Iran   

Iran: Demonstrations; New Human Rights Watch Report; Progress at the Security Council?

Mark Leon Goldberg February 11, 2010 - 1:11 pm

Comment ( 1 )  

Major demonstrations are underway in Tehran today, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution. The Guardian is providing the full Nico Pitney treatment, and continuously collecting first hand accounts and videos from the day's events.  So far, it looks like the government is firmly in control of the situation and has been able to keep the crowds dispersed.  To that end, these tactics seem to help.

    

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch released a new report on the human rights abuses that occured during the government's crackdown against its political opposition, following Iran's disputed presidential election. The report provides a number of first person accounts from witnesses and victims of the Iranian government's post-election crackdown, including this story from a former detainee.  

On June 26, prison guards one more time set up fake executions, cursing and randomly beating people who asked for water or to use the toilet. I said, "Execute me if you want and get it over with." I received a kick to my stomach and when I fell to the ground more kicks in the stomach, until I started throwing up blood. Another man said, "Take this faggot and make him pregnant, so he won't be a smartass again." That man grabbed me violently and pulled me to another location. He tied my hands and feet and pulled down my underwear and [...] while he was raping me he said, ".... You can't even defend your own ass, how do you want to start a velvet revolution?" I threw up blood and passed out.

Finally, there is some movement at the Security Council on a potential next round of Iran sanctions.  At a meeting in Brussels, Gordon Brown re-iterated the UK government's position on Iran:

“I think the choices could not be clearer. Iran can either pursue a civilian nuclear programme, respect human rights and earn the trust and respect of the international community, or it can move ahead with its nuclear weapons programme, trample on human rights and be isolated and ostracized on the wrong side of history, outside the international community.”

 So what are the next steps?  The ever valuable Security Council report summarizes the current council dynamics on Iran:

Within the P5, divisions remain on the best approach on Iran. France, the UK and the US now support prompt action on further sanctions.

China seems to maintain that further dialogue might be productive and that there is still space for further negotiations with Iran. It is therefore not the right moment for sanctions. However, China agreed to the joint statement from the January meeting which began a process to discuss additional measures.

Russia does not seem to rule out additional sanctions. It seems to have been particularly concerned at the revelation of the Qom enrichment facility, as well as Iran’s rejection of the IAEA October 2009 proposal which it saw as a fair compromise. In a statement on 22 January, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia wanted to see “constructive actions” from Iran.

Some elected Council members seem sceptical about the utility of further sanctions at this stage. There are also concerns about the impact of increased international pressure on the fragile internal situation in Iran.

Brazil and Turkey both abstained when the 27 November 2009 resolution on Iran was adopted in the IAEA and believe there is still room for further negotiations on the basis of the October offer. They have both engaged bilaterally with Iran. Lebanon is also concerned about premature Council action.

Many elected members also seem concerned about the failure of the P5 to consult with them collectively as Council members in the process.

Stay tuned.  

 

Refusing to recognize Ahmadinejad's government will get us nowhere

John Boonstra August 13, 2009 - 10:24 am

Comment ( 11 )  

Following Ban Ki-moon's "congratulating" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election, 200-plus "intellectuals, activists and defenders of rights," including a number of Nobel Prize winners, have signed an open letter to the Secretary-General contesting the Iranian elections and urging him to take a number to steps to withhold support for the Iranian regime and protect the rights of Iranian protestors. Another Nobel laureate, Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, has also stressed that Ban should send a truth-finding commission to Iran and push for a re-election.

There's nothing wrong with -- and in fact much reason to support -- sending a truth-finding commission to Iran (though try telling that to Ahmadinejad), and even more reason to speak out against the human rights abuses of Iranian protestors. In fact, Ban has spoken out against the violence curtailing of press and assembly rights that followed the election, and a UN report on the country is due at the end of the year. But what's harder to responsibly call for is the group letter's final recommendation -- essentially, that the UN Secretary-General denounce Iran's government.

Refuse to recognise Ahmadinejad's illegitimate government that has staged an electoral coup, and curtailing any and all forms of co-operation with it from all nations and international organisations

This is similar to the implicit position in the negative reactions -- fewer, I admit, than I'd expected -- to Ban' perfunctory "congratulation" of Ahmadinejad, and to critics of President Obama's unwillingness to denounce the Iranian regime outright. This sort of criticism is entirely myopic, though, even for skeptics of strategies of engagement and cooperation. No matter how farcical Iran's election was, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is currently the leader of Iran, and no support that the international community bestows or withholds will change that -- in fact, the latter would likely only exacerbate tensions.

Ban Ki-moon is the Secretary-General of 192 United Nations, and Barack Obama the president of the most powerful country in the world. They both have to deal with Iran. Cooperation is much easier than confrontation, and the goals -- ensuring that Iran does not build a nuclear weapon, for instance -- are far more important than the unproductive act of denouncing Iran's leaders.

 

Where's the Social Web Revolution for Abused Women and Starving Children? (Boiling Frog Syndrome)

Peter Daou June 20, 2009 - 1:45 pm

Comment ( 6 )  

It's worth noting that with all this triumphant talk about the Twitter revolution in Iran - especially when it's about a lesser-of-two-evils candidate - we can't summon a fraction of the energy and passion to save abused, raped and battered women across the globe. Nor can we muster the same attention and will to deal with the plight of children who are dying of hunger, deprived of the bare necessities of life.

Here are the brutal facts:

* There are four million new hungry people every week, over a billion total. Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes - one child every five seconds.

* Millions of women and girls (our mothers, sisters and daughters) endure one or more of the following: intimate partner violence; sexual abuse by non-intimate partners; trafficking, forced prostitution, exploitation, debt bondage, sex selective abortion, female infanticide, and rape.

Perhaps it's boiling frog syndrome, the fact that global hunger and women's rights are ongoing tragedies/travesties without sudden spikes of interest. Or perhaps it's the futility of confronting these intractable issues, a sense that we're powerless to change such pervasive problems.

That's not to say that there aren't many courageous and dedicated people working to alleviate hunger and protect women's rights. There are. But where is the massive outrage, the worldwide focus, the grainy images, the Twitter-mania, the color-coded avatars? Most importantly, where is the urgency, the immediacy?

Clearly, something is happening in Iran with technology that signals a new era in global activism. This is the first period in human history when so many individuals, friends and strangers, can speak to one another simultaneously, on equal footing; there's never been a time when ten million people could converse at once, on the same topic, using the same platform.

That also means they can shout and raise the alarm about injustice together. And as we're seeing with CNN, those millions of impassioned people can pressure the media to get on board, further increasing the level of attention.

So why isn't this happening for oppressed and abused women or hungry and starving children, when their aggregate pain and suffering is far greater and the threat to them more severe than to the (brave) Iranian demonstrators? Where's the intense coverage, the excitement over the potential of Twitter and Facebook to alter the course of history?

I'm not calling for less focus on Iran, but more, much more, on the mortal threat so many women and children face.

I'll conclude with a clip from Channel 4 News in the UK, where I was asked to comment on Gordon Brown's statement that because of the Internet, there will be no more Rwandas. My answer: what about Darfur?

Cross-posted on CTN

 

  • Related Sites
  • UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATIONS
  • UN WIRE
  • Join Us On
  • t
  • f