Is the Green protest movement dead?

Is the Green protest movement dead?
The repression has been brutal, but most effective. Large pro-Mousavi demonstrations, for the most part, no longer take place. Protestors have been intimidated, threatened with mohareb, that is to say, execution for waging war on God, and beaten into submission.
But the regime has not stopped there. Anyone remotely connected to the opposition, or the demonstrators has been arrested, further undermining the movement.
We heard some news about people who are arrested at night and we are worried if it could happen to us, one Tehran resident told AP.
According to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, more than 230 people have been arrested since the election.
Mousavi’s newspaper, The Green Word, has been shut down, and practically its entire staff arrested.
Seventy professors who had met with Mousavi were also detained for questioning. Associates of former reformist president Khatami have suffered the same fate.
Ebrahim Yazdi, a former aide of Ayatollah Khomeini, told AP:
the people that they have arrested represent a wide spectrum of the political orientation. It is much broader than in the past.
The regime is clearly intent on crushing the movement now, in order to preserve the conservative ruling clique’s monopoly on power.
This wave of arrests has had a chilling effect on all Iranians, and, particulary, on Mousavi supporters: it causes mass paranoia that nowhere's safe; you can't be in your home, you can't be in the hospital. It's much easier to arrest people at night than crack heads in the daylight. There's no camera, there's no proof, there's no pictures, said Afshon Ostovar, a Doctoral student at the University of Michigan, who is writing a dissertation on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
Night raids on the homes of Iranians have two additional objectives.
One is to prevent protestors from taking to the roof tops every evening at 10pm to shout God is Great, Death to the Dictator, and other similar slogans, one of the few remaining forms of protest left to those who do not accept the status quo.
The evening ritual dates back to 1979, when opponents of the Shah resorted to it as a form of protest against his brutal and oppressive regime…
There are many things happening that aren't being reported [in the media]. In every neighborhood of Tehran, people are talking about how the Basijis and other security services are coming into their houses and are terrorizing people for shouting ‘AllahuAkbar' from the rooftops, and for congregating, one resident told Human Rights Watch. Private homes are also attacked when the paramilitaries, the Basijis, suspect that they may be harboring fleeing demonstrators.
Secondly, the security forces are determined to eliminate as many satellite dishes as possible, in order to prevent Iranians from tuning in to foreign TV channels (and, in particular, to the BBC’s Persian Television Service ), and thus having access to independent news reports…
The protestors are thus under siege, and have few avenues left to express their outrage over the election results, and the behavior of their leaders.
Mousavi himself is under surveillance, and many of his aides have been arrested.
As such, the beleaguered protest movement is without leadership.
Mousavi (who told reporters I won’t give up. There is no way back) has rather cleverly managed to use the restrictions placed on demonstrations by the regime to his own advantage.
Yesterday, a demonstration ostensibly organized to commemorate the death on June 28th, 1981, of one of the leaders of the 1979 revolution, Mohammad Beheshti, was authorized, and Mousavi supporters, all dressed in black in order to mourn the seventeen protestors who, so far, have been killed by the security forces, took to the streets, shouting God is Great, raising their arms, and making the V victory sign:
there was a sea of people and the crowd stretched a long way onto the main street on Shariati, one witness told the NYT.
The demonstration, predictably, was brutally broken up by the police….
Incidentally, families seeking to retrieve the bodies of their loved ones killed by the security forces are charged a bullet fee (the ones used to kill the hapless victim) of $3000...
It is now clear to Mousavi and his supporters that victory will not come from the streets.
And yet, the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei party has not succeeded in rallying all the regime’s heavyweights to its cause.
The political elite is divided and the hopes of many Mousavi supporters now rest on Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who supported Mousavi during the campaign, and heads the Assembly of Experts. The assembly is designed to select the Supreme Leader, and monitor his performance. Currently, he is reportedly trying to have the Supreme Leader function replaced by a leadership committee consisting in two or three members, one of which would be Khamenei.
One Iranian analyst told The Observer’s Peter Beaumont: although Hashemi Rafsanjani is not a popular politician in Iran any more, he is the only hope that Iranians have ... for the annulment of the election. He is the only one who people think is able to stand against the supreme leader.
But the assembly is divided between Rafsanjani supporters, and those of Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, a hardline cleric, and mentor of Ahmadinejad.
It is by no means assured, therefore, that Rafsanjani will prevail.
Indeed, the Expediency Council (a body that advises the Supreme Leader and oversees all branches of the government), also headed by Rafsanjani, confirmed the election results, since they had been approved by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on issues of import.
Another powerful faction, however, led by, among others, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, mayor of Tehran, and former officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Ali Larijani, a rival of Ahmadinejad, and currently the Speaker of Parliament, have ostensibly failed to back the President. What, in the end, will this faction do?
it’s an odd dynamic. The person they have to be loyal to, the supreme leader, has thrown his weight behind this person they despise. Ghalibaf is one of these people, like Larijani, and others had been on the fence, and if there is a tipping point they could go the other way, Karim Sadjadpour, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the NYT…
In essence, the power struggle has not been resolved, and thus continues, no longer in the streets, however, but behind closed doors…
Is there any hope?
More and more Iranians seem to think that there no longer is any.
One hairdresser told Nazila Fathi, of the NYT:
people are depressed, and they feel they have been lied to, robbed of their rights and now are being insulted. It is not just a lie; it’s a huge one. And it doesn’t end.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

Things will never be the same

For the first time since 1875, a French president delivered a speech to both houses of parliament in Versailles yesterday.
At Sarkozy’s request, parliament had recently amended the constitution which previously prohibited presidents from doing so, a manifestation of the separation of powers.
Before the amendment was passed, presidential messages and speeches were read aloud by the presidents of both houses, the National Assembly, and the Senate, as the parliamentarians solemnly remained standing during the address.
Two years after being elected, and after a convincing election victory earlier this month in the European Parliamentary elections (and in which he trounced his principle rivals), Sarkozy was keen to set out his priorities for the next phase of his mandate, as the world economy is still adversely affected by last year’s financial and economic crisis.
What conclusions does he draw from the crisis?
Things will never be the same.
The crisis is a major one, but it can also be an opportunity to renew and rejuvenate the nation.
The post Cold-War economic model, characterized by deregulation in the financial industries, is dead. The ensuing economic crisis has engendered a strong need for regulation, justice and protection from its harsh consequences. As such, he does not believe that, after the recession, it will be business as usual, for mentalities have evolved..
According to Sarkozy, there are two types of globalization:
*one favoring external growth: rabid competition entailing low prices, and thus low wages at home;
*the other, internal growth: by producing and consuming more, we all contribute to the general prosperity of the nation.
The challenge is to redirect globalization from the external growth model to the internal growth one.
He believes that the economic meltdown will make that transformation possible, as the Anglo-Saxon model based on deregulation, high levels of debt, and speculation has visibly failed us all, and been discredited for doing so.
In addition, this shift in public perception should render the French model more palatable. The ambition of this model, according to Sarkozy, is to conciliate human, social and economic progress.
That is an ambitious project indeed…
To succeed, the French economic model must be competitive, and its productivity equal to none. That can be assured only by quality education, health and social services, research and development, infrastructure, and quality of life.
Sarkozy’s aim is to mobilize all human and material resources to achieve the goal of improving the fundamental components of the French model, which entails close cooperation between the private and public sectors.
France’s approach to fostering economic development and prosperity is different form America or Britain’s.
Yet, the failure of the latter (financial capitalism) model has, in many ways, helped rehabilitate the French model:
The post-crisis world will be one in which France’s message shall be better received and understood, Sarkozy said in his speech.
France’s ambition, he added, it to place the economy at the service of human beings, and not vice versa.
In order to do that, we must revert back to the basics: work, entrepreneurship, creation, production, values jettisoned, according to Sarkozy, by the proponents of the now collapsed Wall Street model of growth through debt, speculation, and the creative, but hazardous use of complex and toxic financial instruments.
In the new world that is about to dawn, he said, our engineers, artists, our unique conception of public services, our long-held ability to cultivate private and public sector cooperation will once again become considerable advantages.
Yet, Sarkozy recognizes that the tasks at hand are enormous.
For, since the Trente Glorieuses (the thirty years of uninterrupted growth and modernization that spanned the 1944-1974 period, post-war to first oil shock), France’s economic performance and efficiency have been anemic.
The French model may now be less often casually dismissed in foreign economic circles because of its unique ability to protect its population from the most acute effects of a global economic meltdown (this also explains why the French stimulus package was less significant, proportionally, than America’s, for social and economic safeguards are integral elements of the system), it nevertheless needs to be modernized.
Structural unemployment is one major weakness, and is much higher than in comparable economies. Youth unemployment has similarly always been very high, while the employment of seniors very low!
How the nation treats its underprivileged and its minorities is also an urgent and major challenge.
Equality is a term in the French Republic’s official motto, but egalitarianism is not.
Though we must ensure that true equal opportunity does exist for all, that does not mean everyone must be treated equally, but, rather, according to one‘s just deserts, the president insisted…
France’s attempts to socially integrate foreign minorities are also failing.
Hence, Sarkozy once again promoted his affirmative action plan (called discrimination positive in French), in order to give more to those who have less, in the president’s words.
The scheme will be based on social, and not ethnic criteria.
On a corollary issue, he also used the speech to comment on a discussion that has dominated French media of late, concerning the wearing of the burqa (the ponderous, full-length cloak worn by women in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan) by some in France’s inner cities.
For Sarkozy, this is not a religious freedom issue, but one of human rights and dignity.
It is not a religious symbol, but one of enslavement, and debasement, the president claimed.
Parliament is to grapple with the issue, and a law barring the wearing of the apparel may be forthcoming…
On the budgetary front, France’s management of public finances has been particularly inefficient the last thirty years, and Sarkozy fully intends to address the issue.
He has refused, however, to significantly cut costs and trim the state budget in order to tame ever-growing deficits. He considers that the nation needs more investment in the economy, not less.
Nor will he increase the level of taxation, already inordinately high in France.
Public spending will simply have to be used more intelligently: the central question is the quality of public spending, he asserted.
In a nutshell, here are the priorities Sarkozy considers vital for the state to finance:
*ensuring no one falls through the cracks of the social safety nets;
*scholarships for gifted but needy students;
*vocational training for all those between 16 and 18 who are no longer in school;
*enabling all those who have lost their job to retain their salary for a year while they
undergo training in order to find work in a sector where it is available;
*investment in green technologies;
*investment in higher education (high schools and universities).
In essence, his strategy is to help and support all those who, in France, one way or another, create, and create wealth, the goal being increasing the number of those actively contributing to national prosperity.
Conversely, in order to cut costs, he will streamline the state (only one retiring civil servant out of two will be replaced), as well as the state’s cumbersome administrative structure.
French social programs will also be revamped, if they are not to go bankrupt. Hence, the retirement scheme will need reform, and the legal retirement age, now at 60, will most likely have to be extended.
If the unions cannot agree on a program to fix these issues, such as the level of payments and pensions, then Sarkozy will act, in mid-2010, if need be.
Yet, Sarkozy is ready to launch a discussion on what the nation’s priorities should be, which he plans to finance by issuing a public loan in the Fall.
Parliament will be consulted, as will the leading players in the economic, scientific, academic and artistic communities.
For the next three months, we shall discuss these issues together. Decisions will be made once the national debate has been held. What I am requesting is a revolution in our ways of thinking, the president said, a radical change in our relation to the future.
Sarkozy, practically mid-way through his mandate, is determined to act quickly and boldly: you will have understood that what I am proposing is action. Let us have the courage to change.
It remains to be seen whether he shall be heard. Resistance to change is endemic in France, and militantly conservative activists entrenched in every nook and cranny of the state and the economy…
He may just yet, however, have the necessary determination to make some changes for the better…

(the photograph on top is by Benoit Tessier/AP)
　
　

The day that Neda died

The young woman was even deprived of a funeral ceremony by the authorities.
In fact, every mosque in Tehran was instructed not to organize any event in honor of Neda Soltani who was gunned down last Saturday during a demonstration in the capital.
Her fiancé, Kaspin Makan, described her last moments in an interview with BBC Persian TV:
She had been sitting with her music teacher in a car, stuck in traffic, when she decided to get out because of the heat. “She got out of the car for just for a few minutes [and] that’s when she was shot dead,” he said.
Mr Makan quoted eyewitnesses as saying she appeared to have been targeted deliberately by “paramilitaries in civilian clothing.”
He added that officials had prevented mourners holding a memorial service at a mosque on Monday. “The authorities are aware that everybody in Iran and throughout the whole world knows about her story, they were afraid that lots of people could turn up.”
The regime clearly fears that a public funeral would exacerbate the situation, and strengthen the demonstrators.
Thanks to the internet, and YouTube, Neda, in just two days, has become the symbol, the face of the protest movement.
A funeral ceremony could have easily attracted vast crowds.
The authorities are currently attempting, and with some success, to dissuade Iranians from marching in the streets to challenge the election results, and thus the regime itself, all the more so as martyrs, victims of violence and oppression, play a pivotal role in Shiism.
At its heart is the death of Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet, who, along with his brother Abbas, led a revolt against the corrupt and repressive regime of the Caliph. Both were killed in battle by the latter’s forces, led by Yazid, and are buried under the Golden Dome, in Karbala, Iraq. The anniversary of his death, Ashura, is a day of mourning for all Shiites.
According to Shiite ritual, mourning the fallen occurs three, seven and forty days after their death. These commemorations, if they are able to take place, and lead to even more violence and deaths could severely undermine the regime.
This same cycle of demonstrations, deaths, and mourning occurred thirty years ago, and eventually lead to the overthrow of the Shah.
As such, the authorities are intent on clearing the streets, and preventing further marches. Today, the Revolutionary Guards, a powerful militia whose role is to protect and defend the regime, issued a stern warning to any potential troublemakers. Those who chose to march should be prepared for a resolution and revolutionary confrontation with the Guards, Basij and other security forces and disciplinary forces.
As a result, the demonstrations are drawing smaller crowds.
Today, only several hundred protestors gathered in central Tehran.
They were met with tear gas and assaulted by the police…
Yet, Mirhossein Mousavi, who has accused the regime of rigging the presidential ballot, refused to back down. Though the authorities are directly blaming him for the violence and deaths, he, in fact, is holding the government’s illegal actions responsible for the current chaos: shooting at the people, militarizing the city, scaring the people, provoking them, and displaying power are all the result of the unlawfulness we're witnessing today.
For his part, he claims that the law is on his side :protesting to lies and fraud is your right, only if it is done peacefully. Hence, did he ask his followers to avoid violence in your protest .
Yet, the regime is increasing the pressure, not only on the demonstrators, but also on Mousavi himself, to make him think twice about persevering in his quest to have the election annulled. Ali Shahrokhi, head of the Iranian parliament’s judiciary committee said:
Moussavi’s calling for illegal protests and issuing provocative statements have been a source of recent unrests in Iran. Such criminal acts should be confronted firmly.
It is conceivable that the regime will not hesitate to arrest and prosecute him if he does not relent.

The price of resistance is steadily rising. At best, it is assault and arrest, but as Neda's tragic fate demonstrates, human life has become a cheap commodity on the streets of Tehran.

We can only make one wish: that Neda and all the other victims, the anonymous ones, did not die for nothing, and that those holding the guns, and those directing them shall rue the day that Neda died...

"I had waited thirty years for this"

The authorities, and the Supreme Leader himself in his sermon on Friday, had warned the people that anyone found demonstrating in the streets would be harshly dealt with, and bear responsibility for whatever ensued.
Yet, many Iranians were not cowed by the regime’s stern admonitions, and marched in the streets anyway, even if it meant risking assault and arrest.
The government clearly intended to use the security forces to end, brutally if necessary, the near-daily demonstrations , which it considers an affront to the dignity and authority of the regime, and a potential threat to its viability…
Does the Supreme Leader still command the respect of the people, for thousands simply ignored his injunctions. Their confidence in the regime and its ability or willingness to adequately accommodate their demands is clearly shaken.
The demonstrators attempted to reach Enghlab Square and march to Azadi Square, but the streets to the former were blocked by police both on foot and on motorcycles…
The crowds were much smaller than in preceding days because the regime had clearly stated its intentions to resort to violence…
Some three thousand summoned the courage to march peacefully, and confront the security forces, if need be.
As one protestor told The Guardian:
We were very determined but scared. That is how I can describe the most people who came out to attend the demonstration today. After the fierce speech at the Friday prayers, we knew that today we would be treated differently. We felt so vulnerable, more than ever, but at the same time were aware of our power, which, no matter how influential it is collectively, would have done little to protect us today. We could only take our bones and flesh to the streets and expose them to batons and bullets.
And expose them they did….The demonstrators faced police and paramilitaries with tear gas, water canons and truncheons.
Yet, some police officers seemed to have qualms about inflicting violence on their fellow citizens. Roger Cohen, of the New York Times, heard one police commander shout to demonstrators:
I swear to God, I have children, I have a wife, I don’t want to beat people. Please go home.
As the streets were blocked, the demonstrators sought to head towards Azadi, but were prevented form doing so as well…
But this time, they stood their ground, and the security forces charged:
The streets to Azadi are blocked. But this time, people don't change their path. They fight for it. There's a shower of stones. Tear gas. Fire…People are shouting, 'Down with the dictator'.
Shouts of Down with Khamenei were also heard…
Scores of demonstrators were injured (50 to 60?) yesterday afternoon, and 13 people were killed…
Will the violent suppression of Saturday's march be sufficient to intimidate the protestors and incite them to stop their demonstrations?
That is by no means clear.
One demonstrator told the New York Times:
If they open fire on people and if there is bloodshed, people will get angrier. They are out of their minds if they think with bloodshed they can crush the movement.
The showdown does have potentially dire implications for the regime since its paramount leader ,Ali Khamenei, has decided to take sides, and back the declared winner of the election, one many Iranians believe was rigged. By praising the election and its outcome, Khamenei has transformed himself into an accessory to the crime of betraying the people, who believed in the election and ,therefore, in the system itself…
Khamanei’s stance undermines the very regime he embodies and leads…
What moral authority can he and the nominal president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still command, as they all head towards the endgame?
For, Mousavi has refused to back down, and accept either the validity or the legitimacy of the election. In a statement on his website Saturday, he wrote:
don't allow lies and cheaters to steal the flag of defending the Islamic system from you.
He seems determined to pursue his strategy of peaceful demonstrations, wherever it may lead, adding that he was ready for martyrdom.
Until the next demonstration, Mousavi supporters will have further opportunities to voice their support and anger, together.
Every evening, at 10pm sharp, the cries rise into the darkness:
Allahu akbar ("God is great");
Marg bar dictator ("Death to the dictator"), just like they did thirty years ago, just before the overthrow of the Shah (here it is, captured on video by the BBC).
One side demands order, the other respect, of its will, as expressed in the ballot box.
Neither seems ready for compromise on its core demands.
As such, can there be any other outcome but repression or revolution, for some Iranians appear absolutely determined to prevail, in the struggle against the Mullah autocracy:
It's no longer about Mousavi or election results, a woman who demonstrated last night, and they were numerous, said. We have suffered for thirty years. We didn't live a life. I had waited thirty years for this. Now I feel relieved, and, perhaps, at last, alive…

Power cannot be shared

Can a balance ever be found (see Roger Cohen‘s My Name Is Iran)?
Either the will of God is paramount, and elections do not matter, or they do, and the clerics must return to their seminaries and holy books.
In essence, is such a system, a theocracy where people vote, even viable?
Can there be two distinct sources of legitimacy in any polity?
The regime always lacked coherence. If the clerics who rule the nation are divinely inspired, then their legitimacy is derived from their status as God’s representatives on Earth. To question it is to commit both blasphemy and treason.
To inject electoral politics in a theocracy is to create, inevitably, another center of legitimate power, based on popular consent.
The regime believed that there would never be any antagonisms between the two centers, since the clerics would dominate both.
If and when conflicts did arise, the theocrats had the final say: the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council would see to that., as former President Mohammad Khatami’s two mandates aptly demonstrate.
No attempts to loosen the clergy’s tight grip on power were ever tolerated.
Elections were superfluous, except in the sense that they gave a veneer of legitimacy to an authoritarian system, and also provided a valuable safety valve:
Candidates (albeit vetted by the Guardian Council to ensure that only the orthodox could participate) campaigned, and the people did have a choice, however limited.
It did not matter who won, because power resided, not in the Iranian White House, but in the unelected Supreme Leader’s palace…
What happened this time?
Why did they not allow another Khatami, this time called Mousavi, to preside over a nation that they dominate?
That is the real question, and I suggest the following answer:
They lost control of the pseudo-democratic process. Once the people are allowed to participate, no matter how limited their choices may be; once they are able, and even encouraged, to participate in an election campaign; allowed to express themselves; attend rallies, then the entire process become theirs. Green Waves develop, and no one knows exactly where they will break. A chilling prospect indeed for the autocrats who have no intention of relinquishing what they consider is theirs by divine right.
The election was not about the diffident and unassuming Mousavi.
He is no longer just a 67-year-old former prime minister, the consummate insider who was close to the founder of the regime, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei, and who came out of retirement to challenge the incumbent, embarrassed by his confrontational style and philistinism.
The magic of electoral politics has transformed him into a symbol of change.
He is the repository of the hopes and dreams of a generation that longs to connect with the outside world, and that was not even born when the Shah was overthrown, and has known no other regime but the theocrats’.
The last few days of massive demonstrations have clearly demonstrated that they are not ready to give up their vision of a modern, democratic Iran.
Can the Islamic Republic of Iran survive in its present format?
It is unlikely, for power cannot be shared. Either the Mullahs will muster the will and ruthlessness to conserve it whatever the cost, or the Iranians will take what is rightfully theirs.
Who will prevail?
Those who hold the guns always have an edge…

"I wrote Mousavi, you read Ahmadinejad"

On Monday, Mirhossein Mousavi’s supporters descended on Enghelab (Revolution) Square, and marched for several hours to Azadi (Freedom) Square (see here and here for pictures of the events).
How many were they?
Though it is always difficult to tell, most observers believe that some 500,000 Iranians demonstrated in the streets that evening, transforming the event into the most significant anti-government protest since 1979...
And perhaps it is the vivid memory of those events, which led to the fall of the Shah, and the birth of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that is making the current regime’s leaders so uncomfortable…
For, the route of last Monday’s march was the same followed by those activists thirty years ago (and who are now in power), as were many of the slogans: «Death to the dictator» and «Allah Akbar».
That is why the regime had declared all demonstrations illegal, and sent its paramilitary forces into the streets.
Even before the election, on June 10th, the authorities had unequivocally warned Mousavi supporters that attempts to intimidate and bully the regime would not be tolerated.
Yadollah Javani, head of the political office of the IRGC (the Guardians of the Revolution, a paramilitary group, and a pillar of the regime) had said:
The presence of supporters of Mirhossein Mousavi on the streets are part of the velvet revolution…Any kind of velvet revolution will not be successful in Iran.
But the people came any way, and demonstrate they did, some clad in green, the color of Mousavi’s campaign, others with placards that read, «I’ll fight, I’ll die but I’ll get my vote back», «Where is my vote?», among others…
Although peaceful, the demonstration ended violently however, as some protestors set fire to a building housing the Basij militia (a paramilitary group of volunteers, the regime’s ideological watchdog).
Militiamen with Kalashnikovs fired on the crowd, and seven people were killed…
Official media blamed the deaths on thugs, that is to say, the demonstrators.
They filled the streets again on Tuesday, though they were less numerous.
The regime, provocatively, had called all Ahmadinejad supporters to demonstrate as well, in the same area, but an hour earlier than the scheduled Mousavi event.
As such, Mousavi urged his supporters to stay home, but thousands failed to heed his call…
There are few television images of yesterday’s demonstration (only the Ahmadinejad march was covered by the official media) for the regime has banned all foreign coverage of the events in Iran. Foreign journalists are to remain in their offices and rely exclusively on official news outlets for information..
As their visas will not be renewed, they shall soon be compelled to leave the country.
With cell phone services and text messaging still blocked by the authorities, pro-Mousavi Iranians are extensively relying on Twitter to exchange information with each other, and communicate with the rest of the world.
As such, the Stare Department in Washington officially asked Twitter not to proceed with previously scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, so as not to penalize those Iranians resisting the regime (the company readily complied)!
With foreign media soon gone, and Iranian journalists forced to remain silent or relay official propaganda, the only source of independent news will be the Iranians themselves. In fact, amateur journalists are already sending material to established media outlets. A BBC World News editor, Jon Williams, told the New York Times:
We’ve been struck by the amount of video and eyewitness testimony. The days when regimes can control the flow of information are over.
This may indeed become the first major news story covered solely by its active participants.
The election and post-election events clearly demonstrate that the regime feels vulnerable and under threat.
Confronted by a coalition led by Mousavi, a pragmatist insider; Mohammad Khatami, a moderate, who was President of Iran between 1997 and 2005, and Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, a pillar of the Islamic republic since 1979, also a pragmatist, and former President (he was defeated in the second and final round by Ahmadinejad in 2005), the Supreme Leader Khamenei chose to support the incumbent, the candidate most likely to promote the interests of the regime..
Khamenei and his supporters (consisting first and foremost of the security forces) fear that a moderate government, with a pragmatic and less confrontational approach to international affairs would undermine the ideological underpinnings of the regime, and thus threaten its very existence. Any rapprochement with the West, and particularly the US, its arch enemy, the Great Satan, would be a betrayal of the regime, founded on the repudiation of the Western world, considered decadent and morally bankrupt.
Colluding with the West would inevitably lead to the development of social, political and economic exchanges, thus corrupting Iran’s society, culture and mores.
Confrontation is thus the only way to preserve the moral purity of the regime and of the nation.
In fact, greater freedoms would no doubt lead Iranians to question the legitimacy of the autocratic, clerical regime.
Faced with this unacceptable challenge, Khamenei threw his lot with Ahmadinejad, and abetted the conspiracy to rig the election.
This event, in the short history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is unprecedented.
According to Gary Sick, a former National Security Council official, and now at Columbia University, the willingness of the regime simply to ignore reality and fabricate election results without the slightest effort to conceal the fraud represents a historic shift in Iran's Islamic revolution. All previous leaders at least paid lip service to the voice of the Iranian people. This suggests that Iran's leaders are aware of the fact that they have lost credibility in the eyes of many (most?) of their countrymen, so they are dispensing with even the pretense of popular legitimacy in favor of raw power.
Unlike the last time that a moderate was elected (President Khatami in 1997, and 2001), it seems that the fundamentalists no longer considered that they had sufficient influence and power to successfully neutralize the moderates, supported by millions of ardent activists, the Green Wave, even if they are in control of the security apparatus.
They decided they could not accept the risks involved in such a political confrontation.
A coup may have been the sole solution.
A young Iranian journalist from Tehran explained the following to Radio Free Europe:
Coup means that right now they're beating people in the streets. A coup means they didn't even count people's votes. They announced the results without opening the ballot boxes. It was sent as a circular to the state television, which announced it. Is it so difficult for the world to understand this?
The regime has thus retaliated, first by trying to intimidate the demonstrators, then by shooting some of them.
Secondly, it has arrested scores of activists, including former vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi; a former member of parliament Behzad Nabavi and reformist Saeed Hajariian.
A prominent human rights lawyer, Abdolfattah Soltani, was also arrested today in Tehran, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Sherin Ebadi told NPR. She is currently in Switzerland.
And yet, the regime still hopes to avoid a brutal confrontation, for even some of its ardent supporters objected to the heavy handed tactics of the paramilitaries.
Referring to a recent raid on the Tehran University campus, the Speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani, said: what’s the meaning of attacking university students at midnight in their dormitory. The interior minister is responsible for this and should answer ( it should be said that Larijani was once Ahmadinejad’s chief nuclear negotiator, but resigned in 2007, after he clashed with the president over the strategy Iran should adopt in its negotiations with the West. In addition, the minister he was attacking, Mr. Mahsouli, is a staunch Ahmadinejad supporter).
In another sign of possible unrest within the establishment, a number of employees of the Interior ministry sent a letter to parliament Speaker Larijani, and to Rasfanjani, chairmen of the Council of Experts:
As dedicated employees of the Ministry of Interior, with experience in management and supervision of several elections such as the elections of Khamenei, Rafsanjani and Khatami, we announce that we fear the 10th presidential elections were not healthy .
As a result, Khamenei has made one concession: he has authorized the Guardian Council (the body that supervises elections) to proceed with a partial recount of certain ballots. Which ones, and how many is not clear. Mousavi has demanded that the election be declared nul and void, and staged anew. The Council has already rejected that option. As such, it is far from certain whether this half measure will satisfy Mousavi’s determined partisans.
What can Mousavi and his supporters do now?
They obviously have little hope of obtaining redress from the institutions, all controlled by Khamenei and the fundamentalists.
Mousavi declared that he was not very optimistic that the Council would rule in his favor. Many of its members during the election were not impartial and supported the government candidate, including the head of the Council, Ahmad Jannati, a staunch supporter of the incumbent…
Furthermore, he has little faith in Khamenei, with whom he clashed in the 1980s when he was prime minister, and the Supreme Leader President.
Nor does he have much regard for his religious credentials…
Indeed, when Khamenei was called to replace Khomeni, he was but a hojatalislam, a junior cleric, and certainly not a ayatollah.
For obvious political reasons, he was quickly promoted to this august rank…
True Islamic scholars therefore, do not consider him one of their own.
That is probably why Mousavi wrote, not to Khamenei, but to the highest clerics in Qom, the most important center of Shia scolarship, requesting that they declare the election null and void.
Bypassing, or, preferably, eliminating Khamenei may be the reformist camp’s only hope of prevailing in this struggle.
Mousavi’s powerful patron Rasfanjani, chairman of the Council of Experts (the 86-member assembly that chooses the Supreme Leader, but can also demote him), is reportedly in Qom, assessing the mood of the Council…Khamenei’s removal would greatly undermine Ahmadinejad, but could also lead to the implosion of the regime itself…Does Mousavi want to got that far?
The brutal struggles continues…How it will be resolved depends exclusively on the Iranian people.
How far are they willing to go to prevail?
An Iranian-American wrote this to the New York Times’ Roger Cohen:
The bottom line right now is whose violence threshold is higher? How much are the hard-liners willing to inflict to suppress the population and tell yet another generation to shut up? And how much are Mousavi and his supporters willing to stand to fulfill their dreams? It sounds so inhuman, but that’s what it comes down to. It’s very scary.
May Mousavi and his supporters have the necessary wisdom and fortitude to be victorious…

(the title of this post, "I wrote Mousavi, you read Ahmadenijad" refers to the fact that each voter had to write in the name of his choice on the ballot; incidentally, to make sure there would be no foul play, many Iranians brought their own pens, in case the ones made available in the polling booths contained disappearing ink...)

(the photograph on top is by Ben curtis/AP)

　
　

A stolen election?

Everyone expected the Iranian presidential election to be a highly contested one, and the momentum, in the final stretch seemed to belong to the challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi.
And yet, when the official results were released, the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner, with 62.6% of the vote, followed by Mr. Mousavi with 34%.
Voter participation was a historic 85%, meaning that over 46,2 million Iranians went to the polls..
The supporters of the reformist candidate were bitterly disappointed, and suspecting foul play, took to the streets, to vent their fury…There has been some violence, and many arrests…
Who is Mr. Mousavi, and who are his supporters?
To begin with, in Iran, all candidates belong to the same family: they are all followers of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who overthrew the Shah in 1979...All share his islamist ideology and support the theocratic regime put in place thirty years ago…
Those who oppose the ideology and the regime are simply banned from participating in the political life of the nation. All candidates for the presidency and parliament, the Majlis, are vetted by the Guardian Council, and all those not deemed sufficiently islamist or fundamentalist are barred from running.
The choice for the voter thus boils down to choosing a reformist islamist or a conservative one…
Mousavi is backed by the reformist camp consisting in the Islamic left (the original revolutionaries, who, incidentally, occupied the US embassy in 1979), and the forces that supported the moderate Muhammad Khatami, who was president between 1997 and 2005), and the technocratic wing, also known as the modern right (for a detailed study of contemporary Iranian politics, see Walter Posch’s Prospects for Iran’s 2009 Presidential Elections).
The modern right is composed of pro-free market groups, and technocrats who support Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, another former president, and one of the richest men in Iran (and some claim, one of the most corrupt).
Mousavi also attracted the support of those conservative clerics alienated by Ahmadinejad (who is not a cleric), his populist, autocratic style and disregard for some prominent theologians.
More significantly, however, Mousavi has chiefly benefited from being the anti-Ahmadinejad candidate. Though a poor public speaker without much charisma, many women and young Iranians enthusiastically backed his candidacy in the hope that a government led by him would be more tolerant and less oppressive. As prime minister during the 80s and the Iran-Iraq war, he is remembered as having competently managed the economy during a difficult time.
Generally, the fundamentalist, conservative wing of the islamist movement does support Ahmadinejad. His most prominent supporter is the Supreme Leader (who has the final say in all essential foreign, military and security policy matters), Ayatollah Ali Khameni, the successor of Khomeini.
It is equally significant that he has the backing of the principle security forces in Iran, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (founded in 1979, an elite corps in which Ahmadinejad served in the 80s), and the Basij militia, also founded in 1979. It is an all-volunteer paramilitary group notorious for its role in enforcing the regime’s strict dress and public behavior codes…It has frequently been accused of various human rights violations, including harassing and detaining political opponents.
Yet he has also found support in rural areas, and in the ill-educated urban poor, who appreciate his humble lifestyle, lack of pretense, and the subsidies he disbursed during his first term.
Politically, the two candidates differ more in style than in substance.
Both support the country’s nuclear program, for instance, as do the vast majority of Iranians… A Mousavi foreign policy, however, would be less abrasive, and shun the outrageous. Many in Iran have been deeply embarrassed by Ahmadinejad’s repeated denials of the Holocaust, and his diatribes against the state of Israel…
In addition, it would be easier for the West to negotiate with Moussavi, than having to deal with the unpredictable Ahmadinejad…
So, what did happen? Was the election stolen or was the Green Wave (his young supporters were clad in green) supporting Mousavi not potent enough?
There is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest that the official results do not reflect the actual will of the electorate.
To begin with, according to official results, Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi, an Azeri, in his home town of Tabriz, the capital of Azerbaijan province.
Secondly, he also officially defeated him in Tehran, one of Mousavi’s electoral strongholds.
Unlike other elections, the vote results by district were not published.
In addition, 40 different opinion polls recently released all predicted a Mousavi victory (though one issued June 8th, predicted Ahmadinejad would win 34%, and Mousavi 14%, thus forcing a runoff between the two next Friday).
Moshen Makhmalbaf, a filmaker, and campaign spokesman for Moussavi, declared that he had been contacted Friday night by the Interior ministry, and notified that Mousavi had won easily.
Yet, just two hours after the polls closed, Interior minister Sadegh Mahsouli, a staunch Ahmadinejad supporter, released election results indicating an overwhelming victory for the incumbent. Mousavi’s website was then shut down, and all cell communications and text messaging blocked in Tehran.
Furthermore, the Supreme Leader, Khamenei quickly recognized the outcome and congratulated the victor, thereby pre-empting all attempts to dispute the results:
The chosen and respected president is the president of all the Iranian nation and everyone, including yesterday’s competitors, must unanimously support and help him, he declared, even though the Electoral Commission is supposed to officially disclose the results three days after election day, so that all disputes can be examined and resolved…
In any case, demonstrations erupted in Tehran, Mashhal and Baabol .
Universities in Tehran were closed, cell phones and messaging were still unavailable Saturday…
Mehdi Karroubi, another reformist candidate who won little support (just 300,000 votes, according to official tallies) told the New York Times: The results of the 10th presidential election are so ridiculous and so unbelievable that one cannot write or talk about it in a statement.
As for Mr. Moussavi, his whereabouts are unknown.
There are some reports that, along with many other reformists, he has been arrested.
He refused to recognize the results, and has vowed to resist:
The reported results of the 10th Iranians Presidential Election are appalling. The people who witnessed the mixture of votes in long lineups know who they have voted for and observe the wizardry of I.R.I.B (State run TV and Radio) and election officials. Now more than ever before they want to know how and by which officials this game plan has been designed. I object fully to the current procedures and obvious and abundant deviations from law on the day of election and alert people to not surrender to this dangerous plot…We will continue with our green wave of rationality that is inspired by our religious learnings and our love for prophet Mohammad and will confront the rampage of lies that has appeared and marked the image of our nation. However we will not allow our movement to become blind one.
His options are few. If he, or his partisans continue to resist and take to the streets, the regime would no doubt crack down hard, as the security apparatus is firmly in their hands….
Yet, if he does not react, if his innumerable young and female supporters relent and acquiesce, then their hopes of building a more open and tolerant society will be dashed, perhaps for good…

To conclude, one interesting question comes to mind: win or lose, the fundamentalists, with the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council and other key institutions are always, ultimately, in control.
They were able to subvert Khatami's progressive agenda during his two terms in office.
Why would they feel sufficiently threatened, this time, to steal an election? 　
Were they afraid that the Green Wave might lead to another Velvet Revolution?　
　
.

Lead me, follow me, or get out of the way

I raise my glass this evening to the great Thomas Paine, who died two hundred years ago today, on June 8th, 1809, in Greenwich Village, New York. He was seventy-two, and all but forgotten. Only six people attended his funeral...

He was the author of the Rights of Man, (1791), a passionate defense of the French Revolution. Paine was, in fact, elected to the Convention, in 1792, by the voters of the Pas-de Calais, in northern France...Though imprisoned by the radicals of the Robespierre faction, he was released ten months later, and returned to the Convention.

He left France in 1802, disappointed by Napoleon's failure to spread the ideals of the French Revolution throughout Europe...May he rest in peace, wherever he may be for his body was taken back to England and misplaced...

An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot

Thomas Paine

Sarkozyism is alive and well

President’s Sarkozy’s party, the UMP, won a decisive victory last Sunday in the European Parliamentary Elections, even though voter participation was disappointingly low, with only 43% of Europeans, and 41% of Frenchman, going to the polls.
Held every five years to elect 785 Euro Mps, the UMP won 27.8% of the vote, and the main opposition party, the Socialist party (PS), 16.4%.
Four years ago, the results were practically the reverse, with the PS polling 29%, and the UMP 16% …
The UMP’s final tally was not far off Sarkozy’s first round showing in the Presidential election two years ago, which was 31%.
Considering the economic and social context, the UMP was visibly relieved.
The victory was all the more resounding as it was the first time since 1979 (the first direct election to the European Parliament) that the President’s party had managed
to prevail in the election.
An election with only one round, with proportional representation (a party winning 5% of the vote obtains 5% of the seats, 10%,10% and so on), opposition parties usually perform quite well, as the electorate seizes the opportunity to punish those in power for the deficiencies of their economic and social policies, knowing full well the elections results will have no impact on the coalition running the country.
Yet, the President and his majority were spared this time.
Why?
Firstly, Sarkozy’s performance as President of the EU (every six months, a European country, and its president or prime minister is responsible for leading the Union) won plaudits in France, as well as in Europe.
He was a driving force behind the Treaty of Lisbon, signed in December 2007.
Designed to end the political stalemate following the rejection by the French and the Dutch of the European Constitution in referenda held in 2005, the treaty sought to facilitate decision-making within the Union and create the posts of President of the EU, and High Representative for Foreign Affairs, to give the Union greater political coherence and visibility.
So far, it has been ratified by 23 of 27 nations…The process of ratification continues…
In addition, Sarkozy vigorously responded to the economic crisis both at home and abroad, and was instrumental, along with Gordon Brown of the UK, in organizing the G20 meetings, in November 2008 in New York, and April 2009 in London.
Sarkozy’s dynamism was considered opportune and reassuring by many of his countrymen.
On Sunday night, President Sarkozy issued a statement that said: the presidential majority has prevailed. The French demonstrated their appreciation of the efforts made during the French presidency of the EU, as well as those to confront this unprecedented global economic crisis…But this victory drives us to try even harder. Europe must change, and the reforms must be pursued.
Secondly, all other parties, with the notable exception of Europe Ecologie, failed to make any credible proposals, particularly on Europe, the object of the election, and concentrated on lambasting Sarkozy.
As a result, opposition to Sarkozy was clearly insufficient to attract voters.
The two parties most rabidly anti-Sarkozy performed poorly.
Le PS , thus, won 16% and le Modem (Mouvement Démocrate) 8.4%.
The anti-Sarkozy platform was tempting and convenient because it allowed a fractious PS to unify around one of the few themes they all could campaign on.
For François Bayrou, leader of the Modem, who many have accused of being obsessed with Sarkozy and the future 2012 Presidential election, he created the party to serve his political ambitions, the realization of which necessitate the political downfall of Sarkozy.
Martine Aubry, leader of le PS , was particularly shaken and undermined by the dismal showing, as it was her first campaign as party leader.
She conceded on Sunday night that the party had been weakened: the party suffered because it was divided, and incapable of achieving unity. This is not acceptable.
On the national level, le PS finished only 35,000 votes ahead of Europe Ecologie.
In the Paris region, it finished third, and the PS spokesman, Benoit Hamon failed to win reelection.
Even some Socialists believe the party has never recovered from the April 21st, 2002 disaster. That is the day outgoing prime minister Jospin finished third in the first round of the Presidential election, behind the much reviled far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, and Jacques Chirac and was thus eliminated.
It was the first time since 1969 that the PS had no candidate in the decisive run-off.
Chirac handily won re-election against Le Pen…
One up-and-coming leader, Arnaud Montebourg said: since April 21st, 2002, the PS has not moved, it’s been listless.
In fact, le PS has not won a national election since 1997...
The party is riven by personal rivalries and ideological differences.
With no undisputed leader, and no clear ideological direction, the party has been unable to effectively counter Sarkozy and l’UMP.
François Bayrou’s defeat was particularly acute. He neglected European issues, and preferred instead to excoriate Sarkozy on every possible subject.
Though Sarkozy does have his fair share of enemies, an electoral victory cannot be built simply on a systematic critique of the President’s style and policies. Some kind of alternative must also be proposed…And Bayrou failed to come up with a credible set of alternate policies.
The incident that perhaps sealed his fate took place Thursday June 4th, on national television. The latest polls showed that the ecologists had moved ahead of his own list, such that le Modem was now in fourth place…
A number of political leaders had been invited to discuss European issues, including Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of Europe Ecologie, and Bayrou.
A violent altercation took place between the two, that left the other guests flabbergasted…
After having been accused by Bayrou of deliberately sparing Sarkozy in this campaign, and of being a frequent lunch guest of the president, Cohn-Bendit retorted: hey, pal, you’ll never become president; you’re way too lame.
Incensed, Bayrou then accused Cohn-Bendit of having condoned acts of pedophilia in one of his books, written in 1975...Bayrou said I find it despicable for you to have provoked and justified such acts with children. I cannot accept this.
This is an old accusation that surfaced in 2001, and that Cohn-Bendit had addressed at the time, to everyone’s satisfaction, or so it seemed, for he had expressed regret for having written certain pages…
The incident, in many ways, is reminiscent of Ségolène Royal’s calculated outburst during her debate with Sarkozy, a few days before the decisive round of the 2007 Presidential elections.
Like Bayrou, behind in the polls, she had hoped that a violent confrontation would destabilize her opponent, make him look weak, or even worse, contemptuous, before a national television audience, thereby potentially altering the dynamics of the race, and perhaps, allowing her to prevail at the very end. It was a desperate attempt to change the course of events, the ultimate game changer, the fourth quarter and miraculous Hail Mary pass…
But it was not to be.
Royal was soundly beaten, and so was Bayrou!
In the present case, the incident cost Bayrou dearly: his list finished 8 points behind Cohn-Bendit’s.
On election night, Bayrou admitted the results were disappointing: during a very tough campaign, I was not able to put my message across. I did not consider that you could separate national and European issues, but I was not heard . And I let myself be dragged into an excessively polemical confrontation that alienated many.
Several of his advisors believe that he lost the elections that evening on television: the debate cost him between three and four points, said one. There are some things in a campaign that you cannot predict. That came from deep within him, and he was overwhelmed.
Bayrou compared himself to Zidane (the great, and retired French footballer), who, during the 2006 World Cup final against Italy, lost his cool, head butted an opponent, was expelled from the game, which the French then lost…
The clear winner, apart from Sarkozy, was Cohn-Bendit’s Europe Ecologie.
He was able to unite the various fractious currents of the French environmental movement, the leftist Verts, who were in Jospin’s socialist government between 1997 and 2002; the radical, anti-globalization wing, embodied by José Bové, who became an overnight sensation in France, by dismantling a McDonald’s fast food restaurant during a demonstration in the south of France a few years ago; the apolitical, represented by Nicolas Hulot, a TV personality who hosts a nature show; former Green Peace activists such as Yannick Jadot. Even Eva Joly, a former judge specializing in affairs of corruption, and now an ecologist, joined the movement.
In the first round of the 2007 Presidential election, the Vert candidate had received…1.57% of the vote.
Cohn-Bendit’s charisma, and deep passion for the European ideal did wonders during the campaign, and only he could have succeeded such a feat, uniting personalities who had never managed to work together.
A genuine European (he is a German national, born in France of Jewish-German parents, in 1945), he has been a Euro MP since 1994, and is not interested in being anything else.
Can the movement he created single handedly survive without him, as he will be in Strasbourg (parliamentary sessions alternately take place in Brussels and Strasbourg) for the next five years?
Unlikely, but it will be interesting to see what becomes of Europe Ecologie.
The party’s success also demonstrated the importance that environmental issues now have on the French, and more broadly, the European political scene.
In essence, thus, the two lists that talked politics won the election, which is reassuring…
Sarkozy’s victory is significant because it will facilitate his mission, and revitalize his program of reform, which was buffeted by the economic crisis.
New projects are in the works, as he inaugurates the second stage of his five year mandate.
Sarkozy’s principle opponents having been discredited by humiliating election defeats, he now has time to newly define his objectives, and move even faster on the road to the modernization of France.

A tough game ahead

On behalf of France, I wish to pay tribute to those American youths who shed their blood on Norman soil, and who now rest there for all eternity. We shall never forget them, President Nicolas Sarkozy said yesterday during the ceremony commemorating the 65th anniversary of D-Day at the Colleville-sur-Mer cemetery.
Over 9000 US soldiers are buried there.
The ceremony was also attended by the British prime minister Gordon Brown, the Prince of Wales and the Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, and D-day veterans from the four countries.
Presidents Obama and Sarkozy held only one, one hour meeting during the American president’s two day visit, yesterday at the Caen Préfecture, before the D-Day commemoration.
Using the familiar «tu» when addressing Obama (instead of the formal «vous»), Sarkozy said that never have the US and France been so close...it's a pleasure to work with Barack Obama. France is America’s friend, and we have the will to work together on the major issues, and both presidents agreed that, on the issues in question: Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and human rights and security, France and America shared the same vision…
Though the meeting between the two was a short one, Obama said that it helped that Sarkozy 　talked fast. Sarkozy retorted that it was also highly convenient that Obama understood everything quickly.
The only significant divergence was Turkey, and the question of whether or not it should become a member of the European Union. The US has traditionally backed its membership claims. Sarkozy, on the other hand, though he does advocate a close security and economic partnership with Turkey, does not consider it to be part of Europe, if only geographically, and therefore does not support full EU membership.
One corollary issue is the wearing of the Islamic veil by Muslim women, particularly in Western countries.
In his Cairo speech, Obama said the following: likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
This is the only major aspect of the speech that was criticized in France.
Secularism is taken very seriously here, and the separation of church and state brooks no exceptions.
When responding to a question on this issue yesterday, President Sarkozy forgot to mention that although Muslim women naturally have the right to wear whatever they wish inside and outside the home, the veil is prohibited in public schools; all other religious symbols, such as christian crosses for example, are also forbidden.
As such, Obama’s support of the veil was criticized in no uncertain terms by women’s and human rights organizations.
Ni Putes ni Soumises (Neither Whores nor Victims), a women’s rights organizations founded in the Paris suburbs where many of France Muslims live, and which erupted in violence in 2005 when Sarkozy was responsible for law and order as Interior minister, said in a statement that by attacking secularism and defending the veil, Obama was launching a crusade against women.
La Ligue du Droit International des Femmes (the League of International Law for Women) declared that Obama’s defense of the veil was a slap in the face of all women who struggle not to wear the veil. In many cases, the veil is imposed by the women’s male entourage, and not freely chosen. Human societies are built upon symbols, the organization added. Positive ones like the colors of a flag or a song of liberation. Negative ones, like a convict’s suit or a veil under which women disappear, like in Saudi Arabia.
Was that truly the only difference between the US and France?
One thing that did deeply shock the French was that, last night , having dinner at a fine French restaurant, la Fontaine de Mars, in Paris’ VIIth arrondissement, specializing in French South West cuisine, Obama had a food taster sample his dishes, just in case (that incidentally, smacks of Ancien Régime France)…Apparently, that is also part of the Secret Service’s responsibility. No self respecting Frenchman would taint a fine dish, even if he did want to dispose of the leader of the free world. He would use more traditional means, and certainly not sacrilegious ones…
More seriously, according to the French daily Le Monde, Sarkozy has sought to tighten Franco-American relations since his election in 2007. In order to do so, he sent additional troops to Afghanistan, and successfully led France’s reintegration into NATO’s military command structure. Furthermore, unlike many other European nations including Germany, France accepted to receive a Guantanamo detainee.
Sarkozy hopes that, as a result, France’s influence in Washington will grow. Hence, he emphasized the quality of his relationship with President Obama, and their similar perceptions of the major international issues.
Yet, how much influence does France really have in Washington?
As Obama said, the EU is a stabilizing force in international diplomacy, and thus, does not require that much attention on the part of Washington. There are more pressing issues to attend to elsewhere.
So, the answer to the above question is, probably not much…
And there remain a few differences in the way to tackle issues: though Sarkozy supports Obama’s overtures to Iran, he believes a deadline must be set, beyond which diplomacy ought to be supplanted by a tougher approach, should Iran be procrastinating…Incidentally, this is quite close to the Israeli position…
Sarkozy’s proposal to host an international conference on the Middle East has also failed to get US support…

In essence, the climate is much healthier than in the Bush-Chirac era, and there is plenty of good will on both sides of the Atlantic. That is a promising start, though reconciling the ambitions of France and America will not always be easy.

As French officials told Le Monde : the game with Obama is going to be a tough one…

Restoring Amercia's credibility

President Obama’s speech in Cairo last Thursday was a major event. Many around the world, particularly Muslims, hoped that he would steer US foreign policy in a new direction.
Yet, what exactly were they hoping to hear?
Mistrust of the US only intensified during the two terms of MM Bush and Cheney.
The invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib infuriated and alienated Muslims and the Arab world, to the extent that it was becoming increasingly difficult for that audience to take seriously any overtures on the part of the US.
Mr. Obama was in the position to at least get a chance to address these issues, and he chose Cairo, in many ways the cultural and intellectual capital of the Arab and Moslem world, because of his unique background.
Son of a Kenyan, Muslim father, brought up partly in the world’s most populous Muslim nation, community organizer in Chicago ghettos, he was well versed in discrimination and humiliation.
This granted him sufficient credibility to be taken seriously by his audience.
In addition, his election was interpreted, not only in the Middle East but elsewhere as well, at least in part, as a repudiation of the Bush-Cheney militaristic, unilateralist world view.
He embodied a new start, with a capacity to listen, learn and consider the point of view of others.
Not surprisingly, therefore, he invited critics of the Egyptian government, such as the dissident Ayman Nour, recently released from prison, and who ran against current President Mubarak in 2005, and members of Parliament belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic party tolerated by the government.
Ibrahim Kalin, a Turkish scholar and adviser to the prime minister told Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post: you have never seen a president who has raised expectations so high in the Arab and Muslim world, for the good. People see in him something they would like to see in their own leaders, and that, in itself, creates huge expectations.
Obama thus had a genuine opportunity to chart a new course, but such huge expectations could also easily lead to bitter disappointment if his message did not sufficiently resonate with his audience, and failed to address their major concerns.
What are they?
There is a great thirst for justice in that part of the world .
That is why the withdrawal from Iraq, the banning of torture and the closing of Guantanamo are so important, and will no doubt help bolster Obama’s credibility.
Secondly, many want America to help them overcome poverty and economic deprivation. This is a key element in any policy to combat terrorism, a term Obama did not employ, due to the excessive and reckless use made of the word by the previous administration.
Youths with no prospect are an inviting target for al-Qadae recruiters.
As a former prime minister of Yemen, Abdulkareem al-Eryani put it, eradicating poverty could one day help him, to paraphrase George W. Bush, avoid firing a $100,000 missile at a $700 tent.
Thirdly, the democracy activists in the region need America’s help, for no state in the area, with the exception of Israel, Lebanon and Turkey, is much interested in preserving and promoting human and civil rights. In this domain, one speech will not suffice. Concrete support is anxiously awaited. It would be good if Mr. Obama vowed to support democracy and human rights. But he should talk about these ideals only if he is willing to help us fulfill them, Abduljalil Alsingace, a professor at the University of Bahrain, wrote in the NYT.
For his part, Ayman Nour said: we don’t expect Mr. Obama to bring progress to Egypt. But we expect him to demand freedom for all and to restate his conviction that oppressive regimes march on the wrong side of history.
Fourthly, America must not only support freedom and democracy, but respect the results of elections that are conducted fairly and openly, even if its local favorite does not win.
In this light, Vice President Biden’s recent visit to Lebanon, in which he held meetings only with leaders of the outgoing pro-western government coalition, and hinted that US aid would be reduced were the opposition coalition led by Hezbollah to win, was not well perceived, to say the least…
A Lebanese journalist wrote in the NYT: to restore America’s credibility in the Muslim world, Mr. Obama should promise that come election time, he will respect the will of voters, even if he does not like the results.
Fifthly, people of the region simply want to live a dignified life, where their beliefs are respected and protected, devoid of fear. As a Saudi blogger put it: we want to live in a place where we can be ourselves.
Unfortunately, that goal is not yet within reach, but many yearn for Obama to help them attain it.
Last but not least, there is the Israeli-Palestinian issue…
How did Obama do?
Was he able to fulfill these expectations?
He clearly stated his intention, at the outset, of seeking a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
His insistence on the need to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground was significant, and something of a novelty in a speech by an American president.
It was a clear indication that he would not be trying to impose his views on any one, but seek instead to convince.
He also chose to emphasize not what divides and differentiates human beings, but our common humanity, the aspirations that are common to all of us, to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Obama was not in Cairo to lecture his audience on the virtues of American democracy, but on what could be accomplished together to improve the lot of everyone in the region
Economic prosperity in the Middle east, as elsewhere, is inextricably linked with globalization. Though it has engendered fears that one’s traditions and identity would be undermined, globalization will not simply disappear. It must be dealt with and taken advantage of, and he stressed the need to invest in the future: but all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century.
As a result, he proposes to expand exchange programs and scholarships, develop trade and business ties with the region, and host a Summit of Entrepreneurship.
He also plans to foster technological development and open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.
If he follows through on these plans, then these measures will help connect these countries with the rest of the globalized world and reduce poverty.
On the subject of democracy, Obama conceded the fact that, as the Iraqi enterprise demonstrated, one cannot simply impose it on others.
It is for every nation to develop a form of democracy best suited to its traditions and particularities.
He also evinced a most welcome humility: America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.
Every human being, not solely Americans or Europeans, deserve freedom of speech, the right to choose one’s leaders, justice and security. As Obama said: those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
And he vowed to respect the outcome of any election, on one condition: we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.
That is the heart of the matter: respect. Unfortunately, few governments in the region share this preoccupation.
His vision of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was also much awaited.
His very approach may, in fact, be unprecedented, for he said the following:
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Things that need to be said shall be said, and said plainly. No more secret or tacit understandings between Washington and a party to the conflict. Facts and basic realities will be confronted head on.
Israeli settlements are an impediment to peace. Palestinian violence is not only immoral but useless: violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
The antagonists need to recognize this, or no progress can be made.
Obama has thus restored Washington’s previous role of honest broker, that had been repudiated by the previous administration, which systematically supported Israeli policies, and only Israeli policies.
This was a major and inspiring speech because it sought to mobilize and unite, to encourage his audience to focus on the future, not the past. It appealed to what is nobler inside all of us, and challenged us to fulfill our potential for progress and justice:
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is a challenge worthy of all of us, and it would be a pity not to rise to the occasion.
Can a speech change the world? Probably not, but it can spur people to take action and their destinies in their own hands…
It is a beginning, and it will take sustained effort on Obama’s part to ensure that all the protagonists do not attempt to shirk their responsibilities…
It is a noble enterprise, and we can only wish him well…
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

六四屠殺 (The June 4 Massacre)

　

Even today, it is not clear how many Chinese were killed during what the authorities euphimistically refer to as the political turmoil between Spring and Summer of 1989...
Though China claims 241 died during the crisis, it is feared that many thousands were killed and wounded…We shall most likely never know, as the bodies were spirited away and secretly disposed of…
Today, twenty years on, what is known in the West as the Tiananmen Square Massacre has disappeared into oblivion, and any effort to commemorate the event is severely dealt with.
The Chinese media have ignored the historical event, and policemen have resorted to umbrellas to try and prevent foreign television crews from filming in Beijing…
Many major websites, such as Twitter and Flickr have been temporarily shut down in order to ensure that the taboo issue is not even mentioned. VeryCD, a Chinese version of YouTube suffered a similar fate;YouTube itself was shut down in march…
If the Chinese were treating June 4, 2009 as a non-event, others abroad simply could not do so.
Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State said: a China that has made enormous progress economically and is emerging to take its rightful place in global leadership should examine openly the darker events of its past.
The Chinese had other plans…
The government’s strategy was expounded in a memo, a copy of which the AFP managed to spot on the internet : village cadres must visit main persons of interest and place them under thought supervision and control. Such was the mission of Guishan township, located some 870 miles from Beijing.
Thought supervision?
That is an ability that the authorities lost long ago…In this internet age, they must rely on more mundane measures such as harassment, intimidation and imprisonment in their black jails, where they detain the meddlesome, and the more politically motivated of their citizens.
A student leader of the 1989 democracy movement who had to flee China shortly after the crackdown, tried to reenter his homeland Wednesday, and turn himself in, in order to finally go home. Wu’er Kaixi declared: when I turn myself in, I will use the platform of a Chinese courtroom to debate the Chinese government about this incident…My turning myself in should not be interpreted as my admission that my behavior 20 years ago is illegal and wrong. I want to reassert here the Chinese government bears complete and undeniable moral, political and legal responsibility for the tragedy that happened in China in 1989. I hope, 20 years later, the Chinese government can set a new position on the historical problem of the 'June 4 massacre,' admit its guilt and apologize to the Chinese people…

The authorities do not want any of the veterans of the student movement to move freely about at this sensitive time.
He should be deported back to Taiwan shortly…
The most prominent of the student leaders Wang Dan, was jailed for seven years, then expelled to the US in 1998.
Though tragic and painful, he cannot but remember these events with fondness: for me, it was the proudest moment in China’s long history. For the first time in our lives, people dared to exercise the most basic human right: freedom of speech.
What was the June 4th movement all about?
Initially, it was caused by the death, April 15th , 1989, of a respected reformist official, Hu Yaobang, who had been forced to resign in January 1987 because of his liberal tendencies…
University students in Beijing were intent on mourning the official and demanded his rehabilitation. They demonstrated, in bigger and bigger numbers, in Tiananmen Square, where speeches were delivered and a list of grievances established.
By the time of the funeral, April 21st , some 100,000 were in the Square, and their demands became more precise: an end to official corruption, freedom of the press, and democracy!
Workers soon joined the movement, as a high inflation rate, 28%, threatened living standards. It also spread to other cities such as Shanghai.
The students demanded direct negotiations with the government, and many began a hunger strike, as a means to convince the public they were serious, and genuinely fighting for a better future for all Chinese. The movement’s popularity did, in fact, increase as a result…
Because Soviet President Gorbachev was to arrive in Beijing for an official visit on May 15th , many foreign journalists were in the Chinese capital to cover the event…
The Chinese authorities lost patience and declared martial law on May 20th, but did not move on the Square before the evening of June 3rd…
During the onslaught, many students were heard screaming, why are they killing us?
Twenty years on, China is a different country, and a much wealthier one…
Between 1990 and 2007, China’s GDP was multiplied by thirteen…It is now the world’s fourth largest economy, after the US, Japan and Germany
The struggle for political rights, for all intent and purposes, died in Tiananmen square…The government’s obsession since then has been to recover its legitimacy by promoting economic growth so as to improve the lives of as many Chinese as possible…Its performance has been a deft one. Qi Yuting, a retired laborer told the Washington Post: that time (June 1989) was cruel. But ever since, our life has been good. We only have progress. We promote harmony.
With all hopes of political reforms having been dashed, the only remaining viable option for many was improving one’s lot. Zhang Lifan, a historian, put it this way: people all turned to making money, seeking their individual benefits and interests.
Yet, Chinese society is more open, certainly less oppressive than twenty years ago.
Access to the internet has given the Chinese the opportunity to express themselves. Information is much more freely and widely available than ever before…The Chinese have thus used this instrument to effect social change. As Donald Morrison, a former editor of Time Magazine’s Asia edition, observed:
Indeed, foreigners who move to China are struck, as I am, by the wealth of personal freedom on display. Not just the latitude to shop, move to another city or attend wine tastings, but also to debate such poisonous subjects as Tibet, corruption and the shoddy construction of schools flattened during last year’s Sichuan earthquake…It’s not democracy, but it is a better, more responsive, more humane system than the one China had 20 years ago. To my Chinese friends, it is unthinkable that the country could regress to those benighted days.
It would seem that there is less discontent in China than twenty years ago, because the standard of living has improved, and the Chinese do have the means to goad the government to take some of their aspirations into account, as long as the grievances avoid the political.
Increasingly, the Chinese have resorted to the courts to bring about social change.
After the earthquake, many parents sued the government, considering that the poor quality of school buildings had led to the deaths of their children…
More than political transformation, they demand accountability.
Nevertheless, China is by no means a free society.
The last taboo, hence, is freedom and democracy…Censorship is rampant. Some 30,000 cyber cops scour web sites, for instance. The Chinese know where to draw the line: not surprisingly, the majority of Chinese citizens censor themselves, not because of apathy, but out of fear, concluded Yang Jianli, a student activist in 1989, who now lives in the US.
As long as the individual does not directly question the party’s authority or legitimacy, than he or she is allowed a certain autonomy…
As such, some 100,000 anti-government protests take place every year…
The writer Lijia Zhang summarized the situation this way: we’re still in a cage here. But for many…it has grown so large that we hardly feel its limits. In that sense the 1989 protests weren’t a total failure. Without our efforts, China’s rulers might have not expanded the cage at all.
It is far from certain however, that in this age of globalization, the authorities had much of a choice in the matter…
Should we conclude that the Chinese democracy movement is dead?
Not quite!
In December 2008, a number of Chinese activists posted their Charter 08 on line. Some 8000 Chinese have signed it, and many have borne the brunt of the authorities’ wrath since having done so.
It is obviously inspired by the Czech Charter 77 movement…
Sponsored by prominent Czech intellectuals, such as Vaclav Havel, the future president of the new and free Czech republic, it demanded that the Communist government respect fundamental human rights, after it had signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975. Predictably, the signatories were hounded and jailed by the oppressive regime.
The Charter 08 states emphatically: China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a constitution but no constitutional government.
The authors propound a number of fundamental universal values that they hope will soon form the basis of a new, democratic China, one that will have repudiated once and for all its authoritarian ways.
Hence, they advocate freedom, human rights, equality, republicanism, democracy and constitutional rule. their objective being establishing a free, democratic and constitutional country.
It took the Czechs twelve years to reach the goal…
May the Chinese reach it even sooner…
　
It seems more than fitting to conclude this piece on Tiananmen with a tribute to a man whose name we do not know. Nor do we know where he is, and even if he is still alive…
On June 5th, 1989, a young man wearing a white shirt and holding a shopping bag walked to the center of a large and deserted avenue and stopped the advance of a column of tanks.
The stunning picture is by Jeff Widener, of AP (here is where and how it was taken), and is featured at the top of this post.

The young man has been referred to since then, though the nickname by no means does him justice, as the Tank Man…
Shortly after the picture was taken, he was grabbed by several spectators of the extraordinary scene, and taken away, into the crowd..
Rumors abound as to his fate…In all likelihood, he was seized by the secret police and executed …We simply do not know…

What we can infer from the picture is something of the man’s character: the sheer audacity, the selflessness, the abnegation, the courage, quite simply, of a man seeking to protect those fellow citizens on the square who in the end, were no more defenseless than he was…