In the past few days the leaders of the Green Movement have made gestures towards reconciliation with the regime. Karroubi made his now infamous remark that Ahmadinejad may not have been elected, but he is technically the president of the regime. Khatemi wrote his letter proposing dialogue to the Supreme Leader. Rafsanjani did his usual self-serving routine by supporting both sides, saying the Green Movement protestors should be released from jail and dialogue should be a priority, but also saying Khamenei's the only one who can bring unity to the nation.
It seems Mousavi is the only one who hasn't caved even slightly.
With the Green Movement leadership moving towards possible reconciliation with the government, where does that leave the vast numbers of grassroots Greens? So often, the point is emphasized that the Green Movement is incredibly diverse demographically and ideologically, and that it is largely spontaneous in its methods of organizing events. What significance, then, do the leadership have in the hearts of the common Green?
If the leadership begin to cave in too soon, how will the rest of the movement react? Because it is so unstructured, there could be many responses. Here are what I believe to be the three most likely:
1) The Green Movement may well leave these so-called leaders by the wayside if popular opinion feels that they capitulated too quickly or in the wrong way. After all, at this point the Greens have realized that it isn't politicians who hold the power in this crisis, it's popular will, at least inasmuch as mass protests and widespread anti-government sentiment have completely de-legitimized Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. If they are unafraid to chant "Death to Khamenei," it wouldn't be a stretch for them to marginalize Green politicians similarly.
2) Although the Green Movement has no hierarchy, the gestures towards reconciliation with the government may be supported by the Movement's followers, most of whom place reform as their priority rather than outright revolution against the system.
3) A split. Some Greens follow the compromise set out by their leaders, and others radicalize and engage in more extremist action than simply protesting.
Khamenei has lost all legitimacy in the eyes of the Green Movement, as the various slogans against him shouted at every protest demonstrate. Thus, when "reformist" politicians talk about his role in bringing unity back to Iran, I truly wonder if they realize how reviled Khamenei is by most of the Green Movement at this point. To compromise with him will likely invalidate any claims of these politicians to represent the Green Movement.
It is too premature to say that Karroubi and Mousavi will compromise, but Khatemi and Rafsanjani have already thrown their lot in with the moderates. Then again, reformists lost hope in either of them a long time ago. Mousavi and Karroubi, however, have shown no inclination to capitulate, but are willing to engage in talks if their basic demands are addressed. Nevertheless, the impression I'm getting since Ashura is that the Green Movement has much stronger demands (perhaps the removal of Khamenei, or of the position of Supreme Leader altogether?) than even Mousavi and Karroubi have vocalized.
We'll have to wait and see in the next few days what leaders on both sides will say. I'll be watching closely to see Mousavi's reaction to all the talk of "reconciliation," and the Green Movement's reaction to his reaction.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
What Does the Green Movement Want from the United States?
by Shayan Ghajar
www.insideiran.org
original article
The aftermath of the disputed June 2009 presidential election in Iran has left international policymakers in a quandary over how to approach diplomatic relations with Iran. The question currently facing the Obama administration is whether engaging Iran diplomatically regarding its nuclear program is possible while supporting Iran’s Green Movement and taking a stand against the repression and human rights abuses committed by the state.
Now that the Ashura protests of December 27, 2009, showed that the Green Movement has not lost momentum in the long months since the June elections, policymakers are asking, What does the Green Movement want from Western nations, especially the United States?
This question has no single answer, due to the opposition movement’s ideological diversity and grassroots nature. However, a survey of the statements of the Green Movement’s prominent figures, as well as editorials and essays from Iranians at home and abroad, show some general agreement on certain points.
Prominent Green Movement politicians and intellectuals have emphasized that the sovereignty and independence of both the Green Movement and Iran is an absolute priority. One prominent politician with ties to both Mir Hossein Moussavi and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, namely Ataollah Mohajerani, has stated in an interview (Farsi language) with newspaper RaheSabz that, if pressured or attacked, the nation would temporarily set aside the domestic crisis to fight against any invaders. Moussavi has taken pains to distance himself from Western governments or ideals as well, saying in his latest address: “We are neither affiliated with Americans nor British. We have neither sent greeting cards for the leaders of any powerful countries nor are hoping for their assistance.”
The foremost concern of many Iranians in the opposition is the West’s diplomatic dialogue with the Iranian government over the nuclear issue. A number of prominent opposition figures feel that engaging with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gives his government legitimacy that it does not deserve. Foremost among them is Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, who once supported unconditional talks between the United States and Iran. Now, Ebadi says in an interview with Foreign Policy, “You cannot do business with the regime.” Only a government that supports human rights and is legitimately elected by the people, she asserts, can present a stable and constructive basis for dialogue.
Abbas Milani, Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford, describes the “business as usual” discussions with Iran regarding the nuclear program as no less morally offensive and inadvisable than “overlooking the infamy of apartheid and continuing to do business with the South African regime.” Continuing to remain silent about the Iranian government’s human rights abuses will alienate the Iranian populace and marginalize American influence in a future Iran, Milani asserts. His editorial may be found here.
Ali Ansari, Director of Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews, does not necessarily advise a complete severing of diplomatic ties with Iran, but argues in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations that President Obama must speak out on the Iranian government’s human rights abuses. To remain silent, he argues, would alienate common Iranians by sending the message that the West cares only about security from the Iranian nuclear program instead of basic human rights. Criticism, Ansari asserts, doesn’t preclude engagement, nor does engagement preclude criticism. Thus, he supports a dual approach of diplomatic negotiations over the nuclear issue, and a strong moral stance on issues such as the arrest, torture, and rape of political prisoners.
Ansari raises another important point for Western policymakers in his interview: the diversity of the Green Movement and its lack of a definitive hierarchy of leadership is by no means a sign of weakness. Rather, the decentralized nature of the movement parallels previous attempts at reform in Iranian history, such as the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. The Constitutional Revolution, he points out, was a populist movement spearheaded by prominent intellectuals and religious leaders in Iran, much like the Green Movement, and took over a year to accomplish a variety of sweeping reforms that limited the absolute power of the government.
Regarding the term “revolution,” Ansari also notes that the Green Movement is not seeking a complete overthrow of the Islamic Republic, but rather sweeping reforms limiting the central government’s power.
Ansari’s interview also raises another concern of the Green Movement, namely the threat of American sanctions. Sanctions, Ansari stresses, must not affect ordinary Iranians, or Ahmadinejad will be able to scapegoat the West for Iranian economic woes.
Trita Parsi, of the National Iranian-American Council, and Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of engineering at the University of Southern California, raise an important concern regarding proposed sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in an article in The Hill. The IRGC has a vast network of companies and affiliates involved in everyday Iranian life, ranging from SMS messaging services to Internet service providers and telecommunications industries. Consequently, the authors argue, “it would be difficult to identify effective sanctions that can hurt only the IRGC, while sparing the regular population. Thus, the prudent policy would be to try to target the main figures of the regime individually.”
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Nazenin Ansari, an Iranian journalist based in London, and Jonathan Paris, a political analyst specializing in the Middle East, extend the idea of targeting individual members of the government, mentioning international visa and travel bans as another possibility.
Despite the diversity of opinions within the Green Movement, most agree that Western governments must demonstrate solidarity with the Iranian people by publicly condemning the Iranian government’s human rights abuses. At the same time, the West must not show too much support or interference or the Green Movement will be marginalized as a foreign-backed velvet revolution. Finally, regarding the nuclear issue, if sanctions are to be pursued, they must be specifically targeted to ensure they don’t hurt ordinary Iranians. Needless to say, this is a very narrow tightrope for the United States and its allies to walk.
www.insideiran.org
original article
The aftermath of the disputed June 2009 presidential election in Iran has left international policymakers in a quandary over how to approach diplomatic relations with Iran. The question currently facing the Obama administration is whether engaging Iran diplomatically regarding its nuclear program is possible while supporting Iran’s Green Movement and taking a stand against the repression and human rights abuses committed by the state.
Now that the Ashura protests of December 27, 2009, showed that the Green Movement has not lost momentum in the long months since the June elections, policymakers are asking, What does the Green Movement want from Western nations, especially the United States?
This question has no single answer, due to the opposition movement’s ideological diversity and grassroots nature. However, a survey of the statements of the Green Movement’s prominent figures, as well as editorials and essays from Iranians at home and abroad, show some general agreement on certain points.
Prominent Green Movement politicians and intellectuals have emphasized that the sovereignty and independence of both the Green Movement and Iran is an absolute priority. One prominent politician with ties to both Mir Hossein Moussavi and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, namely Ataollah Mohajerani, has stated in an interview (Farsi language) with newspaper RaheSabz that, if pressured or attacked, the nation would temporarily set aside the domestic crisis to fight against any invaders. Moussavi has taken pains to distance himself from Western governments or ideals as well, saying in his latest address: “We are neither affiliated with Americans nor British. We have neither sent greeting cards for the leaders of any powerful countries nor are hoping for their assistance.”
The foremost concern of many Iranians in the opposition is the West’s diplomatic dialogue with the Iranian government over the nuclear issue. A number of prominent opposition figures feel that engaging with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gives his government legitimacy that it does not deserve. Foremost among them is Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, who once supported unconditional talks between the United States and Iran. Now, Ebadi says in an interview with Foreign Policy, “You cannot do business with the regime.” Only a government that supports human rights and is legitimately elected by the people, she asserts, can present a stable and constructive basis for dialogue.
Abbas Milani, Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford, describes the “business as usual” discussions with Iran regarding the nuclear program as no less morally offensive and inadvisable than “overlooking the infamy of apartheid and continuing to do business with the South African regime.” Continuing to remain silent about the Iranian government’s human rights abuses will alienate the Iranian populace and marginalize American influence in a future Iran, Milani asserts. His editorial may be found here.
Ali Ansari, Director of Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews, does not necessarily advise a complete severing of diplomatic ties with Iran, but argues in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations that President Obama must speak out on the Iranian government’s human rights abuses. To remain silent, he argues, would alienate common Iranians by sending the message that the West cares only about security from the Iranian nuclear program instead of basic human rights. Criticism, Ansari asserts, doesn’t preclude engagement, nor does engagement preclude criticism. Thus, he supports a dual approach of diplomatic negotiations over the nuclear issue, and a strong moral stance on issues such as the arrest, torture, and rape of political prisoners.
Ansari raises another important point for Western policymakers in his interview: the diversity of the Green Movement and its lack of a definitive hierarchy of leadership is by no means a sign of weakness. Rather, the decentralized nature of the movement parallels previous attempts at reform in Iranian history, such as the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. The Constitutional Revolution, he points out, was a populist movement spearheaded by prominent intellectuals and religious leaders in Iran, much like the Green Movement, and took over a year to accomplish a variety of sweeping reforms that limited the absolute power of the government.
Regarding the term “revolution,” Ansari also notes that the Green Movement is not seeking a complete overthrow of the Islamic Republic, but rather sweeping reforms limiting the central government’s power.
Ansari’s interview also raises another concern of the Green Movement, namely the threat of American sanctions. Sanctions, Ansari stresses, must not affect ordinary Iranians, or Ahmadinejad will be able to scapegoat the West for Iranian economic woes.
Trita Parsi, of the National Iranian-American Council, and Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of engineering at the University of Southern California, raise an important concern regarding proposed sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in an article in The Hill. The IRGC has a vast network of companies and affiliates involved in everyday Iranian life, ranging from SMS messaging services to Internet service providers and telecommunications industries. Consequently, the authors argue, “it would be difficult to identify effective sanctions that can hurt only the IRGC, while sparing the regular population. Thus, the prudent policy would be to try to target the main figures of the regime individually.”
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Nazenin Ansari, an Iranian journalist based in London, and Jonathan Paris, a political analyst specializing in the Middle East, extend the idea of targeting individual members of the government, mentioning international visa and travel bans as another possibility.
Despite the diversity of opinions within the Green Movement, most agree that Western governments must demonstrate solidarity with the Iranian people by publicly condemning the Iranian government’s human rights abuses. At the same time, the West must not show too much support or interference or the Green Movement will be marginalized as a foreign-backed velvet revolution. Finally, regarding the nuclear issue, if sanctions are to be pursued, they must be specifically targeted to ensure they don’t hurt ordinary Iranians. Needless to say, this is a very narrow tightrope for the United States and its allies to walk.
Speaker of Parliament Larijani Criticizes Ahmadinejad and Green Movement (Source: www.insideiran.org )
By Shayan Ghajar
www.insideiran.org
Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani gave an address Wednesday night strongly criticizing the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on multiple issues, ranging from the economy to dealing with the aftermath of the June elections. Larijani also blamed the nation’s political turmoil on extremists on both sides of the political divide, saying their dispute discouraged foreign investment and encouraged Iran’s enemies to take advantage of the situation.
Larijani’s speech, which he gave in the central provinces, highlighted the frustrations of traditional conservatives in the aftermath of the June 12 presidential election. They are alienated on one hand by Ahmadinejad’s ultra-conservative camp with its heavy-handed foreign and economic policies, which politicians like Larijani view as inept and inefficient. But on the other, traditional conservatives dislike the Green Movement’s calls for sweeping reform, feeling that they are agitators tainted with Western ideology.
Larijani characterized Ahmadinejad’s management of national affairs as “flawed,” emphasizing that the country must not be “ruled by extremism and delusion” but rather needs to be governed with realism and respect for the constitution. The Leader of Parliament condemned the executive and judiciary branches for the mismanagement of the crisis, pointing to the abuses and torture of detained protestors within the Kahrizak detention center. Saeed Mortazavi, former chief prosecutor of Tehran, was found responsible by a parliamentary committee this week for the deaths of three detained protestors in the Kahrizak facility. Mortazavi is a staunch ally of Ahmadinejad.
Larijani also leveled harsh criticism at pro-government militias, saying that their actions were causing “outrage” and pushing the opposition toward extremism. Larijani added that they may feel that they are acting on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s behalf, but that they should not claim to be acting on his authority because their actions are unconstitutional.
Larijani then turned his criticism towards the Green Movement, saying the June elections were a triumph of democracy and that if the opposition doubts the results, they should pursue the proper legal channels to address their concerns. The protests, Larijani said, were providing Western governments with opportunities to work against Iran’s interests.
Regarding the economy, Larijani characterized Ahmadinejad’s implementation of development plans as delusional and lacking proper planning. Moreover, the post-election conflict has scared away investors and slowed down development programs.
In the current political atmosphere, the traditional conservatives are perhaps the most beleaguered faction of all, caught between radical conservatives on one side and the Green Movement on the other.
http://www.insideiran.org/media-analysis/speaker-of-parliament-larijani-criticizes-ahmadinejad-and-green-movement/
www.insideiran.org
Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani gave an address Wednesday night strongly criticizing the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on multiple issues, ranging from the economy to dealing with the aftermath of the June elections. Larijani also blamed the nation’s political turmoil on extremists on both sides of the political divide, saying their dispute discouraged foreign investment and encouraged Iran’s enemies to take advantage of the situation.
Larijani’s speech, which he gave in the central provinces, highlighted the frustrations of traditional conservatives in the aftermath of the June 12 presidential election. They are alienated on one hand by Ahmadinejad’s ultra-conservative camp with its heavy-handed foreign and economic policies, which politicians like Larijani view as inept and inefficient. But on the other, traditional conservatives dislike the Green Movement’s calls for sweeping reform, feeling that they are agitators tainted with Western ideology.
Larijani characterized Ahmadinejad’s management of national affairs as “flawed,” emphasizing that the country must not be “ruled by extremism and delusion” but rather needs to be governed with realism and respect for the constitution. The Leader of Parliament condemned the executive and judiciary branches for the mismanagement of the crisis, pointing to the abuses and torture of detained protestors within the Kahrizak detention center. Saeed Mortazavi, former chief prosecutor of Tehran, was found responsible by a parliamentary committee this week for the deaths of three detained protestors in the Kahrizak facility. Mortazavi is a staunch ally of Ahmadinejad.
Larijani also leveled harsh criticism at pro-government militias, saying that their actions were causing “outrage” and pushing the opposition toward extremism. Larijani added that they may feel that they are acting on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s behalf, but that they should not claim to be acting on his authority because their actions are unconstitutional.
Larijani then turned his criticism towards the Green Movement, saying the June elections were a triumph of democracy and that if the opposition doubts the results, they should pursue the proper legal channels to address their concerns. The protests, Larijani said, were providing Western governments with opportunities to work against Iran’s interests.
Regarding the economy, Larijani characterized Ahmadinejad’s implementation of development plans as delusional and lacking proper planning. Moreover, the post-election conflict has scared away investors and slowed down development programs.
In the current political atmosphere, the traditional conservatives are perhaps the most beleaguered faction of all, caught between radical conservatives on one side and the Green Movement on the other.
http://www.insideiran.org/media-analysis/speaker-of-parliament-larijani-criticizes-ahmadinejad-and-green-movement/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
