"A Plea From the Iranian People"

Published on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 by The Nation

by Akbar Ganji
Editor’s Note: As world leaders gather at the United Nations this week, Akbar Ganji, Iran’s leading political dissident, sent this open letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. As Iranians face the threat of military attack from the United States and economic sanctions from the UN Security Council because of Iran’s nuclear activities, they also suffer severe repression from their own government. Ganji’s plea for Ban to reprimand the Iranian government for its human rights abuses and provide moral support for its citizens has been endorsed by more than 300 public intellectuals, writers and Nobel laureates from around the world. Read their names here.

To His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations,

The people of Iran are experiencing difficult times both internationally and domestically. Internationally, they face the threat of a military attack from the US and the imposition of extensive sanctions by the UN Security Council. Domestically, a despotic state has–through constant and organized repression–imprisoned them in a life-and-death situation.
Far from helping the development of democracy, US policy over the past fifty years has consistently been to the detriment of the proponents of freedom and democracy in Iran. The 1953 coup against the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the unwavering support for the despotic regime of the Shah, who acted as America’s gendarme in the Persian Gulf, are just two examples of these flawed policies. More recently the confrontation between various US administrations and the Iranian state over the past three decades has made internal conditions very difficult for the proponents of freedom and human rights in Iran.
Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government, shut down all independent domestic media and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush Administration, for its part, by approving a fund for democracy assistance in Iran, which has in fact been largely spent on official institutions and media affiliated with the US government, has made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity.
At the same time, even speaking about “the possibility” of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran. Iranian democrats also watch with deep concern the support in some American circles for separatist movements in Iran.
Preserving Iran’s territorial integrity is important to all those who struggle for democracy and human rights in Iran. We want democracy for Iran and for all Iranians. We also believe that the dismemberment of Middle Eastern countries will fuel widespread and prolonged conflict in the region. In order to help the process of democratization in the Middle East, the US can best help by promoting a just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, and pave the way for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel.
A just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state would inflict the heaviest blow on the forces of fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East.
Intolerable Conditions
Iran’s dangerous international situation and the consequences of Iran’s dispute with the West have totally deflected the world’s attention and especially the attention of the United Nations from the intolerable conditions that the Iranian regime has created for the Iranian people. The dispute over the enrichment of uranium should not make the world forget that, although the 1979 revolution of Iran was a popular revolution, it did not lead to the formation of a democratic system that protects human rights.
The Islamic Republic is a fundamentalist state that does not afford official recognition to the private sphere. It represses civil society and violates human rights. Thousands of political prisoners were executed during the first decade after the revolution without fair trials or due process of the law, and dozens of dissidents and activists were assassinated during the second decade.
Independent newspapers are constantly being banned and journalists are sent to prison. All news websites are filtered and books are either refused publication permits or are slashed with the blade of censorship before publication. Women are totally deprived of equality with men and, when they demand equal rights, they are accused of acting against national security, subjected to various types of intimidation and have to endure various penalties, including long prison terms. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, stoning (the worst form of torture leading to death) is one of the sentences that Iranians face on the basis of existing laws.
A number of Iranian teachers, who took part in peaceful civil protests over their pay and conditions, have been dismissed from their jobs, and some have even been sent into internal exile in farflung regions or jailed. Iranian workers are deprived of the right to establish independent unions. Workers who ask to be allowed to form unions in order to struggle for their corporate rights are beaten and imprisoned. Iranian university students have paid the highest costs in recent years in defense of liberty, human rights and democracy. Security organizations prevent young people who are critical of the official state orthodoxy from gaining admission into university, and those who do make it through the rigorous ideological and political vetting process have no right to engage in peaceful protest against government policies.
If students’ activities displease the governing elites, they are summarily expelled from university and in many instances jailed. The Islamic Republic has also been expelling dissident professors from universities for about a quarter of a century. In the meantime, in the Islamic Republic’s prisons, opponents are forced to confess to crimes that they have not committed and to express remorse. These confessions, which have been extracted by force, are then broadcast on the state media in a manner reminiscent of Stalinist show trials.
There are no fair, competitive elections in Iran; instead, elections are stage-managed and rigged. And even people who find their way into Parliament and into the executive branch of government have no powers or resources to alter the status quo. All the legal and extra-legal powers are in the hands of the Iran’s top leader, who rules like a despotic sultan.
Human Rights
Are you aware that in Iran political dissidents, human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners are legally deprived of “the right to life”? On the basis of Article 226 of the Islamic Penal Law and Note 2 of Paragraph E of Section B of Article 295 of the same law, any person can unilaterally decide that another human being has forfeited the right to life and kill them in the name of performing one’s religious duty to rid society of vice. Over the past few decades, many dissidents and activists have been killed on the basis of this article, and the killers have been acquitted in court.
In such circumstances, no dissident or activist has a right to life in Iran, because, on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence and the laws of the Islamic Republic, the definition of those who have forfeited the right to life (mahduroldam) is very broad.
Are you aware that in Iran, writers are lawfully banned from writing? On the basis of Note 2 of Paragraph 8 of Article 9 of the Press Law, writers who are convicted of “propaganda against the ruling system” are deprived for life of “the right to all press activity.” In recent years, many writers and journalists have been convicted of propaganda against the ruling system. The court’s verdicts make it clear that any criticism of state bodies is deemed to be propaganda against the ruling system.
A Plea for Intervention
The people of Iran and Iranian advocates for freedom and democracy are experiencing difficult days. They need the moral support of the proponents of freedom throughout the world and effective intervention by the United Nations. We categorically reject a military attack on Iran. At the same time, we ask you and all of the world’s intellectuals and proponents of liberty and democracy to condemn the human rights violations of the Iranian state. We expect from Your Excellency, in your capacity as the Secretary General of the United Nations, to reprimand the Iranian government–in keeping with your legal duties–for its extensive violation of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights covenants and treaties.
Above all, we hope that with Your Excellency’s immediate intervention, all of Iran’s political prisoners, who are facing more deplorable conditions with every passing day, will soon be released. The people of Iran are asking themselves whether the UN Security Council is only decisive and effective when it comes to the suspension of the enrichment of uranium, and whether the lives of the Iranian people are unimportant as far as the Security Council is concerned. The people of Iran are entitled to freedom, democracy and human rights. We Iranians hope that the United Nations and all the forums that defend democracy and human rights will be unflinching in their support for Iran’s quest for freedom and democracy.


Akbar Ganji is an Iranian journalist and dissident who spent six years in prison for exposing rights abuses committed by Iran’s fundamentalist regime. His work has appeared in pro-democracy newspapers across Iran, most of which the government has since shut down. He is also the winner of the 2007 John Humphrey Freedom Award for his fearless commitment to human rights, democratic development and nonviolence.
© 2007 The Nation

more blood = more oil

Anyways. Here is a Naomi Klein exerpt that details how a new law, pushed through Iraq's legislature by US hands, will rob the country blind and basically condemn the country and its inhabitants to a future of poverty and a failing economy.

Worse, this same move, this same charade, has been lauded by Bushcons and corporate interests (including many democrats)as a boon for the Iraqi economy. Lies as usual.

"The law that was finally adopted by Iraq's cabinet in February 2007 was even worse than anticipated: it placed no limits on the amount of profits that foreign companies can take from the country and placed no specific requirements about how much or little foreign investors would partner with Iraqi companies or hire Iraqis to work in the oil fields.

Most brazenly, it excluded Iraq's elected parliamentarians from having any say in the terms for future oil contracts. Instead, it created a new body, the Federal Oil and Gas Council, which, according to the New York Times, would be advised by "a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq". This unelected body, advised by unspecified foreigners, would have ultimate decision-making power on all oil matters, with the full authority to decide which contracts Iraq did and did not sign. In effect, the law called for Iraq's publicly owned oil reserves, the country's main source of revenues, to be exempted from democratic control and run instead by a powerful, wealthy oil dictatorship, which would exist alongside Iraq's broken and ineffective government.

It is hard to overstate the disgrace of this attempted resource grab. Iraq's oil profits are the country's only hope of financing its own reconstruction when some semblance of peace returns. To lay claim to that future wealth in a moment of national disintegration was disaster capitalism at its most shameless."

I hate to seem too extreme, but America is drenched in the blood of Iraqis because of this war and now the excesses of the country's executive-branch-run-amock are seeking to suck the resources out of country as well. Seems like looting and pillaging to me.

If I could virtually scream with rage at the state of things I would. But I think I'll stick with just refusing to use the terminology "war" which implies a real enemy and battle, and stick with "occupation", "humanitarian disaster", "neo-imperial conquest", and the like. grrr.

Misplaced sympathy

There is a serious need in the United States and in the West in general of a sea change in public consciousness about this whole Iraq debacle. Of course, I'm referring to the US primarily...I am sick of anti-war and pro-war voices alike taking a tone that prioritizes US interests above all others in references to Iraq.

It seems to be that even criticisms of this disgusting, genocidal and illegal war tend to take a tone that laments what such a debacle means for America and Americans. As of now, I couldn't care less - from my standpoint I know for a fact that, no matter what, American people will always be better off than Iraqi people in suffering the repercussions of this thing.

Why is there not more of a sympathetic and concerned public conscience for the Iraqi people, for the 1 million dead (violence + war-related deaths - see the Lancet study) and 4 million fled from the country, for the widowed wives, fatherless children, and traumatized public that suffers more and more each day that the violence continued? Why is it SUCH a stretch for the American public specifically and the West in general to be voice a serious concern for the disintegration of a society that resides in the birthplace of one of the oldest civilizations known to mankind? Why aren't news stories on Frace 24, or TV5 or Euronews or on any given network in the United States SHOWING the extent to which the bloodshed and violence has lead to malnutrition, widespread sickness, and rampant poverty. And why is there no coverage of the massive amount of refugees that are now poor, homeless, and displaced in surrounding countries?

It's a humanitarian crisis and it's high time that people begin to see it this way. Especially in the US, but more importantly also in the West, as these are the most influential voices of the international community and are crucial in turning the tide of international attention (not against the US - it happened long ago) to the crisis on the ground in Iraq. So much attention is given to military manoeuvres and how US politics handles the situation - why so little on how Iraqi civilians are handling the situation and how everyday life has been shattered?

I am ANGRY, OUTRAGED and UPSET by the extent to which public opinion shows such a lack of sympathy for those who are suffering the effects of this war, and on my own end my heart breaks everytime I think of what the war really means for the majority of people involved - the iraqi people.

Labelling "Racism" in Mauritania: Continued

So originally this was a comment to Sian's comment because I really meant to talk about something in the "labelling racism in Mauritania" post, but I forgot. And I think it confused things a little. The whole inspiration for that post was the disparity between the books and articles I have read on Mauritania, and how they conceptualize the idea of race in the country, and what is actually going on here, on the ground.

I wanted to bring up another point that I guess upon reflection is relevant and troubles me but I guess I didnt include it. This whole thing came about because the available "history" and information on Mauritania is produced by societies in which and idea of "race" as more color-oriented, exists. Because the whole color-race idea thing is a north american but more importantly also a colonial idea (which is where most race-based 'science' originated). There is a major disparity between what I read, that is published in the US or in France, and the reality on the ground. Namely, these 'informational' sources tend to base things on color, using terms like "white moor" (who are not always white) and "black african" (who are not always black) to refer to an environment where it's really not about color. Because Mauritania hasn't the means to publish its own history on an international level (so countries like the US and France do it instead), the idea of Mauritania's history as being race/color-based is disseminated and in the process does a major disservice to the country itself.
I'm bringing this up because this is where the idea of color-race and "race" (in the sian sense) in mauritania itself come together, and where "racist" really becomes a misnomer because of what it signifies and which audiences read these books.
I also think its important not to leave the color-race thing out in terms of colonial history in africa, because it was a main centrepoint, so that's why all the books written by french expats bother me.
Although I think race SHOULD be used to refer to anything that holds people inferior for superficial reasons, there are some serious historical factors that inform the discussion today that continue to return to the color issue. And unfortunately, items like the State Department Country Report, the CIA Factbook, and basically any book written by an expat on Mauritania are considered "credible" sources of information on Mauritania. The CIA factbook, by the way lists under Mauritania's "ethnicity": "black 30%".....Same goes for many french pages on the country, where the divisions are "maur" or "maur blanc" and "maur/noir metissage", and "noir". No mention of actual ethnic groups.
And I have yet to read one that doesnt consider color as being central to issues of social prejudice in Mauritania.
I'd love to believe that everyone considers racism to be an idea that is as inclusive as you say (i certainly feel that way, but I think you're way ahead of the game on this one), but I would be willing to bet that if one were to do a European-North American poll of "what's the first thing you think of when you think of race/racism", most people would make a reference to color. Thats a stretch, I know. But I can't shake the impression, book after book and article after article I read, that race is being oversimplified as color. Here, anyway.

On ending economic apartheid

Ok can I first say that the idea of "economic apartheid" and, in a larger sense, "global apartheid" are the coolest paradigms for describing the unforgivable and widening gap between rich and poor that is reinforced everyday by an out of control and excessive capitalist system that increases the quality of life for a few and decreases the quality of life for most.....and I am tired of people who claim that to protest this status quo is to be socialist - to which my response is, #1: so what if it is, and #2:even those who embrace the idea of the market as a beneficial thing (which, all things considered, it can be, but isnt for now) must admit that its current role as a virus that is killing global society as we know it is not optimal. So I had to post this excerpt from Yes! magazine detailing the economic revolution that is in order and that strikes a nice compromise between market-lovers and socialists alike.

Community-based Economics
From a system-design perspective, a healthy society must either eliminate profit, interest, and for-profit corporations altogether, or use the taxing and regulatory powers of publicly accountable democratic governments to strictly limit concentrations of economic power and prevent the winners from passing the costs of their success onto the losers. This creates yet another system design issue. As government becomes larger and more powerful, it almost inevitably becomes less accountable and more prone to corruption.
Paul Hawken has correctly observed that big business creates the need for big government to constrain excesses and clean up the messes. To maintain equity and secure the internalization of costs, democratically accountable government power must exceed the power of exclusive private economic interests. The smaller the concentrations of economic power, the smaller government can be and still maintain essential balance and integrity in the society.
There will be less need for a strong governmental hand to the extent that we are successful in eliminating sociopathic institutional forms, making community-based economies the norm, and creating a public consensus that predatory economic behavior now taken for granted as “just human nature” is actually aberrant and immoral. Responsible citizenship may then become the expected business norm. There will always be a need, however, for rules and governmental oversight to deal with what hopefully will be a declining number of sociopathic individuals and institutions who seek to profit at public expense.
Equalizing economic power and rooting it locally shifts power to people and community from distant financial markets, global corporations, and national governments. It serves to shift rewards from economic predators to economic producers, strengthens community, encourages individual responsibility, and allows for greater expression of individual choice and creativity.

Labelling "Racism" in Mauritania

(look out, it's a long one)
So I have an issue with the word “racism”, as has been the case for ages. Just to preface this post a little.

I’m in Mauritania and find that there a some very deep-seated issues involving prejudice, socio-cultural segregation and “race” among black (sub-saharan) African and Arab (north African) people. The question is whether it can accurately be called “racism” and, if so, to what extent does that label, bearing with it centuries of historical baggage, serve to complicate the problem by means of over-simplification? This last part of the phrase seems a little odd but it is the only way to describe it. When one uses the term “racism”, the immediate impression is that of a prejudice borne of skin color….because its widely considered for such prejudices, currently and throughout history, to be egregious and horrible, the word “racist” or “racism” tends to overshadow the underlying historical and sociocultural factors that cause the visible elements of racism (skin color etc). I guess what I’m trying to say is that the word racism denies the subject a real, deep, and important subtext that, in the end, leads to faulty information and sometimes a perpetuation of a problem that needs to be recognized and addressed at its roots. Also, because “racism” immediately suggests the existence of a dichotomy, it tends to reshape multifaceted and non-dichotomic problems in its image (I want to say the problem of “race” in Mauritania is poly-something in nature, as it is nonlinear and the categories of prejudice are multiple)…..
In this case, the issue is Mauritania, in which the historical presence of repeated conquest (Arabic and colonial) and a caste system – to me – resist the categorization of systematic prejudices here as “racism”. I feel that if and when I use that word, I am doing a disservice to the effort to understand and deal with a very serious problem…. But then, what word can I use to provoke the appropriate level of disgust and indignation that’s needed here, without the hassle of false impressions? To add on to all this, I can’t help but think of the prejudices associated with caste in India as well – is the word “racism” applied in Mauritania (rather than India, where I haven’t heard it as a ref to caste system issues before) just because it’s part of Africa? Or what? I know race is a social construct and not a genetic thing, but this doesn't shake the superficial connotations of skincolor that the word "racism" carries with it....
The word racism is very specifically part of a western historical consciousness, and I’m getting the increasing impression that, as such, ignores the scope of prejudices that are above and beyond (not to mention pre-dating) that same historical consciousness? Bear with me, I’m not getting my words out here (its Monday morning J).
History-wise, the question of “racism” dates back to the arabic-islamic conquest that originated in the middle east and spread downward and westward into and across the sahel, and its an influence that has been there for thousands of years (i.e. the Islamic empire). So Mauritania's white "moors" are the descendants of these arab populations from the north, and the black moors are those who were originally indigenous to the south but for generations, have adopted the arabic culture as their own. Most people in Mauritania (about 50%) who are metissé (brown) have adopted the moor culture as well. So islam and the arabic culture are very much intertwined and totally inseparable here. Because Mauritania contains both populations, one of whom thinks of itself as the conqueror (this leads to a slave issue, ill get to it later) and owner of the land (mostly white moor), and the other who think of themselves as the rightful inhabitants and as distinctly african (so wolof - wolof culture and langauge, same for fulani) with the right to the land and their respective cultures. Note also here that conventional white-black racism here is blurred by issue of arab culture among moors; in fact, the term “white moor” refers mostly to brown people, a small minority of whom are very light skinned (think Moroccan people) but still not white in the racial sense.
All this prejudice and conflict between cultures and people was exacerbated by colonial borders imposed in the 60s, because originally senegal and mauritania were together as french west African colonial territory before being sliced up with the african population on both sides of the Mauritanian border. What colonialism also did was to add another dimension to the problem – that of skin color, as they naturally favored white moors as the ruling class and therefore as the beneficiaries of colonial rule and, later, independence. As one sees with aboriginal people in North America, the drawing of artificial lines that cut across peoples leads to an especially strong sense of solidarity, which of course leads to bitter and severe clashes with arab moors in Mauritania. This led to widespread massacres and expulsions of blacks in '90 - 91, so there are still refugees on the senegalese border, this happened in part because the government implemented an "arabization" policy (and there has not been an african government, ever, they are all moors). you can fill in the blanks...

To further complicate the whole thing there is the issue of caste - there were already caste systems in place among the wolof and fulani in the region that dictated, via surname, who was aristocracy and who was servant, and so to this day even in senegal there is a BIG issue with upward mobility in employment and with women's rights and stuff because strict social rules remain stating that you absolutely cannot marry outside your caste. Many people still follow these rules (they are enforced at a social level) in order to preserve their position and keep their name since it indicates status. Which in turn causes a vicious cycle of prejudice. So what happened with the Moors was that they used this to their advantage and obviously put themselves at the top of the chart, because they considered themselves superior culturally (which translates into skin color superficially), and this also allowed them in the process of conquest to take slaves from those who were already in the lowest castes. Like I said though, color is superficial, because even Black moors own/owned slaves, and the distinction between them is in their names/caste status. This is also an indicator of the cultural factor in all this, commonly called “arabization” here in Mauritania – one can see with the Black moors how the adoption of Arabic culture over time has superceded the importance of skin color in society, allowing them the same privileges and status of their white moor counterparts.
There is still a kind of conquistador/slavekeeper mentality, and people joke about it here in the office but there are serious office politics that show its something thats really deep rooted. And it happens all over - like Nicole's driver, who is a white moor, refuses to greet the Fulani guard or the women who work at the house (who are ivorian, but are still ‘black’/non-arab for him.
I saw this whole caste/slave/”race” thing firsthand the other day: A woman named Mariam N'Diaye (African name, black woman, servant caste), a specialist in psychology, came to talk to our office about stress management (they brought her in because of an office politics thing, which is yet another caste-social status-linked-thing). During the seminar, she asked everyone their name. One guy (white moor, brown, arab), when called on, said his name was Alhassan Sy (an Arabic name). Mariam didnt hear him so she asked him to repeat his last name, to which he responded, "My last name is Sy, as in, your master". Because Sy is an arabic name indicating a caste that traditionally owned slaves. So this was followed by an awkward silence which Mariam laughed off, as she is from Dakar the whole arab moor thing is new to her. So while slavery itself is still a serious and obscene practice/problem that has been pushed underground, it exists in very small numbers, around like 2000 or something. The bigger issue is an antiquated caste system aggravated by cultural and “racial” factors that stifles social growth and opportunity for everyone involved and perpetuates a monopoly of power among moors. So, to return to my point in the first place, the term “racism” is simply insufficient to explain what is going on here and from what I have read in US country information on Mauritania, it totally disfigures a western historical understanding of prejudice, slavery, culture and “race” as it exists here in Mauritania.