In the Kazemi case:

Iran rejected Tuesday a Canadian demand for an international team of forensic scientists to examine the corpse of an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist who died in its custody.

"Such a demand does not conform with Iranian laws or international regulations," the spokesman for Iran's judges, Jamal Karimirad, told reporters Tuesday.

As long as Canada's foreign policy lacks teeth, progress and results will remain elusive.

It now turns out that despite the usual rhetoric Canada continued to work behind the senes with Iran on a number of issues, one of them being security:

Iran had requested that one of its officials, Seyed Abu Talib Najafi, be briefed on the workings of Canada's new Advance Passenger Information database, designed to identify potential threats to civil aircraft before they board. According to e-mails obtained under the Access to Information Act, Customs officials were concerned about the visit becoming public. One e-mail said: "We should keep this as low-key as possible.

Are we surpised that Zahra Kazemi's violent death was swept under the carpet in both Canada and Iran? In the end the security briefing did not take place because of the North American black-out. Instead a senior official of the Canada Border Services Agency, took Najafi across the street for a coffee:

In a report sent afterwards to Foreign Affairs, she writes, "He showed interest in Advanced Passenger Information." She adds: "He was pleased that I took the time to meet him."

Remember the death of Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian-Iranian photojournlaist who was beaten to death in Iran after being arrested for taking photos of a protest outside a prison? The trial was a farce, her body was never exhumed for an autopsy and Canadian authorities never pursued the case further or so it seemed. That changed today when Sharham Azam, a former doctor with the Iranian Ministry of Defence who happened to be at the hospital where Zahra was taken, detailed the injuries she suffered at a press conference in Ottawa.

From the outset it was abundantly clear she didn't die of bruises to her head after her hungerstrike had caused her to fall as Iranian authorities claimed, a beating to the head at the hands of intelligence officers was more likely. The ordeal Dr. Azam described today however is far more gruesome:

He said he catalogued countless injuries on the woman, who arrived at the hospital unconscious. He said the broken bones, bruising and marks suggested she had been beaten, tortured and raped, with the wounds suggested the assaults had taken place over a period of time.

As a result of this it seems Canada's foreign minister has vowed to renew his efforts:

“This new evidence only strengthens our position and confirms that this was not an accident. It does not change our position. Quite the contrary. The family wants answers. Canadians want answers, and we will be pursuing this until justice is done.”

This is exactly the same position the government took shortly after Zahra's death and to date there have been no tangible results to validate that apporach, quite the contrary. The conservative opposition in Canada wasted no time to come up with some concrete action points:

Mr. Day urged Ottawa to pull Canada's ambassador to Iran, demand the return of Ms. Kazemi's body to her family and agree to a new trial, with an international presence involved in the proceedings.

Bringing the guilty to justice in cases like this is next to impossible as in reality it would mean bringing down the entire theocracy in Iran. The Canadian government faces an uphill struggle in seeking justice, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Some drastic measures including the involvement of the international court of justice (think Lockerbie) could be a first step, but it requires will and spending political capital, both of which are in short supply in Canada's capital these days.

NOTE: Zahra Kazemi while holding a Canadian passport was also Iranian and the color of her skin may have something to do with the less than zealous approach by Canadian authorities, an argument often heard during the recent Air India trial and eloquently debunked by David Fum:

The outraged families of the victimes ask whether Ottawa would have shown equal carelessness had the victims been predominantly white rather than predominantly of subcontinental origin. On this one point, Canada's record since 9/11 should set the survivors' minds at ease: Yes, the Canadian government would have been just as careless.

Somehow I think that Frum's comment is equally applicable to the Kazemi case.

UPDATE: A reader comments:

Canada has a problem protecting it's citizens abroad because what lever would it use? It is fine to have a pacifist foreign policy; but it leaves you little option when you or your citizens are attacked. I doubt Iran will be anymore moved by Canada's pleading then it is by Europe's attempt to bribe it into compliance on the nuclear issues. So what is left the UN? Good luck. It is to late to protect Kazemi; it is not however to late to think about how valuable it is to be a free Canadian.

Sooner than expected: Colin Powell is arguing that Iran is now on track to have nuclear weapons ready by next year.

Question: Is his credibility after the Iraq-WMD fiasco sufficiently intact to convince the world that we now have a real problem on our hands?

Answer: To many, probably not.

Question: But would you still accept his comments and agree that Iran is an issue that needs to be dealt with immediately?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Why?

Answer: Because (a) it is extremely unlikely that on the eve of his departure Powell would come out with an argument based on shaky intelligence and thus make the same mistake twice (place in history and all that), and (b) it's too late in the game to take any risks and err on the side of caution.

Conclusion: Faster, please.

The evidence of Iran’s nuclear progress is piling up, and it will be after the November election before the US government will move. Cheney mapped it out yesterday:

We recently were actively involved in a meeting with the board of governors in the International Atomic Energy Agency. And as I say, there will be a follow-up meeting in November to determine whether or not Iran's living up to their commitments and obligations. And if they aren't, my guess is then the board of governors will recommend sending the whole matter to the U.N. Security Council for the application of the international sanctions, which I think would be exactly the right way to go.

Referring the matter to the UN Security Council would be an important first step, and highlights the priority that the IAEA and the Bush team are attaching to the issue. I will suspend my skepticism and give the effort the benefit of the doubt. As one reader put it to me last week, politics is the art of the possible and campaigning on pre-emptively attacking Iran is just not feasible at this point in time. It’s not as fast as Michael Ledeen would like but there’s some momentum building which may accelerate after November 2.

We should have been paying more attention. That’s in a nutshell what the 9/11 Report told us. As early as 1995 many pundits initially pointed to Islamists as the likely culprits in the Oklahoma City bombings. At that point in time we were apparently already quite aware of them, the threat they posed and their willingness to strike in the American heartland, targeting civilians. Between that point in time and 9/11 we saw a proliferation of terror from various Islamist groups and notably al-Qaeda, in particular the attacks on the US embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole, but still we failed to act. Now we’re acting but as we are doing so it looks like we are again failing to pay attention to an even more lethal threat that a conventional al-Qaeda: a nuclear Iran.

And it’s not that the warning signs aren’t there. To remind us Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Andrew Sullivan, David Warren, Danielle Pletka and I am sure many others last week reiterated the abject failure of a policy of constructive engagement which the US, which to a large extent has been relying on European nations and the IAEA to do the work, has been pursuing. It is apparent that these attempts have been futile and have not accomplished the goal of neutralizing Iran, on the contrary. Engaging totalitarian entities is a complex task on any given day, but when regimes like the one in Iran are in a flux it becomes an even more unpredictable exercise. As long as the hard-liners have the upper hand over the reformers in the domestic struggle, which is what it seems like in Tehran today, they will invariably legitimize their position by becoming even more radical and forcing fearful doubters to follow suit. Such radicalization can take many forms and can range from extreme prosecution of dissidents to aiding terrorists to justifying their historic mission by arming the county to the fullest extent possible. Whatever form it takes, there’s a two-tiered outcome. On the domestic side forces for freedom will suffer even harder repression and externally there will be an intensification of staking out the key enemy: the free world, or to be more specific, the USA and its few remaining allies.

The bottom line is that we can’t sit idly by the side gambling on the reformers at some point getting the upper hand or even riskier, hoping that engaging a few reasonable hardliners will save the day. Krauthammer is especially clear in where we should be headed, sponsor a revolution or act pre-emptively noting that we can’t really expect Israel to do all of the dirty work. Strong meat sure, but it highlights the need to move fast. Before any meaningful action can be initiated however there needs to be awareness, especially on the part of the Bush administration, that Iran is on the radar screen. I agree, bombing Tehran is not the wisest way to kick-off a re-election campaign but the President should at the very least be able to communicate to the electorate that this time he is paying attention.

The trial of the murderers of Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zarah Kazemi has ended abruptly and forced the Canadian foreign ministry to now make good on its threat to recall its Ambassador to Tehran back to Ottawa:

After foreign observers were initially barred, several, including Canadian ambassador Philip MacKinnon and other diplomats, were allowed to attend the session. On Sunday, however, they were blocked from entering the courtroom and the trial was abruptly ended, with the court saying it would issue a verdict at an unspecified later date.

Disappointing but not surprising, and there’s a likely cover-up with Tehran prosecutor Mortazavi playing a duplicitous role:

The Canadian government has also raised the prospect of Mr. Mortazavi's involvement, and reformists have accused him of a coverup. The bill of indictment, which has cleared Mr. Bakhshi of any wrongdoing and implicated Mr. Ahmadi in the murder, was prepared by the hardline Tehran Prosecutor's Office.

Crimes like this will not get resolved until Iran’s hardline mullahs are forced out of power, until then the involved parties are not likely to see justice.

This week it’s exactly a year ago that Canadian photographer Zahra Kazemi was beaten to death in an Iranian jail after she was arrested for taking photos outside a prison where a demonstration was taking place. Apparently the trial of those who committed this heinous act is now underway, although I have earlier expressed my serious doubts about who exactly is standing trial, those with direct responsibility are more than likely to escape justice. The Iranian government will sentence some pitiful underlings behind closed doors and that will be it.

From the very start this affair has been marred by the inexplicable lack of effort by the Canadian government to see that the Kazemi’s family interests were looked after properly. This attitude has generated a lot of criticism and not to long ago her son expressed his deep disappointment over this. Now that foreign monitors have been barred from attending the trial Canada’s foreign minister has finally stepped up to the plate and recalled the country’s ambassador to Tehran. Bob Tarantino comments that this move no doubt has the leadership in Tehran trembling, and he’s right as it reminds me so much of my native Holland issuing hilarious “stern warnings” to China over human rights abuses. Tough diplomacy, if you can call it that, has no effect whatsoever. You can only hit a regime where it hurts and that’s in the wallet, but I doubt if Canada is really prepared to tear up some lucrative deals with Iran for the sake of one dead photographer.

UPDATE: Marzi has some interesting comments as to why sanctions would be highly unlikely...

Two disturbing news items, no doubt related: hardliners seem to be getting the upper-hand in Tehran in what is deemed to be a bloodless coup and any potential of the US and Iran improving relations has been quashed. I have not spend any time on Iran lately but I think there are many other bloggers that do an excellent job here, Free Iran News, a sort of web central for the democracy in Iran movement is not only a good source of day-to-day news updates as well as analysis, it also has a list of bloggers that support the case of freedom in Iran. You’ll find many good Iran blogs right there.

Interesting piece by David Warren over the weekend dealing with Iran. His basic point: the political capital used to invade Iraq, and the depletion of more of that capital to deflect ongoing criticism of the President and his approach to terror and rogue nations, may result in some reluctance to build a similar case that will seek to disarm Iran.

My sense is that neither the Bush administration nor any other has, after the international response before, during and after the invasion of Iraq, any stomach left for serious brinkmanship; and that U.S. domestic politics have also enquagmired President Bush. I am fairly certain that, at least, this is the Iranian (and the North Korean) view.

We may yet find out what’s left of Bush’s stomach, but the nuclear adventures undertaken in Iran should be taken very seriously. Saddam’s weapon development programs pale in comparison to the progress made by the terror masters in Tehran, and the latest reaction from Iranian authorities are further evidence that any form of co-operation or compliance from their side will probably not be forthcoming. Warren is right, they will gamble that the focus on Iraq and US domestic issues has provided them with a unique window to ignore whatever is being required in an international context and continue to build their nuclear capability.

The Iranian government has arrested and charged two persons directly responsible for the violent death of Canadian photojournalist Zarah Kazemi in Iran two months ago. The two have been charged with “semi-intentional murder”, which no doubt will serve as an escape clause to avoid any severe sentencing. My jaw dropped when I read who they were – somehow expecting bearded revolutionary guards - :

“The two accused were reported yesterday to be low-level medical workers, both female. The unidentified pair -- one is a nurse, the other a personal caregiver …”

The problem is that these two may well be scapegoats that were somehow involved, delivered in order to placate the international community while those ultimately responsible escape justice. This is not dissimilar to the way in which Libya offered up two secret service agents in the Lockerbie case in order to avoid any serious long-term economic and political consequences. The Kazemi case is once more proof that there are very little, if any, protections in place for those who come in harm's way when traveling abroad and the legal aftermath usually adds insult to injury for the relatives left behind.

The Project Free Iran website has undergone some further changes and is updated regularly with the latest on Iran. They also have a list of bloggers that support freedom in Iran with a lot of interesting links, go have a look.

The Zahra Kazemi case has not drifted away from the front pages as the Canadian government is stepping up pressure on the Iranian government announcing today it recalled its ambassador and is even willing to reconsider its economic relations with Iran. The demands are simple and clear: return Zahra’s remains to Canada and bring to justice those directly responsible for her death. These are definitely steps in the right direction but it is totally unclear as to why it has taken this long for Canadian Foreign Minister Graham to apply this level of pressure on Iranian officials. The seriousness of what happened should have triggered an immediate reaction two weeks ago; again someone carrying a Canadian passport was beaten to death while in custody. The reactive rather than proactive approach must be exasperating for the family of Zahra. In fact, it should be of concern to anyone carrying a Canadian passport and traveling outside the country, wondering to what extent diplomatic support is available in circumstances like this. As mentioned before, we should not just be monitoring Iran's actions in this case, Canada' approach should be under equal scrutiny.

Today the Iranian leadership confirmed that Zahra Kazemi has died as the result of a brain hemorrhage from beatings she suffered after she was arrested. The fact that she died as the result of abuse is not a surprise, very few were in doubt about the circumstances under which she died. The fact that the Iranian government is now admitting to this should also be viewed with suspicion. To date they have been extremely uncooperative, they are clearly responsible and it is very likely that they will shift the blame for this onto some lower level officials in an effort to stay clear of the negative fall-out and to appease those who have protested the arrest and death of Zahra. We should note that the international community and all those that support freedom and democracy in Iran should pay equal attention and apply an equivalent amount of pressure on the Canadian government in order to ensure that they will do all they can to not only address this particular case, but to ensure that they will also step up their efforts to seriously support those that struggle for freedom in Iran. That effort is apparent well underway:

And in Canada, MPs and Iranian-Canadian groups are demanding that the Canadian government take a more forceful approach with Iran on the issue, both for a transparent inquiry into Ms. Kazemi's death and for her body to be returned to Canada.

In relation to that I received an e-mail from Activistchat.com, a website dedicated to freedom in Iran, who are asking to assist in applying pressure on both the Iranian government and the international community in actions that:

“ …align with the will of the Iranian people and the current movement for greater freedoms”

I encourage you to visit their site, there’s lots of information on Iran and recent events as well as a petition addressed to world leaders that you can sign.

Zahra Kazemi has been taken off life support and is now confirmed dead. May she rest in peace and may the international community do everything it can to bring those guilty to justice.

There were some earlier reports on this, but now it is confirmed that Zahra Kazemi, a Montreal-based photojournalist is brain-dead following injuries sustained after she was arrested by Iranian authorities a few weeks ago. She was apparently detained after taking photos of a prison in northern Tehran where students were taken last month following their arrest during protests. While born in Iran she carried a Canadian passport and the Canadian authorities have taken up her case at the highest levels but you do have to wonder why comments like these are made:

''We do not want to conclude that she was beaten up,'' said Reynald Doiron, a Foreign Affairs spokesman. ''The official reply by the Iranians as well as a full, unrestricted medical examination of her situation will determine the cause. Is it a blood clot; is it high blood pressure, lack of taking medication? Or has she been roughed up a bit? We don't know.''

If you don’t know, you find out. To suggest that she may have been “been roughed up a bit” is an utterly tactless choice of words. Keep quiet and do something. Someone has been beaten into a coma in an Iranian prison and even in the remote case that she lost consciousness because of any other reasons, Iranian authorities continue to be culpable as they were the ones that captured her. My thoughts go out to Zahra, her family and all the others in Iran who have to suffer this brutal regime.

Update: here's the The Globe and Mail on the same topic.

Today is July 9 the day of the 1999 student uprising in Iran, which we are commemorating today. A little while back Andrew called upon the blogosphere to campaign massively in support of those that stand up to the tyrants that rule Iran and I will gladly throw my support behind this effort. His initiative also seeks to get the issue of democracy in Iran on the front pages of traditional media as many media outlets seriously underreported the protests that took place a number of weeks ago. The same can be said for the protests in Hong Kong; media attention was certainly there but pales when compared to the magnitude of events that took place in the former British colony.

The news from Tehran today it seems warrants extensive front-page reporting. There are many blogs that do a much better job in discussing Iran and linking to the numerous Iranian bloggers that cover events in their home country so for that I will refer you to Jeff Jarvis and his BuzzMachine, just scroll down for excellent and comprehensive Iran reporting. The most venerable proponent for pro-active and decisive support for democratic change in Iran is of course Michael Ledeen, here is his July 9 piece.

On a more general note, the process of defeating dictatorships and establishing free, democratic and open societies always unfolds in a most unexpected way and the idea that following the events in Iraq and the demonstrations in Iran things will turn around is overly optimistic. The way in which Hong Kong people this week stood up to heavy-handed legislation was something very few had expected and while this was a spectacular development that some even deemed to be a ‘velvet revolution’, a reverse scenario is equally possible as the case of Myanmar shows us. When a number of years ago elections took place in Myanmar there was good hope that the years of dictatorship were over and even after the military junta fed the election results through the shedder many believed that given Aung San Suu Kyi's presence in the country as well as international pressure it would only be a matter of time before the military rulers would step back and let the democratic process take its course. Today however things in Myanmar are even worse then a few years ago with Aung San Suu Kyi captured and many of her group of activists arrested, detained, tortured or killed. The same holds true for Vietnam where economic reforms and a relaxation of party rule seemed to turn the country around during the 1990s but that process has stalled and the country's Communist Party is as strong as ever.

Different countries in one region can move to democracy at different speeds, and major progress towards democracy can come in many unexpected ways. While we strongly support and hope the best for freedom in Iran, we should be careful with our expectation level.

I do not normally link to Andrew two days in a row, but he has got a great initiative:

Here's my proposal. On July 9, as many blogs as possible focus on the struggle for freedom in Iran. It's the anniversary of the pro-democracy protests that have been going on for years. I'll devote the week after July 4 to this issue, culminating in July 9.

Peaktalk has been meaning to focus on Iran, but there just have been too many other developments worth covering. But, to make up for that: more Iran on this site leading up to July 9, and probably after that as well.

Whatever we do mitigating the North Korean situation (see below), we may want to use the lessons learned and apply them to the situation in Iran, to the extent that is possible. Michael Ledeen today points to the progress that the ayatollahs have made so far in developing their nuclear ability and that we should now focus on fostering democracy in Iran as a matter of urgency.

The Shiite rallies in Iraq over the past few days point to a very disconcerting reality as Michael Ledeen today reports. I have linked to Ledeen a number of times because I think he usually presents some excellent analysis on terror and its origins in the Middle East and has been trying to alert the world that the staunchest terror masters reside in Tehran. His analysis today clearly points to the fact that we have to fear those who will ruthlessly exploit the current situation in Iraq rather than the Arab Street which has been relatively quiet so far. It is a sad irony that the newfound freedom that the Shiites now enjoy is already being abused to further the interests of the ayatollahs. Like Syria, the case needs to be made for regime change in Iran without using any direct military force, for some background I outlined the various options available to us to deal with both Syria and Iran earlier. Supporting the democratic movement in Iran is the first and most obvious step in that direction.

There is a lot of behind closed doors negotiation going on with regards to the next UN resolution while the military build-up continues. We are in waiting mode. A good moment to look at some interesting numbers that Time Magazine published last week (I usually get around to read stuff like this only a week after it has rolled into my mailbox). While a majority in the U.S. clearly supports the use of military force to remove Saddam it is very interesting to see that the younger generation (ages 18 to 29) supports the war effort by a solid 63% while of the older group (age 65 and over) only 40% supports a direct attempt to remove Saddam.

It is not a complete surprise as these numbers have been floating around for a while and in my weekly conversations with my retired father I detect similar sentiments. Why ? Is this not the generation that lived through World War II and saw the brutal excesses of totalitarian despotism with their own eyes or have these experiences shaped them in such a way that they never want to see war again ? It may also be that the Vietnam War has shaped their thinking and that they have become overly conservative in giving the nod to the use of military force. Or maybe they want to live the remainng years of their lives in a world where war has no chance of affecting the lives of their children and grandchildren. It is probably a combination of all, in any case Charlotte Beers has her work cut out for her.

What is encouraging though is that the younger generation is behind the plans to go to war. I will revisit this issue in the weeks to come as I feel it is an important one and it merits further discussion.