Iran-China 25-Year Agreement; Violation of Three Constitutional Principles and Trampling of National Rights
The signing of a 25-year agreement between Iran and China, or as Islamic Republic officials call it, a “25-year cooperation document,” has sparked numerous reactions from the public; from severe protests by social media users to scattered gatherings in some Iranian cities that viewed the signing of this 25-year agreement as “plundering” Iran’s capital and resources.
The lack of clarity regarding the dimensions of this agreement increasingly highlights the necessity of paying attention to Article 153 of Iran’s Constitution; a principle in the law that explicitly prohibits any agreement that results in foreign domination over natural and economic resources, culture, military, and other state affairs. At the same time, the failure to ratify this agreement in the Islamic Consultative Assembly contradicts Article 77 of Iran’s Constitution. On the other hand, an article that has received less attention regarding this agreement is Article 125 of Iran’s Constitution, which deems the signature of the President or his legal representative on any agreement with foreign states valid only after that agreement is approved by the Assembly. The concealment by Islamic Republic officials regarding the process of signing the agreement and the silence surrounding the details of this 25-year document, on one hand, and the process of drafting and approving it on the other, is a clear example of blatant violation of the Constitution and trampling of the rights of the Iranian nation, which has provoked the anger of Iranian citizens. Nevertheless, senior officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran are attempting through various pretexts to justify their decision and the blatant violation of the Constitution and national rights.
Blatant Violation of Fundamental Rights by Signing a Secret Document
Examining the legal dimensions of the approval process of the 25-year agreement between Iran and China can be reviewed from several perspectives; Article 77 of Iran’s Constitution states that “treaties, conventions, agreements, and international protocols must be approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly.” Article 125 of Iran’s Constitution has even made the signature of the President or his legal representative conditional upon Assembly approval and states: “The signing of treaties, conventions, agreements, and contracts of the Iranian government with other governments, as well as the signing of treaties related to international unions, shall be by the President or his legal representative after approval by the Islamic Consultative Assembly.” Although some Iranian officials, through playing with words, consider this document exempt from Assembly approval, this constitutional principle clearly emphasizes “treaties, conventions, agreements, and international protocols,” which demonstrates that any document, under any title, that represents any type of covenant, agreement, or consent by the Iranian government at the international level must first go through the Islamic Consultative Assembly representatives and only be implemented after approval in the “People’s House.” This is while, despite the lack of genuine representation of the people in the Islamic Consultative Assembly due to the Guardian Council’s supervisory power and the practical dependence of most representatives on the government, this Assembly itself had no role in the process of approving and signing this agreement, and essentially the details of this agreement were never explained to the Assembly and its representatives.
On the other hand, Article 153 of Iran’s Constitution explicitly states that “any agreement that results in foreign domination over natural and economic resources, culture, military, and other state affairs is prohibited.” Although details of this agreement have not been leaked to the public, the unwillingness of senior officials to disclose this agreement has created widespread speculation among the public, making it more apparent that this agreement would result in Chinese control over many national resources and capital of the country.
Beyond these two articles of Iran’s Constitution that were clearly violated in the approval process of the Iran-China 25-year agreement, by examining Article 2 of Iran’s Civil Code, another dimension of the violation of national laws in this document saga becomes apparent; this legal article states that “laws become binding throughout the country 15 days after their publication unless the law itself provides for a special timing for implementation.” Therefore, considering the legal obligation to publish Assembly resolutions, it appears that one of the main reasons for the government’s attempt to bypass the Assembly at the cost of violating Article 77 of the Constitution was insistence on not disclosing this document.
Public Protests Against the 25-Year Agreement with China and the Silence of Islamic Republic Officials
Following the announcement of the signing of the 25-year agreement with China, many viewed the method of communication and explanation by Islamic Republic officials as similar to the usual manner of senior system officials in “concealment” and silence regarding the details of many events that are sensitive to the public. A method whose examples have been abundant in recent years; from the incident of downing a Ukrainian passenger plane by missiles fired by the Revolutionary Guards to the failure to provide accurate statistics on the killed and wounded of November 2019 by responsible government officials.
Days after the signing of this agreement, numerous news reports and images were published from some Iranian cities such as Karaj, Rasht, and Kazerun, indicating the holding of some public gatherings protesting the signing of this agreement. In most of these protests, citizens with placards bearing slogans such as “Iran is not for sale” expressed their opposition to the senior officials of the system.
The continued silence of officials regarding the details of this agreement and the repeated excuses made by executive and decision-making officials regarding this agreement have created the conviction among citizens that the details of this 25-year agreement, more than being beneficial, would result in “plundering” the country’s resources and capital.
Despite the intensification of reactions to the signing of this agreement, Islamic Republic officials, instead of responding to unanswered questions about the details and provisions of this agreement, are attempting to justify their concealment on this matter and direct public opinion in another direction.
A method and policy that can be clearly seen in the statement of Seyed Kamal Kharazi, Head of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations and a close associate of the Supreme Leader’s office. According to this official’s claim, “the Iran-China cooperation document is not an agreement or memorandum containing details of the two countries’ cooperation over the next 25 years, but rather a letter of intent and roadmap to guide the cooperation of the two countries in various fields over the coming years.”
Although the term “letter of intent” is quite unconventional, it should be interpreted alongside the play with other words used by other officials. It appears that with the intensification of public protests against the approval and signing of this agreement, executive and decision-making officials, through such tactics as “word-coining” for this long-term agreement between the two countries, are attempting to conceal and justify the various dimensions of violations of national rights in the process of approving and implementing this 25-year agreement.
Source: Iran Human Rights Campaign
