginable, impossible in today’s world. Recalling the “madness and horror of Hitler’s time,” Representative Sidney R. Yates said, “we pledge to the lost, and we pledge to the living—we will not forget.” What kind of memory is it that allows us to believe we know better than we did, to weep for the past and stand silent and indifferent to a present that knows the most horrible acts of barbarism?

[Page 21]

Torture of the Bahá’ís in Iran

TESTIMONY BY FIRL'Z KAZEMZADEH

MY NAME is Firuz Kazemzadeh. I am professor of history, chairman of the Committee on Middle Eastern Studies at Yale University, and vice-chairman of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States.

Twice in the last two years American Bahá’ís have presented to the Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Organizations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs amply documented testimony on the persecution of the Bahá’ís in Iran. The material is available to the government and the public. However, today I shall confine myself to a narrower and sadder subject—torture.

Over the last four years the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran have used torture as an instrument of policy. Among the victims of torture, members of the Bahá’í community have occupied a special place. They have committed no crimes, participated in no antigovernment activities, presented no danger to the regime, yet they have been made an object of unrestrained hatred on the part of the clerical rulers and their supporters.

I shall present to the Committee evidence of torture, names of its victims, and even of one or two of its official practitioners. I shall also point out the changes in the pattern of application of torture.

However, because so many find the persecution of the peaceful Bahá’í community in Iran utterly incomprehensible, I shall take the liberty of sketching briefly the background of relations between the Shiite establishment and the Bahá’í Faith.

The Bahá’í Faith, a monotheistic world religion, originated in the middle of the nineteenth century in Iran. From its inception it became the target of hostility on the part of the Muslim Shiite clergy which believed that the eternal dialogue between God and man had ended with the Prophet Muhammad, that Islam was the final revelation, and that any post-Islamic religion must necessarily be a heresy whose followers deserved death.

The Shiite clergy which wielded enormous power in nineteenth-century Iran, incited the secular authorities to a campaign that took the lives of some twenty thousand men, women, and children but failed to eradicate the new faith.

The introduction into Iran of modern nationalism and secularism alleviated the situation of the Bahá’í community in the twentieth century but did not mitigate the hatred of the Shiite clerical establishment. However, the vocabulary of invective changed. If earlier the Bahá’ís had been denounced as heretics, now they were accused of being agents of foreign movements and powers—Russia, Britain, Israel, the United States—depending on current political fashion. Periodically, the mullahs gained the government’s cooperation in attacking the Bahá’ís, killing a few, confiscating literature, closing down Bahá’í centers, dismissing Bahá’ís from government jobs, and otherwise harassing them.

The Iranian revolution of 1978-79 was made by a broad coalition in which the Muslim Shiite clergy played a predominant role. Within a few months of the collapse of the old regime the mullahs emerged as rulers more despotic and less restrained than the monarchy they had overthrown had ever been. In the process of consolidating their power the mullahs unleashed a reign of terror against [Page 22] all whom they saw as their political opponents, ideological rivals, or spiritual competitors.

The Bahá’ís had not taken part in the revolutionary upheaval. As a matter of religious principle they strictly abstained from all political activity and would not engage in violence which is strictly forbidden in the writings of their faith. Partly because of that they are now accused of having supported the old regime. However, the Islamic authorities did not need added justification for attacking the Bahá’ís. The President of the Revolutionary Court of Shiraz, Hujjatu’l-Islam Qazai, clearly revealed the underlying religious motivation of such attacks when he publicly stated early in 1983 that “the Muslim nation of Iran . . . will, God willing, fulfil the prayer of Noah (mentioned in the Koran):

“And Noah said, Lord, leave not a single family of Infidels on the Earth:

“For if thou leave them, they will beguile thy servants and will beget only sinners, infidels.”

The Iranian nation [the judge continued] has determined to establish the Government of God on earth. Therefore, it cannot tolerate the perverted Bahá’ís who are instruments of Satan and followers of the devil and of the superpowers and their agents. . . . It is absolutely certain that in the Islamic Republic of Iran there is no place for Bahá’ís and Bahaism. . . . I take this opportunity to advise all fair-minded and intelligent Bahá’ís to return to the bosom of highly esteemed Islam. . . . Before it is too late the Bahá’ís should recant Bahaism, which is condemned by reason and logic. Otherwise, the day will soon come when the Islamic nation will deal with them in accordance with its religious obligations, as it has dealt with other hypocrites. . . .”

While such threats were being uttered by cabinet ministers, high-ranking judges, and other officials, a well-organized campaign of persecution was being conducted throughout the country. Its principal elements were:

1. The extermination of Bahá’í leadership through the imprisonment and in many cases the execution of prominent Bahá’ís, particularly of members of Spiritual Assemblies—the elected governing bodies of the Bahá’í community.

2. The confiscation of all community property such as national and local centers, meeting halls, cemeteries, hospitals, historical buildings, monuments and shrines, libraries, archives, membership records, and administrative files.

3. Economic strangulation through dismissal of Bahá’ís from all government jobs, which in Iran include the National Oil Company, the airlines, the railways, much of industry, and all of education; boycott of Bahá’í-owned businesses, refusal to pay pensions to retired employees, and even the destruction of agricultural crops and trees owned by Bahá’ís.

4. The dismissal of Bahá’í children and youth from universities, high schools, and even from primary schools.

5. The outlawing of Bahá’í organizations—a particularly serious blow for a faith that has no clergy and in which elected Spiritual Assemblies perform all the functions normally entrusted to ministers or priests.

6. The psychological pressure inflicted on individuals through threats, insults, various forms of intimidation, and constant reiteration that they are members of a despised, subversive, and accursed group.

7. The application of torture as a means of compelling recantation of one’s faith and

conversion to Islam, or compelling confession of crimes that had never been committed. It is on the last item in the above catalogue of horrors that I intend to dwell in the time remaining to me this morning.

Individual cruelty, unauthorized maltreatment of prisoners, and random beatings inflicted by angry guards on inmates, even when they are common criminals convicted in fair trial, are intolerable occurrences for which the authorities must bear responsibility whether or not they knew or encouraged such behavior. The systematic application of torture by [Page 23] the state is a far more grievous evil.

The ultimate stage of barbarity is reached when torture is used for purely ideological or religious purposes, when blood is shed, bodies are broken, nails and teeth pulled, ribs crushed, to make a prisoner give up a belief and adopt the views and values of his tormentors. When whips, hot irons, rods, knives, sticks, and chains are made the tools of persuasion in matters of thought and spirit, we witness the most revolting perversion, a betrayal of all humanity. When such instruments are used in the service of religion, the essence of that religion is dishonored by its own fanatical votaries.

THE AUTHORITILS of the Islamic Republic of Iran have used and are currently using torture against the Bahá’ís, systematically and relentlessly, for two purposes: 1. To force recantation of faith and conversion to Islam, 2. To extract false confessions of spying and other illegal activities allegedly performed by the Bahá’ís in the service of Zionism, imperalism, and the superpowers.

Though hundreds of Bahá’í have been subjected to physical and mental abuse by Revolutionary Guards, jailers, and even judges, I will speak of only a few cases which have been carefully verified.

One of the earliest instances of torture was reported from the city of Hamadan where, on June 14, 1981, bodies of seven executed members of the local Spiritual Assembly were released to their families for burial. Each body bore unmistakable signs of heavy torture. The victims were:

Dr. Firuz Naimi

Dr. Naser Vafai

Mr. Tarazollah Khozeyn

Mr. Hoseyn Motlaq

Mr. Soheyl Habibi

Mr. Sohrab Habibi

Mr. Hoseyn Khandel

Each had been given the opportunity to recant the Bahá’í Faith and to embrace Islam; each had refused, had been tortured, and had been put to death. The funeral of the heroes was attended by thousands of Bahá’ís and Muslims wishing openly to express their grief for the innocent and highly respected men who had been so cruelly destroyed.

A year later, in June 1982, Mr. A.A.A., a bank employee, was arrested with five [sic] other Bahá’ís. An eyewitness has written that upon arrival in the infamous Evin prison the five Bahá’ís were brought before an interrogator, the notorious torturer Mesbah Tolui, who accused them of Zionism. An eyewitness writes:

A.A.A. objected. “I am not a Zionist,” he said, “I am a Bahá’í”; upon which the interrogator slapped him in the face and struck him with hand and fist. . . . Then with two pointed rods, perhaps two pencils, the interrogator poked through the blindfold at A.A.A.’s eyes.

A few days later Mr. A.A.A. was again questioned:

. . . the interrogator demanded that A.A.A. recant the Bahá’í Faith and name the members of certain administrative bodies in the Bahá’í community. . . . When the interrogator met with resistance on the part of A.A.A., he took him to another room, accompanied by several guards, who proceeded to hurl him down against the hard surface of a bench, causing his forehead and jaws to be severely injured and to bleed. . . . Then with something like a wire his feet were tied. . . . his arms were pulled forward and tied. . . . He was now lying on his abdomen with hands and feet tied and the soles of his feet turned upward. Tolui ordered the guards to start lashing and to continue until A.A.A. recanted and gave the names of committee members or died. . . . The blows were aimed at the five toes of each foot so that each toe received its share of the total number of three hundred blows.

The next fully verified episode of torture occurred in March 1983 in Shiraz. Its victims were Mr. Yadollah Mahmudnezhad and Mrs. Tuba Zaerpur, who were arrested because of their prominence in the Shiraz Bahá’í community.

Mrs. Zaerpur, after fifty-five days in solitary [Page 24] confinement, was returned to the general prison in early March. Before her execution on March 12, 1983, Mrs. Zaerpur told a fellow prisoner, who survived to tell the story, of her interrogation and trial.

As a result of repeated lashing Mrs. Zaerpur was painfully injured and had sore spots all over her body. . . . On the first day she was given fifty strokes of the whip, on the second day one-hundred strokes, and on the third day seventy-four strokes with a cable whip, some on her shoulders and some on her back. . . . The sore spots on her body were so painful that she could not sleep for many nights. Her toes were bleeding and the toenails fell off as a result of injuries. In spite of all the suffering, Mrs. Zaerpur never complained. She prayed all the time. She was the embodiment of spiritual strength and resignation to the will of God and a source of comfort to all of us.

In June 1983 five Bahá’ís were put to death in Shiraz after extensive torture. They were:

Dr. Bahram Afnan

Mr. Jamshid Siavushi

Mrs. Tahereh Siavushi

Mrs. Nosrat Yaldai

Mr. Soheyl Hushmand

In each case the torturers tried to force recantation and conversion to Islam. Having failed in their purpose, they executed their victims.

In January 1984 Mr. Rahmatollah Ḥakiman died in jail in Kerman under suspicious circumstances. In March 1984 in Baft, province of Kerman, Mr. Nosratollah Ziai and in Tehran, Mr. Moshen Razavi died under equally suspicious circumstances. Evidence suggests strongly that all three had been tortured. The refusal of the authorities to release bodies for decent burial and interment in undisclosed graves almost always indicate that the victims had been tortured.

More recently the actions of Iranian authorities took an even more sinister turn. Whereas earlier the main purpose of torture was to compel conversion to Islam, during the past few weeks torture has been used primarily to extract false confessions of serious crimes, primarily spying. Presumably, these confessions to trumped up charges would implicate other Bahá’ís and provide a plausible pretext for further executions of the members of Bahá’í leadership in Iran. The victims executed after torture on April 9, 1984, in Tehran were:

Mr. Rahim Rahimian

Professor Kamran Lotfi

Mr. Yadollah Saberian

Mr. Ali-Mohammad Zamani

Reliable information indicates that of the 703 Bahá’ís known to be languishing in prisons, at least 11, 3 of them women, have suffered torture inflicted upon them in an attempt to force them to confess to crimes they had not committed. A few have broken down and confessed to false charges. Some of the confessions were videotaped for possible use on Iranian television. Presumably the spectacle of Bahá’ís confessing their crimes on camera would lend verisimilitude to the accusations for which the government has no evidence whatsoever. It should be noted that the Islamic authorities have confiscated and now hold all the records of the Bahá’í community comprising literally tens of thousands of documents. Not having found a single incriminating item, Iran’s Islamic prosecutors and judges resorted to torture as a means of convicting Bahá’ís out of their own mouths. It would not be the first time the rulers of the Islamic Republic offered confessions extracted by torture as the only proof of guilt.

AMERKAN Bahá’ís are deeply concerned about the fate of over seven hundred of their coreligionists in Iran’s prisons. We are particularly anxious about those who have been or will be tortured. Though we have the names of at least eleven Bahá’ís in Tehran and elsewhere who have been tortured, we cannot make them public for fear of retaliation against these prisoners and other innocent Bahá’ís though we are prepared to submit the information to the Committee in confidence.

[Page 25] The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States does not wish to make specific recommendations to the Committee at present. However, we strongly condemn torture as one of the most heinous crimes against humanity. It can never be justified, no matter what the circumstances. That torture is used at all and that its practice is spreading testifies to the fragility of civilization and to the ease with which humanity reverts to barbarism. Alas, the twentieth century provides only too many examples of such atavistic behavior.

We, American Bahá’ís, feel that the United States cannot ignore torture no matter where or by whom it is practiced, for torture is a threat to our dearest convictions and an affront to our most deep-seated feelings. Acquiescence to torture is a compromise with evil unworthy of this nation.

We hope that the government of the United States together with the governments of all nations that profess love of humanity will seek, through the United Nations and through all other legitimate means, the total eradication of torture from the earth.

[Page 26]

BAHÁ’ÍS TORTURED IN IRAN

BAHÁ’ÍS EXECUTED AFTER BEING TORTURED:

Mrs. Tuba Zaerpur	Shiraz	March 12, 1983
Mr. Yadollah Mahmudnezhad	Shiraz	March 12, 1983
Dr. Bahram Afnan	Shiraz	June 16, 1983
Mr. Jamshid Siavushi	Shiraz	June 16, 1983
Mrs. Tahereh Siavushi	Shiraz	June 18, 1983
Mrs. Nosrat Yaldai	Shiraz	June 18, 1983
Mr. Soheyl Hushmand	Shiraz	June 28, 1983
Mr. Rahim Rahimian	Gowhardasht/Evin	April 9, 1984
Mr. Kamran Lotfi	Gowhardasht/Evin	April 9, 1984
Mr. Yadollah Saberian	Gowhardasht/Evin	April 9, 1984
Mr. Ali-Mohammad Zamani	Gowhardasht/Evin	May 15, 1984
Mr. Jahangir Hedayati	Gowhardasht/Evin	May 15, 1984

BAHÁ’ÍS WHO DIED IN PRISON UNDER SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES:

Mr. Rahmatollah Hakiman	Kerman	January 1984
Mr. Mohsen Razavi	Tehran	March 13, 1984
Mr. Nosratollah Ziai	Baft, Kerman	March 1984

EXECUTED BAHÁ’ÍS WHOSE BODIES BORE EVIDENCE OF HEAVY TORTURE:

Dr. Firuz Naimi	Hamadan	June 14, 1981
Dr. Naser Vafai	Hamadan	June 14, 1981
Mr. Tarazollah Khozeyn	Hamadan	June 14, 1981
Mr. Hoseyn Motlaq	Hamadan	June 14, 1981
Mr. Soheyl Habibi	Hamadan	June 14, 1981
Mr. Sohrab Habibi	Hamadan	June 14, 1981
Mr. Hoseyn Khandel	Hamadan	June 14, 1981

(Many executed Bahá’ís whose names are not included here were buried by the authorities without notification to relatives or friends. It is presumed the reason was to cover evidence of torture.)

Mr.

Serakhs

(Tortured to such an extent that he lost his eyesight.)

Mr.

Tehran

(Arrested in the hospital after surgery; mistreated on the way to the prison.)

BAHÁ’ÍS NOW IMPRISONED WHO ARE KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN TORTURED:

Mr.	Qasr/Evin
Mr.	Gowhardasht/Evin
Mrs.	Gowhardasht/Evin
Mr.	Gowhardasht/Evin
Mr.	Gowhardasht/Evin
Mr.	Gowhardasht/Evin
Mr.	Gowhardasht/Evin
Mr.	Gowhardasht/Evin
Mr.	Esfahan
Mr.	Esfahan

[Page 27]

Torture: The United States
Response

TESTIMONY BY MICHAEL H. POSNER

MR. CHAIRMAN, thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Michael Posner. I am the Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights. Since 1978 the Lawyers Committee has served as a public interest law center that works to develop international human rights and refugee law and legal procedures.

Mr. Chairman, we welcome your initiative in convening these hearings on the important and deeply troubling subject of torture. In the course of these hearings you have heard from several witnesses who have described practices of numerous governments throughout the world that use torture as a part of a broader effort to suppress dissent. While virtually every nation now condemns torture in principle, in practice at least one-third of the world’s governments use, tolerate, or condone torture or extreme mistreatment of prisoners.

In its testimony before this committee today Amnesty International has presented a twelve-point program for the prevention of torture. Several aspects of this program provide a useful starting point for specific action that the United States government, and Congress in particular, can undertake to help deter future acts of torture.

One of Amnesty International’s twelve points is that “those responsible for torture should be brought to justice.” Amnesty proposes that this principle should apply wherever the torturer happens to be, regardless of the place of torture or the nationality of its victim. In short, Amnesty International urges that “there should be no ‘safe haven’ for torturers.” A separate but related component of Amnesty’s program is that “victims of torture and their dependents should be entitled to obtain financial compensation.”

These principles suggest two potential legislative initiatives which I believe warrant serious consideration. First, Congress should undertake legislative action to clarify the right of torture victims to seek redress in U.S. courts, regardless of their nationality or where or by whom they were tortured. Second, fully implementing the principle that there should be no “safe haven” for torturers, Congress should enact legislation that would exclude from entry into the U.S., any person who, acting under the color of state authority, is found to have been directly involved in the practice of torture.

The Filartiga Case: The Need for
Legislation Clarifying the Right of
All Torture Victims to Seek
Redress in U.S. Courts

THE FIRST initiative, affording effective legal redress for torture victims, can be accomplished simply by clarifying and extending the scope of an existing law, the Alien Tort Claims Act, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350. That law establishes federal court jurisdiction over suits brought by aliens for a tort “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Enacted in 1789, this law has been invoked in only a handful of cases in its almost two hundred year history.

In 1980 a federal court of appeals in New York interpreted this statute to allow aliens [Page 28] to sue a foreign official for torture committed outside the United States. The landmark case—Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2nd Cir. 1980)—involved the brutal torture and murder of a young man, Joelito Filartiga, in Paraguay in 1976. Relying on section 1350, in 1979 the victim’s family, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, brought a lawsuit against the Paraguayan security force officer who had tortured Mr. Filartiga to death. By chance, the torturer, Americo Norberto Pena-Irala, was visiting New York, where he was served with a summons and civil complaint in a tort action seeking monetary damage.

In the much-heralded Filartiga opinion, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that section 1350 enables U.S. courts to review a claim for damages by torture victims or their families, even if the act of torture took place outside the United States. In reaching this decision, the court found that “deliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless of the nationality of the parties. 630 F.2d at 878.”

This ruling was hardly surprising. As the Filartiga court itself noted, “[t]here are few, if any, issues in international law today on which opinion seems to be so united as limitations on a state’s power to torture persons held in custody.” 630 F.2d at 881. Reinforcing this principle, a near-final draft Restatement of Foreign Relations Law prepared by the American Law Institute explicitly recognizes that torture as state policy is a violation of customary international law. American Law Institute, Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised), Tent. Draft No. 3, § 702, Reporters’ Notes, No. 5 (Mar. 15, 1982).

In short, the Filartiga decision simply recognizes that, as a principle of international law, the right to be free from torture is now a matter of universal concern. Building on this principle, the court found that torture is an appropriate subject for U.S. courts to consider, regardless of where it took place. In the court’s words, “for purposes of civil liability the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind. 630 F.2d at 890.”

This principle reflects more than a universal moral aversion to torturers. It acknowledges the fact that all nations must take responsibility to curb torture, since the victim is not likely to obtain redress in a country that officially sanctions torture.

In the period since Filartiga was decided, its practical wisdom and its legal soundness have been widely noted both in the United States and elsewhere. At the same time there has been a certain amount of confusion regarding the intended scope of section 1350, particularly with respect to cases of torture occurring outside the United States. In the recent case of Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, _ F.2d _ (D.C. Cir. 1984), the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed an action brought under sections 1350 and 1331 against several defendants accused of an act of terrorism. In doing so, the three-judge panel announced three widely differing views of the Alien Tort Claims Act. While the Tel-Oren case raises a number of complex legal issues that we need not address today, the sharp differences among the three judges who considered the case make clear the need for congressional clarification of the law. Significantly, each of the judges specifically called for clarification, and one judge indicated that lack of congressional guidance was key to his reluctance to follow the Filartiga holding.

While Tel-Oren points up the need for general clarification of section 1350’s application to torture cases, it also highlights one unambiguous anomaly in the law that Congress can and should rectify. 28 U.S.C § 1350 enables aliens but not U.S. citizens to sue in federal courts in tort for violations of the law of nations, including torture. While it may be possible that citizens could sue under another more general jurisdictional statute—28 U.S.C. § 1331—neither the D.C. District Court nor its Court of Appeals was willing to say so.

[Page 29] It makes little sense for U.S. law to extend a significant protection against torture to aliens but not to our own citizens. Accordingly, Congress should consider amending 28 U.S.C. § 1350 to allow lawsuits brought by U.S. citizens as well as aliens. This can be done simply by deleting the words “by an alien” from section 1350.

In the course of making such an amendment, Congress should also make it clear that section 1350 authorizes civil actions based on torture, regardless of where the violation occurred. In this way it could help to resolve some of the legal issues posed by Filartiga and Tel-Oren and encourage reliance on this provision in future uses.

To date, few lawsuits have been brought under section 1350. It is likely that even if the changes I propose were made, section 1350 would be invoked rarely. The reasons are obvious. Torturers do not often present themselves to their victims while visiting the United States and the chances of collecting a money judgment are slim. Nonetheless, the practical and symbolic impact of the Filartiga decision cannot be understated. In that case we as a nation took a position that significantly enhances the rights of aliens who have been brutally tortured. Torturers who may wish to visit or live in the United States now understand that they also may be subject to civil action and may risk a judgment for money damages based on their violations of international human rights law. Hopefully other nations will take note of this development in our law and extend it to their own legal systems.

To help clarify and further institutionalize this process, what I am proposing is simply that Congress strengthen the Second Circuit’s interpretation of U.S. law by endorsing it. At the same time Congress should extend the legal protection afforded by section 1350 to United States citizens. The Lawyers Committee is eager to work with this Committee and the Judiciary Committees in both Houses to help shape legislation that would address these concerns.

Legislation Barring Torturers from
Entering the United States

A SECOND area warranting congressional action involves the manner in which our immigration laws treat torturers who seek to enter our country. Since the 1880s we have had immigration laws that exclude aliens who are deemed undesirable. There are currently thirty-three exclusion categories, including some categories that many people find unwarranted and unduly restrictive.

In recent months, for example, there has been increasing criticism of the so-called “ideological exclusion” provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Sections 212(a)(27), (28) and (29)). Several months ago Congressman Barney Frank introduced legislation that would substantially amend the most controversial aspects of these provisions. The Lawyers Committee, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and others, support these legislative efforts to eliminate laws that serve little purpose and have the undesirable effect of restricting free association and free expression of ideas.

While we believe that these and a number of the other exclusion provisions are overbroad, we find it troubling that there is no specific provision in current law that prevents torturers from entering our country. Current immigration laws do exclude persons convicted of crimes of moral turpitude (Section 212(a)(9)), as well as those who pose a threat to national security (Section 212(a)(29)) or whose entry would prejudice the national interest Section 212(a)(27)). While it is possible that some torturers would be excluded under these provisions, many would not.

It is highly unlikely that persons engaged in systematic torture would be excludable on the basis that they were convicted by their government of a crime of moral turpitude. In most countries where torture is practiced systematically, those who carry out these policies act under the color of government authority. Additionally, while some torturers may be denied entry under the so-called ideological exclusion provisions (Sections 212(a)(27) and 212(a)(29)), these questionable statutes are [Page 30] clearly not intended, nor have they in practice been used, to exclude torturers. In any case, they do not compel the exclusion of torturers.

To address this issue Congress should consider adopting an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that would specifically exclude those who directly engage in systematic physical torture under the color of law. Such a law would serve the interests of United States citizens by keeping this undesirable class of persons out of our country. At the same time it would provide a signal to the rest of the world that the United States will no longer be a “safe haven” for torturers.

In making this proposal I am well aware of the potential for abuse in its application. The Lawyers Committee is routinely involved in the representation of aliens, particularly those seeking asylum in this country. Accordingly, we know that abuses of discretion can, and often do, occur in the current application of U.S. immigration laws. The Lawyers Committee has been and will continue to be critical of such abuses.

In order to protect against improper application of this law, we suggest that it should be carefully limited to those who personally carried out acts of physical torture. To minimize proof problems, in making a decision to exclude an alien on this basis, U.S. officials should rely heavily on reports by recognized human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and reports by intergovernmental organizations. Wherever possible, a decision to exclude an alien should not be based on a single accusation by an individual who claims that he or she was tortured. In other words the law should be written in a manner that will ensure that no one will be excluded on the basis of a personal vendetta.

A second restriction that should be incorporated into this provision is that the act of torture must be carried out under the color of law. This would give U.S. officials the authority to exclude security force and military officers from other countries who carry out torture as part of a governmental policy and who therefore are not subject to criminal prosecution. Under this limitation those who carry out torture pursuant to higher orders would not be able to cite those orders as a defense.

Finally, we believe generally that decisions regarding the exclusion of aliens should be reviewable judicially. Recognizing that this raises a much broader series of issues that go beyond the scope of these hearings, I Will not address those issues today. I note, however, that these issues have been the subject of a comprehensive report prepared in March 1984 by the Immigration and Nationality Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, entitled “Visa Denials on Ideological Grounds: An Update.” Again the Lawyers Committee would welcome the opportunity to work with appropriate congressional committees to help conceptualize an exclusion category that would exclude torturers but at the same time protect the rights of those legitimately seeking entry to our country.

Mr. Chairman, the point of my testimony is that torture should not be viewed as an abstract problem that occurs elsewhere, upon which we can have little effect. In fact, there are several very practical measures that this committee and the Congress can undertake to respond to the horrendous practices of torture occurring in the world today. I believe that this country can and should become a model for other nations, both by extending practical remedies to all torture victims and by excluding torturers from our shores.

[Page 31]

[Page 32]

Riḍván at Bahjí

The jacaranda is in bloom,

Its brief blue blossoms

Bannering forth above our heads—

The very earth arrayed

To celebrate with us

As, pilgrims all, we stand

In this most Sacred Spot

On this Most Holy Day—

Oh Day of Days!

When God Himself

Again speaks forth—

The gates of Eden

Once more opened

To the face of men.

—Judith Ehrich

Copyright © 1985 by Judith Ehrich

Untitled

Once giant-birch me

was green and naive

tossed by the rain

bent by the breeze.

Now streaked with gold

I’ve changed from within

stiffened by ego

humbled by friends,

mellowed by time,

waiting to see

what growing God

still plans for me.

—Victoria Wysznski Thorsen

Copyright © 1985 by Victoria Wysznski Thorsen

[Page 33]

Currents

dark are the depths

and cold

cold as the darkness

i am moved pushed pulled

by sluggish currents

ancient timeless movement

through dark and lifeless waters

perception is dim

thoughts are numb alone and nearly sleeping

forever passes

from within a stirring

from the depths from the darkness

a question to what end the movement?

toward what beginning

even in darkness i sense the light

the possibility the certainty

drawing nearer as i struggle to believe

the currents are stronger quicker

the water is changing warming brightening

yes yes and yes

with new energy total and exultant

forever changes and i

coming to sunlight

—Greg Brown

Copyright © 1985 by Greg Brown

[Page 34]

[Page 35]

World Views and the Shape of Communities

BY WILL. C. VAN DEN HOONAARD

Copyright © 1985 by Will. C. Van Den Hoonaard

ONE’S way of participating in the affairs of the world is shaped by the particular views one holds about social reality. These views are assumptions that are taken for granted. They can be explicit, but more often they are implicit. Social scientists call such perceptions of social reality (or conceptual models of the world) world views: philosophical, intellectual, and religious orientations. One’s concept of the nature of social change and the way one can participate in social change is an outcome of one’s world view.

Since Bahá’ís perceive of society as being in a constant state of change, it is instructive to explore the Bahá’í world views that form the basis of the way Bahá’ís understand social change and, indeed, create a new society.

There is a widely held notion that Bahá’ís share a common world view; and, indeed, there is a strong reason to adopt this assumption. The sacred writings of the Bahá’í Faith exhibit a powerful consistency and unity in explaining both spiritual and social realities. The lives of the Founders of the Faith clearly demonstrate, in a practical manner, this unity of thought and action. The elected and appointed institutions of the Faith follow in primary matters the guiding impulses flowing from the Faith’s supreme administrative body, the Universal House of Justice, which is established according to the precepts of the Bahá’í sacred writings. Finally, Bahá’ís themselves reaffirm the fact that they share a common world view. The membership of the Faith is composed of men and women who, in accepting this new Faith, were, in fact, prompted by the unity of the Bahá’í writings and the Bahá’í administrative order. There is, thus, some basis for the belief that Bahá’ís share a basic world view.

Upon closer examination of the thoughts and attitudes of these new creatures called Bahá’ís, however, one is confronted by the puzzling phenomenon of the existence of four world views. Puzzlement increases when one realizes that these world views seem to be at variance with one another. The puzzle grows even more perplexing when one realizes that support for each world view can be found in the Bahá’í writings.

What follows is a discussion of the nature and practical implications of the four world views, an examination of the source of their divergence, and suggestions about some possible ways of reconciling them. The four world views can be described as the embryonic view, the integrative view, the oasis view, and the composite view.

[Page 36]

The Embryonic View

THE EMBRYONIC view does not see the relationship of the Bahá’í community to society at large as antagonistic. Rather, on the individual level, the Bahá’í community acts as a catalyst for traits of the old world order. Such traits are converted into the spiritual qualities called forth by the revelation of Bahá’u’lláh. The individual sees himself as standing with one leg in the old world order and the other leg in the new world order. One comes into the Bahá’í community with remnants of antiquated traits, attitudes, and forms of behavior. The task of the Bahá’í community, according to the embryonic view, is to convert such qualities into those more appropriate for the new age. Consequently, individuals holding the embryonic view tend to be tolerant, understanding, and patient with those who become Bahá’ís. As the “‘generation of the half-light,’” they are more likely to build tolerance into their attitudes toward each other.

On the collective level there is the prevalent notion that the Bahá’í community itself is also at present in an embryonic stage of development. The Bahá’í stages of development occur within society at large. In a sense the capacities and powers of the Bahá’í community are evolving in the context of a larger society. The latent functions of the Bahá’í community are gradually becoming manifest:

Now in the world of being the Hand of divine power hath firmly laid the

foundations of this all-highest bounty and this wondrous gift. Whatsoever is latent in the innermost of this holy cycle shall gradually appear and be made manifest, for now is but the beginning of its growth and the dayspring of the revelation of its signs. . . .

The Integrative View

THE INTEGRATIVE view is not merely an attitude, us was suggested with the embryonic view. Rather, it encourages the actual participation of Bahá’ís in the affairs of the world. Although it acknowledges the existence of two worlds— a Bahá’í and a non-Bahá’í world—the integrative view sees the coming together of these two worlds. As the Universal House of Justice stated in its 1972 Riḍván message: The divergence between the ways of the world and of the Cause of God becomes ever wider. And yet the two must come together. . . . (Emphasis mine). Active participation by the Bahá’ís in the larger non-Bahá’í society is seen as the mechanism by which these worlds are coming together.

Often the signs of the convergence of the two worlds, which will eventually lead to the establishment of a new world order, are associated with progressive developments in the world at large, particularly in the fields of science, medicine, education, and the social sciences. Moreover, there is a respect for scientific [Page 37] accomplishments beyond the confines of the Bahá’í community: “For science ever tends to the illumination of the world of humanity.” And there is encouragement for Bahá’ís to choose vocations and avocations that contribute to the bringing together of the Bahá’í and non-Bahá’í worlds.

In addition, the integrative view holds that a number of political institutions —the United Nations, for example—reflect, indirectly, the light of unity brought by Bahá’u’lláh. A more striking aspect of this particular world view relates to the establishment of the Lesser Peace, which, as every Bahá’í knows, will be brought about by the political institutions outside the Faith.

The Oasis View

WHILE BOTH the embryonic and the integrative views have a salutory understanding of the world, the oasis view emphasises the constructive forces of the Bahá’í community and the disintegrative forces of society at work in the world. It is called the “oasis” view because it regards the Bahá’í community as a refuge for the masses of mankind. Bahá’í teachings, as opposed to the barrenness of social thought and action in the world at large, are seen as the life-giving force in the world today.

While constructive forces are associated with the emergence of the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, “destructive forces,” according to Shoghi Effendi, the appointed Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, “should be identified with a civilization that has refused to answer to the expectations of a new age, and is consequently falling into chaos and decline.” “Moral downfall,” the impotence of statesmanship, and the steady decline of our social institutions are some of the chief hallmarks of these destructive forces. The Bahá’í and non-Bahá’í worlds are, according to the oasis view, moving rapidly apart. Hence it becomes impossible to stand with a leg in each of the world orders.

Because the Bahá’í and non-Bahá’í worlds are, indeed, pursuing opposite aims, the individual Bahá’ís may express a lack of interest in the old world order, even a sense of disapproval of the ways of that order. They may disparage learning and knowledge not rooted in the new world order. And they may, because of their noninvolvement, occasionally rebuff certain medical practices, psychological therapy or counseling, management theory, sociological insights, and the like. In more practical terms they view with skepticism the theories [Page 38] and practices of social and economic development, as formulated by the general society.

On a more fundamental level the oasis view has particular relevance for the Bahá’í doctrine of noninvolvement in political affairs. This doctrine is so pervasive that it even guides the direction of the other views discussed in this essay.

The Composite View

THE MOST INCLUSIVE view of the world is embodied in the composite perspective, which stresses the confluence—the being together—of the Bahá’í and non-Bahá’í worlds. As ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has stated: “God is one; His servants are, likewise, one. God has created all; He is kind to all. Inasmuch as He is such a tender Father to all, why should His children disagree?” And again:

all phenomena in the inner world of reality receive the bounties of God from the source of divine bestowal. This human plane, or kingdom, is one creation, and all souls are the signs and traces of the divine bounty. In this plane there are no exceptions; all have been recipients of their bestowals through the heavenly bounty. Can you find a soul bereft of the nearness of God? . . . all are manifestations of the divine bounty. This is the oneness of the world of humanity.

The unity of all mankind is not merely illustrated by the Bahá’í community, but the light of the new revelation has also been infused into all of society:

In the unmistakable and universal reformation we are witnessing, when outer conditions of humanity are receiving such impetus, when human life is assuming a new aspect, when sciences are stimulated afresh, inventions and discoveries increasing, civic laws undergoing change and moralities evidencing uplift and betterment, is it possible that spiritual impulses and influences should not be renewed and reformed?

At face value there appears no difference between the Bahá’í world and non-Bahá’í world; both are recipients of God’s bounties. Perhaps the difference between Bahá’ís and others is the fact that Bahá’ís recognize the source of these new bestowals, whereas others do not. Perhaps this perspective calls for a need for humility; one’s place in the unfolding world order is measured in terms of all the forces operating in the world at large. As a result participation in development schemes of a non-Bahá’í nature is not discouraged. Recent developments at the World Center of the Faith include the formation, in January 1984, of the Office of Social and Economic Development, which should lend a great stimulus to the composite view of the world.

Reconciling the Four Views

WHILE it is difficult to provide an overview of the four basic Bahá’í approaches to understanding social change and society in general without reference to the general context of the Bahá’í writings referred to, it is clear that the four perspectives do exist. It is also evident that these views may cause disturbances [Page 39] within the Bahá’í community and may drastically influence the ways it relates to the world at large. If such views are not reconciled, or openly acknowledged and dealt with, they hamper the continuing development of the community. In addition to the community’s being affected, individual Bahá’ís may find reason to disapprove of other Bahá’ís’ participation, or noninvolvement, in the world. And if Bahá’ís choose to participate, they may meet with additional criticism for participating “too much” or “too little” in wider society. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the puzzling phenomenon of the coexistence of four basic world views be resolved.

There are two essential ways of explaining the existence of these divergent perspectives. On the first level there is the “internal explanation”—that is, the causal explanation resting upon the nature of the views themselves. The internal explanation calls for examining evidence from a doctrinal point of view. On the second level there are externally derived explanations for the divergent views. These latter explanations are more sociological in nature.

First-level explanations. Each of the four perspectives, as can be seen in the Bahá’í writings, embodies a counterpoint. For the embryonic approach there is the recognition that the Bahá’í community will one day cease to be embryonic and will, in fact, gain all the power worthy of a world religion:

in the course of the Golden Age . . . the World Bahá’í Commonwealth will have emerged in the plenitude of its power and splendor, and the birth and efflorescence of a world civilization . . . will have conferred its inestimable blessings upon all mankind.

With regard to the integrative approach, there is the concurrent view that the two worlds are by no means equal “partners”:

Humanity, whether viewed in the light of man’s individual conduct or in the existing relationships between organized communities and nations, has, alas, strayed too far and suffered too great a decline to be redeemed through the unaided efforts of the best among its recognized rulers and statesmen. . . .

Rather, it is the Bahá’ís who are called upon to take the initiative in transforming the old world order so that both can indeed come together:

They that are endued with sincerity and faithfulness should associate with all the peoples and kindreds of the earth with joy and radiance, inasmuch as consorting with people hath promoted and will continue to promote unity and concord, which in turn are conducive to the maintenance of order in the world and to the regeneration of nations.

The oasis approach views the disintegrative forces as embodying some positive value: They are tearing down the old barriers that have kept the world divided.

[Page 40]

Adversity, prolonged, worldwide, afflictive, allied to chaos and universal destruction, must needs convulse the nations, stir the conscience of the world, disillusion the masses, precipitate a radical change in the very conception of society, and coalesce ultimately the disjointed, the bleeding limbs of mankind into one body, single, organically united, and indivisible.

The composite perspective is moderated by the view that, although many are called, only a few are chosen. And while, in a universal sense, we are all God’s creatures and perform “good works,” it is also clear that both “faith” and “good works” are prerequisites to accepting the most recent Manifestation of God: “Although a person of good deeds is acceptable at the Threshold of the Almighty, yet it is first ‘to know,’ and then ‘to do.’”

There appears, therefore, no doctrinal reason to exclude any one of the four world views.

Second-level explanations. When one turns to the sociological, or second-level, explanations, one finds that the four world views create the following opportunities for development within the Bahá’í community:

1. Moderation and harmony. Since each individual perspective is internally counterbalanced by a qualifying idea, the grounds for immoderate views are eliminated. As each notion encapsulates different hues of meanings, the individual can, likewise, not dogmatically insist upon a monolithic interpretation of the world. Within the Bahá’í community there is a collective recognition of these different hues within any given world view.

2. Appreciation of diversity. Collectively, Bahá’ís broaden their understanding of the world when they become attentive to the four diverse view of the world. Horizons of meanings and ways of relating to the world open to them.

3. Diverse but compatible choices. The Bahá’í community is comprised of many diverse peoples with diverse interests and diverse backgrounds. Each individual steps into the Bahá’í community with a world view built up through tradition and life experience. The four perspectives are expressions of these temperamental differences and provide means by which any Bahá’í can participate in the world.

4. Unity. The four perspectives afford Bahá’ís the opportunity to forge links of unity with their fellow Bahá’ís, believers whose ways of participating in the world may be somewhat at variance with their own. Unity is not an instantaneous condition. It requires attempts at resolving conflicts and differences. The challenge of world views is one avenue by which one finds unity.

A recent message of the Universal House of Justice illustrates the doctrinal existence and sociological significance of the four world views. In its Riḍván [Page 41] 1983 message the House of Justice alluded to the embryonic perspective when it spoke of the “inherent potentialities of the Cause for ordering human affairs.”

The integrative approach is most surely reflected in the reference to “the very elements of society [international organizations, national governments, and the mass media] with which it [the Bahá’í community] must increasingly collaborate toward the realization of peace on earth.”

The notion that the old order is distinct and separate from the strivings of the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh—the oasis view—can be seen in the statement of the House of Justice that the old order is witnessing “continual increase of lawlessness, terrorism, economic confusion, immorality, and the growing danger from the proliferation of weapons of destruction. . . .”

Finally, the composite notion of the Bahá’í and non-Bahá’í worlds pervades the whole hope-giving message of the Universal House of Justice:

The Sun of Bahá’u’lláh is mounting the heavens, bringing into ever clearer light the contrast between the gloom, the despair, the frustrations and bewilderment of the world, and the radiance, confidence, joy and certitude of His lovers. . . . The Day of God is here.

[Page 42]

[Page 43]

Meditation of a Reader of Newspapers

The who, what, when, where

of existence fascinate,

distort, distract

the civil mind. Black news

preoccupies and makes me bear

the loss and agony of men,

of man. Behind

the appearance of our elementary

singularity works the gravity

of our orbits’ interlacing:

the rapist and the woman

devalued am I. Without

knowledge of my coarse humanity

I quake, stagnate, inflate, elect

my own abjection. But

the news is not a life:

not I nor you are judged

as readers. Axiom

to memorize, for a geometry

of action: You will be judged

by how and why you die.

—Gerald B. Parks

Copyright © 1985 by Gerald B. Parks

[Page 44]

[Page 45]

Authors & Artists

GREG BROWN, who serves on the staff of the detoxification unit of the Vermilion County Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, first appeared in World Order in Winter 1982-83.

JUDITH EHRICH is a certified reading specialist who now works at the Bahá’í World Center in Haifa, Israel.

GERALD B. PARKS, who holds a B.A. degree in Latin from the University of Washington and an M.A. degree in classical studies from the University of Michigan, now teaches at the University of Trieste. He has recently published The Transilluminating Word: A Study of Robert Hayden’s Poetry and an Italian translation of William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Experience.

VICTORIA WYSZYNSKI THORSEN, whose interests include international folk dance, literature, music, carpentry, and farming, is a special education teacher in Norway.

WILL. C. VAN DEN HOONAARD is director of graduate studies and associate professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of New Brunswick. His doctorate in sociology is from Manchester University in England. He has a book on Icelandic fishermen under consideration by a publisher and a second work on crime in Iceland under way. Dr. van den Hoonaard has also served as an alternate representative of the Bahá’í International Community at the United Nations.

ART CREDITS: Cover, design by John Solarz, photograph by Delton Baerwolf; p. 2, photograph by Grace Nielsen; p. 5, photograph of Senator Charles H. Percy, courtesy of the Bahá’í Periodicals Office; p. 7, photograph of Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, courtesy of the Bahá’í Periodicals Office; p. 20, photograph of Professor Firuz Kazemzadeh, Bahá’í witness at the hearings on torture held by the U.S. Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, courtesy of the Bahá’í Periodicals Office; p. 25, photograph of Senator Charles H. Percy and Professor Firuz Kazemzadeh, courtesy of the Bahá’í Periodicals Office; p. 31, painting of Sun Building by Walter Hatke; p. 34, photograph by Steve Garrigues; p. 42, photograph by Camille O’Reilly; p 44, photograph by Steve Garrigues.

[Page 46]