Will the World Accept a Government Using Bullets to Resolve a Crisis of Legitimacy in the Twenty-First Century? S. Rouzbeh ۶ بهمن ۱۴۰۴ Internet shutdowns obscure casualty figures and help conceal evidence of lethal repression. The international community must focus on the pattern of violence against civilians, preserve evidence and pursue mechanisms of accountability. Will the world accept a government using bullets to resolve a crisis of legitimacy in the twenty-first century, then bury the truth by cutting off the internet? When the internet is shut down or severely restricted, casualty figures do not become clearer; they remain contradictory and fragmented. The government is investing precisely in this ambiguity: ambiguity instead of proof, fear instead of testimony, and forgetting instead of a case file. In this same climate, fabricated interviews, narratives constructed with government agents, and the distortion of reality become tools that complement repression. The international community’s response should therefore not stop at arguing over the numbers. Although the scale of the killings matters, the central issue is the “pattern of lethal repression against civilians” and the “organised effort to conceal evidence”. Reports on the number of people killed differ, and in an environment where communications are cut, this disagreement is itself part of the problem. But alongside these differences, one fact remains unchanged: the use of lethal force against protesting crowds, mass arrests, threats, and, at the same time, restrictions on communications and the flow of information. This combination is not ordinary repression; it is an operation to silence the truth. Why arguing over the numbers must not blind us to the pattern Cutting off the internet is not only a means of controlling the streets; it is a means of controlling the “truth”. When communications are cut, footage cannot get through, witnesses are scattered, hospitals come under pressure, and case files are left incomplete or tampered with. In these circumstances, insisting on a “definitive figure” can become a trap, because the government wants the debate to remain precisely where it cannot be immediately proven. The right approach is to focus not on clinging to a single figure, but on “repeated conduct”: shooting at civilians, patterns of targeted injuries, mass arrests, torture or ill-treatment, and communication blackouts to prevent documentation. These are elements that can be investigated and turned into a case. What is the appropriate legal framework for domestic repression? In public responses, the term “war crime” is sometimes used as a general label for violence. Legally, however, war crimes usually relate to a situation of “armed conflict”. In many instances of street repression, the primary legal framework is “human rights” and “standards on the use of force in law enforcement”, not the law of war. This does not mean that the crime is any less grave. On the contrary, in such cases the more precise framework may be “crimes against humanity”—if murder, torture, widespread imprisonment, systematic persecution or organised persecution form part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population and are carried out pursuant to state policy. This is the point that must be translated into legal language, so that it can move beyond the realm of emotion and become a path to accountability. Labelling people is no legal defence for the government Governments usually describe protesters with words such as “mercenaries”, “foreign agents”, “thugs”, “rioters” or “terrorists” in order to justify violence. But the right to protest and freedom of expression are not crimes. Even if a government claims to be maintaining public order, the legal test is “necessity and proportionality”. Lethal fire against civilian protesters is incompatible with these standards, and labelling people does not erase that fact. If the international community takes the government’s propagandistic language seriously, it effectively replaces law with propaganda. This is both an ethical and a strategic error: it closes off the path to accountability and gives the government time to destroy evidence. The international community’s first priority must be to preserve evidence before it is destroyed International coordination without evidence is like a court without a case file. Every day that passes puts witnesses at risk, files are deleted, and pressure to erase traces increases—from wiping local surveillance footage to confiscating the mobile phones of those killed and detained, in order to suppress accounts and erase evidence. As a result, establishing proof becomes more difficult. For this reason, one urgent measure is political and financial support for independent documentation mechanisms, along with the creation of secure channels for receiving testimony, original files, medical records and information about the chain of command. This work is not high-profile, but it is precisely what will make sanctions and court proceedings possible tomorrow. The United Nations: from issuing statements to accountability mechanisms The United Nations is often associated with “expressing concern”, but it also has effective tools. The Human Rights Council can build an “official, indelible record” by focusing on independent mandates, renewing mandates and ensuring regular reporting. This official record is what can later provide the basis for targeted sanctions and legal prosecutions. The General Assembly can also exert political weight, especially when the Security Council is deadlocked. The roles of the Secretary-General and the Office of Human Rights are also crucial: internet shutdowns and communication blackouts must not be treated as “technical details”; they must be identified as part of systematic repression and the concealment of evidence. If the world produces only “concern” at this stage, it is effectively contributing to the cycle of impunity. How Europe and Britain Can Create Real Costs In Europe and Britain, there are two real levers which, if applied together, would pose a serious threat to those responsible for repression: targeted sanctions and criminal prosecution. Broad sanctions can harm ordinary people, but targeted sanctions should strike at the chain of command: commanders, judges, interrogators, institutions, units, and financial and front networks. Sanctions are ineffective if they are merely performative. They have an impact when the names are precise, the grounds are clear, and the measures are updated continually. Alongside this, pursuing cases under ‘universal jurisdiction’ in some European courts can send a clear message: immunity is not permanent; your travel, money and networks can become personal risks. Effective Diplomatic Pressure: Not a Blind Break, but a Measured Reduction The idea of cutting off diplomatic relations entirely is appealing, but it is not always in the interests of the people. A blind rupture can eliminate consular channels, efforts to secure the release of prisoners, and humanitarian routes, and can even reduce the scope for applying pressure behind the scenes. The effective approach, therefore, is a ‘measured reduction’: summoning the ambassador, recalling them for consultations, limiting the level of contact, imposing visa restrictions on specific individuals, and coordinating action among several countries at once. Diplomacy is meaningful when it becomes a ‘cost’, rather than remaining an ineffective habit. A measured reduction means preserving a minimum of humanitarian channels while increasing the political and security costs for those responsible and their networks of repression. The Mykonos Model Reminds Us of a Principle: European Coordination Works There is a clear historical lesson: when Europe acts in concert, governments pay a price. The Mykonos model showed that coordinated action can change the level of relations and send a serious political message. This is an important reminder because today, too, many governments hide behind ‘interests’, while Europe’s ethics and long-term security are eroded without accountability. This is not merely an ethical issue; it is also a security issue. Domestic repression often turns into transnational repression: threats against dissidents, intelligence operations, hostage-taking and pressure abroad. When Europe fails to respond in a meaningful way, it pays the price later and elsewhere. The Role of Iranians Abroad: Organisation, Not Just Telling the Story The world does not move on emotion; it moves on evidence. If Iranians abroad want to make a real difference, they must turn the narrative into evidence: exact dates and times, precise locations, original unaltered files, credible testimony, medical records, and a documented chain of custody. Alongside documentation, demands must also be precise and actionable: targeted sanctions against specific individuals, support for mechanisms to preserve evidence, pursuit of universal jurisdiction, and measured, coordinated diplomatic action. Vague demands produce vague results; precise demands require precise tools. Conclusion: What Is the Roadmap for a Global Response? The right response from the world is neither war nor silence. It is a package of accountability measures: preserving evidence and documentation at the United Nations, targeted sanctions and criminal prosecution in Europe and Britain, coordinated and measured diplomatic pressure, and protection for witnesses and action against transnational repression. If the world truly says that ‘the age of massacring citizens is over’, it must translate this claim from ethics into law. The translation is clear: evidence, a case, targeted sanctions, a court, and diplomatic costs. When the internet is shut down, real solidarity means not allowing blood to be left ownerless in the dark. Source: https://srouzbeh.com/en/posts/archive-44222c74-cd8d-60c4-687a-1ae5785e4288 Please credit the author and link to this edition.