Iran’s internal affairs: Keep the U.S. out

Submitted by Shervin Boloorian on July 22, 2009 on the FORpeaceBlog.

As Congress prepares to consider more Iran sanctions, it should also consider that confrontational U.S. policies have come nowhere close to changing Iran’s behavior in the last 30 years. On the other hand, in reaction to a contested election, the Iranians have formed an unprecedented home-grown movement for political expression through their own resources, their own desire for democratic progress, and their own sacrifices.

No coercive American government policy — be it threat of force or punitive sanctions or negative broadcast propaganda — is responsible for the wave of mass public protest that has taken Tehran by storm and split its political and religious establishments over the last month.

Even still, Democrat and Republican House and Senate members alike still believe (remarkably) that more U.S. sanctions or anti-government broadcasts will somehow help improve the situation. According to activists in Iran, so long as these programs are backed by the U.S. government, they stand to backfire and do more harm than good, and we should resist the urge to support them.

It’s true that the violence from the government crackdowns has been brutal and appalling but, as Stephen Kinzer noted in a recent article, the U.S. government simply lacks the moral authority to intervene in Iran’s internal affairs.

This harsh reality may anger some people, but it’s difficult to dispute that we have a poor track record when it comes to “imposing democracy” in Iran and the Middle East, and that an aggressive reaction to the Iranian government’s practices has historically proven dangerous.

Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi’s call for a United Nations human rights monitor to Iran is one option that seems to make sense. This would be a multilateral measure that should put pressure on the Iranian authorities while also placating those who say that the U.S. should do more to help Iran’s people. Of course, it will not placate everybody.

As historic as the current situation is inside Iran, it is also our best opportunity as Americans to do what we have seldom done with respect to Iran — and that is to pause and listen to the will of seasoned civic leaders working tirelessly within the current political system to develop change. Ebadi is a human rights leader and an established and respected name among Iranians as well as the international community. She understands what is needed and I trust that she knows better than certain Iranian exiles, who have not been to Iran in decades.

Iran is one of the founding members of the U.N. and wants to avoid further international fallout. By backing Ebadi’s call for an envoy and not pushing for more coercion, the Iranian government would be placed on the defensive and our message to the Iranian people would be clear — we want to help but we first accept that Iranians should be the masters of their own destiny; democracy in Iran should come from within; it is not and should not be the American government’s struggle. The American people stand in solidarity with your cause, and we accept that it is not our place to dictate the terms of democratic change.

Such gestures may also help reverse years of Iranian disdain and mistrust of America and its intentions in Iran. The Iranian people must believe that coerciveness is not the goal in Washington, and that people working intelligently within the establishment can be more nuanced in their approach to Iran. As an American of Iranian descent, I believe Iranians deserve to see that the American policy world can get it right and that America’s values, goals, and aspirations for peace and progress do not depend on Iran’s surrender.

As has been demonstrated in protests in Washington D.C. and elsewhere in the country, there are a growing number of Americans who genuinely care about the nonviolent struggle for change in Iran, and showing concern and unity of purpose is good. Still, the best bet for our government is to heed the advice of Iran’s civil society until we can redefine the wounded U.S.-Iran relationship through sorely needed trust-building. The belief that America can listen to Iranians within Iran, rather than add to a laundry list of demands and punitive actions, can help rescue this relationship.

Americans can further do their part by asking Congress not to continue the policies of overreaction and intimidation during this delicate time. Asking Congress to reconsider new sanctions legislation and ignore those who would see Iran’s present condition as a weakness to be exploited for self-interest is particularly essential.

Iranian protestors have gained fierce admiration for their courage. Shirin Ebadi and other activist leaders within Iran have been preparing their people for this moment for years. They deserve our attention now more than ever.

Shervin Boloorian is an Iranian American based in Washington DC. Mr. Boloorian just completed a two-year appointment as Washington representative of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Prior to that position, he worked as a legislative coordinator for the National Iranian American Council.

_____________

If you want to support just US foreign policy towards Iran, let the White House know by signing this petition.

By Sara Farhang

Iran is home to one of the most vibrant women’s movements in the region. (Photo credit: faramarz/flickr/creative commons)

TEHRAN, Jun 25, 2009 (IPS) – When tens of thousands of protesters braved the ongoing government crackdown to gather in Tehran’s Baharestan Square in front of the Parliament building Wednesday in response to a call by supporters of Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi, they were met with some of the harshest violence seen since Iran’s post-election turmoil erupted nearly two weeks ago.

“All of a sudden some 500 people with clubs… came out of [a nearby mosque], and they poured into the streets and they started beating everyone,” an unidentified woman told CNN, describing the scene as a “massacre”.

“They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood, and her husband who was watching the scene, he just fainted,” the witness said.

Indeed, despite the heavy use of force to disperse crowds and recent violence that has left hundreds injured and dead, women were present in high numbers at the square, as they have been throughout the crisis.

“I am so proud of Iranian women who show up for these protests,” a female protester told IPS, confirming that women at the scene were targeted by security forces and were beaten violently with batons.

In fact, the presence of women at these protests has garnered much attention by surprised international observers. A recent video released on the internet captured the death of 27-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan, who was shot down by a Basij sniper as she exited a car on her way to a protest.

The murder of this young woman has incited anger and sympathy in Iran and internationally. Other women have reportedly been killed and injured in recent clashes with security officials and many have been arrested.

“I believe that women show up for these protests because they feel cheated and they want answers. They participated in the elections and were faced with fraud. They want their voices to be heard,” says one 25-year-old woman who has attended most of the protests in the past two weeks.

“Their presence at these protests is a testament to the increased awareness of Iranian women,” she adds.

In fact, at more than 60 percent, Iranian female university students outnumber their male counterparts. Iranian women are present in all aspects of social and professional life, as entrepreneurs, engineers, medical doctors, university professors and lawyers. Iran is home to one of the most vibrant women’s movements in the region, dating back at least a century.

In recent years, women’s rights activists have been working toward equal status under Iranian law, which is based on conservative interpretations of Sharia law, and as such accords a second-class status to women.

Nearly three years ago, Iranian women’s rights activists launched the One Million Signatures Campaign to demand changes in discriminatory laws in the civil and penal codes.

The campaign seeks equality for women in marriage, right to divorce, custody of children, an increase in the age of criminal responsibility, and an end to polygamy among other changes. It seeks to collect one million signatures in support of a petition addressed to the Iranian parliament.

Activists use a face-to-face approach to educate and raise awareness among Iranian citizens. According to the site of the campaign, however, over 50 of its staff members have been arrested, or charged with national security crimes.

Still, their demands were echoed in the presidential campaigns, when three of the contesting candidates addressed the need to change discriminatory laws against women as part of their platforms.

The first to address this issue was Mehdi Karroubi, who promised to submit bills to parliament intent on reforming laws which discriminate against women. He also committed to appointing women as ministers.

Many women’s rights activists along with human rights and student rights activists voted for Karroubi because of the progressive stance he took on human and civil rights.

Following Karroubi’s announcement, Moussavi issued a comprehensive programme on women as part of his election platform, in which he also committed to reforming discriminatory laws against women.

Mohsen Rezaie, the conservative presidential candidate, also took a position on women and committed to working for women’s equality in society, which is a bold commitment coming from a conservative candidate.

While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made no campaign promises or even references to women’s rights, his advisor on women’s issues, Zohreh Tabibzadeh, who heads the Centre for Women and Families, appeared for two press conferences, a rare event indeed for a woman who has kept the press at arm’s length for the duration of her tenure as the head of the agency responsible for devising programmes addressing the needs of women.

Tabibzadeh used both opportunities to attack women’s rights activists in general and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, who supports women’s equality, in particular. At her second press conference, Tabibzadeh responded angrily to a question posed by a reformist reporter from Etemad daily by saying “those who want to change the laws on women should vote for a reformist candidate.”

In fact, Tabibzadeh’s stance is reflective of policies adopted during the presidency of Ahmadinejad which have worked to relegate women to their homes and promote their roles as wives and mothers.

Ahmadinejad’s presidency ushered in a period of severe restrictions on women, including the re-establishment of morality police, who arrest women on the street for their lack of adherence to Islamic dress; the adoption of quotas limiting the entrance of female students to university and policies forcing women to attend universities in their hometowns; and a highly contested bill dubbed the “Family Support Act” which eased restrictions on polygamy.

Women’s rights activists opposed this bill. Their march on the Parliament was successful in pushing MPs to reconsider and overturn provisions easing restrictions on polygamy.

According to one women’s rights activist, “women were highly active and present in the campaigns of the two reformist candidates as well as in campaign events and rallies. This signifies that women are willing to work toward the election of candidates who take their demands for equality and freedom seriously.”

Their presence at the protests following the elections, according to this activist, “is a further sign that women know what is at risk – the right to self-determination – and women are willing to pay the price for a better future for themselves and their children.”

While many young women turn out for protests, the presence of older women at these events is also easily observable. One woman in her fifties explained that the main reason she attends protests is to “lend support to the younger generation and to try to prevent any violence targeted at them.”

She went on to describe how she was beaten at one protest when she physically intervened and tried to stop the assault of a young man by security agents.

Along these lines, a group of women calling themselves “The Mourning Mothers” issued a call for peaceful protests at Laleh Park at 7:00 on Saturdays, near the area where Neda was killed on Saturday, Jun. 20.

The statement reads: “Based on what sin have you murdered our children? Why have you forced all mothers into mourning?”

The mothers have demanded an end to violence, the prosecution of those who have committed violence, and the release of over 800 persons arrested over the past two weeks.

It seems that with this new call to action, women will continue to have an active presence in the protests, which have taken on new dimensions objecting not only to election fraud but to violent suppression of peaceful dissent.

David Batty
guardian.co.uk, Friday June 13 2008

Shirin Ebadi at a media forum in Germany this month. Photograph: Felix Heyder/EPA

The Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi is not a woman easily stopped in her tracks – she has been held in jail and faced repeated death threats, but continues to speak out against the abuses of the theocratic regime. On the doorstep of the BBC’s Bush House in central London, though, an American tourist waves the Nobel peace laureate and her entourage aside, complaining loudly: “Do you mind? We’re trying to take a picture!”

It serves, perhaps, as a reminder for Ebadi – who has spent the day being treated like a VIP by the BBC World Service – of the challenge she faces in attracting western interest to her cause.

With the international community fixated on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Ebadi says there is dwindling scrutiny of human rights in her homeland, and the hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has taken advantage of this to increase repression.

“Since the world started focusing on the nuclear programme, the human rights situation in Iran has worsened every day,” says Ebadi, who won the Nobel prize in 2003.

Dozens of activists have been prosecuted and condemned to prison, the lash or both. Arrests, detention and judicial harassment are increasing, with journalists, lawyers, students and trade unionists particularly targeted.

“The morality police interfere more in people’s everyday lives,” she says. “They recently announced they would carry out inspections in private homes and companies. In Tehran there was also a plan to target hooligans on the streets, but it led to a lot of innocent young people and women being arrested.”

Ebadi, 60, has been relatively lucky. She was born in 1947 to a non-traditional Muslim family. She was treated as an equal with her brother and encouraged to go to college. In 1975, aged 23, she became Iran’s first woman judge. She lost her position after the Islamic revolution in 1979 when conservative clerics insisted that Islam prohibits women from holding such an office. She was allowed to practice law again in 1992, and since then has turned her legal skills against the Islamic republic she once supported but now opposes due to its human rights abuses.

Ebadi recently took her campaign to the mid-west United States, where she found sympathy among ordinary Americans upset by bellicose rhetoric about Iran. She is perturbed at how contestants in the US presidential race have cited their preparedness to attack Iran. In April, Hillary Clinton said she would “obliterate” the country if it attacked Israel.

“It is very concerning,” she says. “Undoubtedly a military attack on Iran would worsen human rights in the country. Look at Iraq – now the fundamentalists have a pretext for their extremism. No one talks about freedom of speech or human rights. People just want a safe shelter.

“Do you think that since the US troops arrived in Iraq that the Iraqi people have become prosperous? As a human rights activist I tell the people of the world that if you want to help people in Iran the solution is not to launch an attack.”

There is little sign that western leaders are listening. This week, George Bush once again raised the possibility of military action, warning that “all options are on the table”. A US-EU summit in Slovenia threatened new sanctions against Iran if it fails to end uranium enrichment.

Ebadi says the nuclear standoff has made the Iranian regime attractive to disaffected young people elsewhere in the Middle East whose governments are unelected.

“Disenchanted young people have turned to Iran for inspiration, a country that takes every opportunity to burn the American flag. But can the Iranian government represent a good system of government? No.”

The world needs to know that every day the lives of Iranians are “getting poorer and more impoverished” due to the regime’s internal oppression and confrontational foreign policy, she says.

“There are close to 10 million people under the poverty line. That’s one out of every seven. And that is according to official government figures, so let’s imagine the reality.

“The consequences of Iranian policies domestically should be revealed around the world, so [young people in the Middle East] understand that just opposing the US isn’t going to solve the problems they face. We’ve been saying ‘death to America’ for years but our people have been getting hungrier.”

Ebadi says that to tackle the surge in support for Iran among the young in the region, the US must stop supporting its undemocratic regimes. “What is interesting is almost all the undemocratic regimes in the Middle East – Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates – is they’re all friends of the United States,” she says.

“If the US were to stop supporting their governments they would fall immediately. So the people of those countries don’t feel good about American foreign policy and view it suspiciously.”

Ebadi was always unconvinced by the Bush administration’s view that regime change in Iraq would create a domino effect bringing democracy across the Middle East. “It was a flawed argument from the start. If a country genuinely believes in democratic reform it’s not going to wait for another country to reform before taking action.”

Her hopes hinge on obliging the regime to adhere to the international human rights conventions it has ratified. She is in London to promote a new book on the rights of refugees in Iran that sets out how international and Islamic law can be used to protect them.

Iran signed the United Nations declaration of human rights in 1975. Activists say the government is in violation of the treaty. But last year the much-criticised UN human rights council removed Iran from a list of countries that were being closely monitored.

There have been six visits to Iran by investigators since the council was established in 2006, but their recommendations have not been implemented. Ebadi says abuses have gone unchecked, and she is calling on the council to reappoint a special rapporteur to bring the regime to account.

At a conference in Geneva this week, Ebadi called on the international community to strengthen the council, as it remains a last resort for many victims.

“Unfortunately the Iranian government has not followed the recommendations of the UN rights agencies,” she says. “But the fact the recommendations are recognised by the government shows that the Iranian people do have rights and have the confidence to demand that they are respected. So though the UN reports may not have practically led to results, psychologically it has been a great boost to the morale of the Iranian people.”

Ebadi remains optimistic that reform is achievable. Her hope lies in Iran’s youthful population – almost 70% aged under 30 – which is hungry for change and prepared to fight for its freedom.

She cites the example of one of her clients, 32-year-old Maryam Hossienkhah, a journalist and member of the One Million Signatures Campaign for equal rights for Iranian women.

Hossienkhah was arrested in November for writing articles demanding respect for women’s rights under the Islamic constitution. Her bail was set at the equivalent of £75,000.

Ebadi says: “She told the judge, ‘I refuse to do that. I’m innocent but I’ll go to jail.’ As soon as she arrived in the jail, she started giving advice to the women about how to defend their cases.

“She sent a message out to her friends and colleagues that the prison library didn’t have a good book collection. So other members of the campaign brought in books and in less than 20 days the prison had a full library. Finally the judge said to the prosecutor, ‘You’ll have to get this woman out otherwise she will cause chaos!’”

Hossienkhah was released in January after her bail was reduced to just over £3,500. There are many similar cases before the courts, says Ebadi. “I’m glad to say that the more harsh women’s lives become, the more determined they are to overcome them. The will of these women is very powerful and that poses a challenge for the government.”

Shirin Ebadi’s latest book, Refugee Rights in Iran, is published by Saqi at £12.99. www.saqibooks.com

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/13/shirinebadi.iran

When Hillary Clinton suggested recently that, were she president, an attack on Israel by Iran would result in the “total obliteration” of Iran, some recent visitors to that country cringed. As they did when President George W. Bush likened talking to Iran or Hamas with “appeasement.” Lynda Howland, Tom Moore and Judy Bello have all visited Iran within the last year — Howland, in March — under the auspices of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, one of the country’s oldest peace groups. “A lot of the American public sees Iran as primitive, terrorist and uncivilized,” says Howland, of Pittsford. But that’s not what visitors find in Iran, she says. Iranians are increasingly well-educated, respectful and eager to speak to Americans, she says. She showed me a photo of some soldiers smiling and flashing a peace sign when they learned the group in front of them were Americans.

Everyone knows that the United States would respond with force to any attack on Israel, and will do what it can to prevent Iran from aiding Iraqis who are trying to kill American troops. That doesn’t mean dialogue with Iran serves no purpose. Howland cites Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, who says, “Dialogue has to take place at three levels: at the level of people and civil society, among members of parliament of both countries, and by heads of government of both countries.” People-to-people conversation is part of the process of building (or rebuilding) bridges.

“There’s no way anyone in Iran wants to go to war with anyone,” says Bello, a computer programmer from Webster, who visited the country in December. Meeting with ordinary Iranians in the streets and shops of Tehran does not provide instant insight into what the government may do. But I do believe there is value in these people-to-people missions. They can help Americans understand that there is more to Iran than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The country is modern, with a growing professional class, including women. There is a blend of religious and secular culture. There is a deep appreciation for art, which is everywhere in public. “And they revere poets, not movie stars,” Bello says.

Indeed, says Howland, on any day, you can see Iranians visiting the tomb of Hafez, a legendary 14th-century Persian poet. “People gather every night,” she says, “and they read poetry and place flowers on the grave.” It is difficult to listen to people speak from the heart, to eat with them, to visit their homes, to hear them express their hopes for their children — and still see them as enemies. That’s what people-to-people missions are all about. Moore recalls a brief encounter with a man, perhaps a bit older than he, who could not speak English, although he tried to communicate with gestures. “I could see in his face that he wanted to reach out,” Moore says. “I tried to gesture that I understood.” It was a simple human exchange.

Similarly, Howland says, at the end of her visit, a few women went into a carpet shop and wanted to make purchases. “But we couldn’t use our credit cards because of the (U.S.) trade embargo. So he told us he has relatives in New Jersey and we could send the money to them. We left with $500 worth of rugs.” It was a simple expression of trust. It is a side to Iran few Americans have seen, but all – including our leaders – should be aware of.

At least 400 dissidents, activists and intellectuals--a number far larger than previously reported–were murdered in Iran during a wave of officially sanctioned, government death-squad activity that ended in 1999, according to Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Prize-winning human rights lawyer who is currently on a speaking tour in the United States. But Ebadi insists that US threats against Iran and rhetoric about regime change could make things worse, giving Iran’s leaders an excuse to intensify repression.

In an interview with The Nation, Ebadi said that she has documentation for one-third of those killings, and that information about the rest comes from the personal testimony of a man who admitted his role in the November 1998 murders of Darioush and Parvaneh Forouhar, who were hacked to pieces in their Tehran home. The Forouhars, critics of the Iranian regime, were part of the coalition that supported Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, the nationalist leader who was toppled by a CIA-backed coup d’état in 1953.

Ebadi, a Tehran-based attorney and former judge who has battled the government over human-rights abuses for years, says that what she calls the pattern of “chain murders” has halted since then. But she warns that the human-rights situation in Iran remains grave. On April 2, Ebadi herself received an anonymous threat in a letter delivered to her office that read: “Your death is near.”

Chillingly, she said that Ghorbanali Dorri-Najafabadi, the minister of intelligence under whose authority the hundreds of murders were carried out, was never punished–merely shifted to another top position. Today, Dorri-Najafabadi is the head of Iran’s Supreme Administrative Court. “For years I’ve been receiving threats, either on the phone or in written form,” she says. “Those who write me these letters oppose my opinions and my mentality, and they want to threaten and intimidate me.”

Ebadi is not intimidated, and she continues to represent dissidents and others caught up in the labyrinthine Iranian court system. But she warns that threats and bellicose rhetoric from American leaders and politicians is not helping matters. “The most important thing is not to militarily attack Iran, or to threaten to attack Iran militarily,” she says. “Even the language of some of the candidates in the United States threatens Iran.”

In addition, Ebadi is highly critical of the Bush Administration’s efforts to promote democracy in Iran, particularly the creation of a multimillion-dollar fund to assist Iranian activists. “When the United States says that it has allocated $70 million for democracy in Iran, whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having accepted part of that money, and of being on the US side,” she says. “It gives Iran an excuse for what it does.” All credible Iranian activists have refused to accept American funding, and most of the money has been funneled into radio broadcasts and other US propaganda.

Ebadi also dismisses the notion that economic sanctions will affect Iran’s behavior. “Sanctions damage the interests of the people, and they’re not going to topple the government of Iran, because the government has a lot of income from the price of oil because the price is so high.” The only sort of sanctions she is willing to support are direct, political sanctions that target Iran’s leaders, from those involved in the Iranian nuclear program to the country’s highest officials. Such sanctions, she suggests, could restrict these officials’ travel abroad and could order the seizure of privately held assets. In addition, Ebadi believes, the world’s countries could collectively shun the Iranian state. “What I mean is that all the countries of the world should reduce or lower the level of their political relations with Iran, so that they convince Iran to improve the situation of human rights. This was you can isolate the government of Iran without really damaging the people,” she says.

But the best course is one of dialogue. “The political sanctions should be used as a last resort,” she says. “Dialogue has to take place at three levels: at the level of people and civil society, among members of parliament of both countries, and by heads of government of both countries. And negotiations have to be direct and public.”

Within Iran, support for the regime is sagging, says Ebadi. Though opinion polls can be unreliable, she cites recent election numbers to tell the story. “When [reformist President] Khatami was elected to the presidency, he got 22 million votes. But when Ahmadinejad was elected…he only got 14 million votes. Do these numbers speak to you?” In fact, millions of Iranians boycotted the elections, which were widely seen as fraudulent.

The 2005 election of Ahmadinejad and the March, 2008, parliamentary elections gave near-total control to hardliners in Iran, and Ebadi is not hopeful that the pendulum will swing back quickly, especially without concerted international efforts. “When we speak about reform, we are speaking about the gradual improvement of society,” she says. “If something changes overnight, then that is called revolution, it is not called reform. And I think that the time for revolution has passed. So we need to speak about gradual change.” Originally published in www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/dreyfuss