I've always loved browsing the old newspaper archives. I just rediscovered my love when I came across to this story on Ganji last year when he was shortly released right before the presidential elections in June.
A former executive committee member of Tahkim Vahdat, Iran's largest student organization, Ali Afshari said yesterday that based on his contacts in Iran among Mr. Ganji's supporters, he believes Mr. Ganji will not flee the country.
"He is a hero and has many people around him," he said. "Based on my personal knowledge of Mr. Ganji's personality and commitment to a transparent political position, I doubt he will ever leave Iran and I think he will stay."
Mr. Afshari added that there was no technical warrant for his arrest, but if there were, he believes Mr. Ganji would abide by the law and "deal with his situation in the most transparent manner." Mr. Afshari left Iran last October to study at the University of Dublin. He arrived in America in February and is now continuing his studies in Texas.
However, another American-based Iranian human rights activist yesterday said that by not returning to jail, Mr. Ganji was taking a brave stance in the tradition of civil disobedience.
"This is part of his civil disobedience," Ramin Ahmedi said yesterday. "He will not obey the unjust order. But he has proved that he is willing to pay that price. I think he does communicate a message to people around him by refusing to go. These are the small first acts of building that movement. "
Mr. Ahmedi said yesterday that Mr. Ganji's task now was to use his leadership to build and sustain a civil rights movement in Iran. "He has emerged as a leader. He is extremely popular among the activists from all parts of the spectrum. You have a leader and he has to build that movement."
Daftar-e Tahkim Vahdat, in the past few years, has adopted a clear policy in favour of regime change through non-violent movement.
Akbar Atri, a former key member of Tahkim Vahdat, writes:
"The DTV [Daftar Tahkim Vahdat] is made up of individual Islamic students' associations from over 60 of the country's universities. Within the organization, there are two factions...
[T]he majority faction, known as "Neshast-Allameh," consists of 50 to 60 Islamic students' associations and advocates a new democratic constitution based on the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and its covenant. The majority faction no longer believes reform of the current Iranian system is possible.
[...]
It is in this context that, after experiencing 26 years of theocracy under the Islamic Republic, they are ready for non-violent regime change through a national referendum for a new constitution based on universally accepted principles of human rights.
[...]
Regime change is the only answer. The Iranian people are ready to do their part, if the United States and other democratic countries are ready to stand with them. (Source)
Moreover, many of its key members have left Iran for the U.S. and some like Akbar Atri, Ali Afshari have joined various "pro-human rights" and "pro-democracy groups." (Atri apparently works for Iran Human Rights Documentation Center now and he's also been been involved in Iran Freedom Concert's campaigns at Harvard) (Source)
Afshari and Atri also appeared on a panel discussion, backing Rick Santroum's Iran Democracy Bill. (Source)
Mousavi Khoini, who was arrested a few months ago, is also a founding member of an organization representing former members of Tahkim Vahdat. (Source)
Tahkim Vahdat was among the most outspoken groups who advocated boycott in the last presidential elections. (Source)
Moreover, Ali Afshari, Akbar Atri, Reza Delbary, Abdollah Momeni were among the founding members of the Referendum Movement endorsed by Reza Pahlavi and created by Mohsen sazegara, himself a former member of Tahkim Vahdat who has still maintained close ties with them. (Source)
These are all evidences that suggest Tahkim Vahdat has effectively become part of the American plans for regime change in Iran.
While hundreds of Iranians students (many without any ties to the IR) are deported or denied entrance or harassed by the American security organizations, how would you expect from the Islamic Republic in dealing with a student movement with a clear pro-regime-change agenda?
In his latest opinion piece, Akbar Ganji, rejects the prospects of direct negotiations which he calls them 'secret deal' with the U.S. -- as if diplomatic negotiations in the 'beautiful and amazing' United States or elsewhere have ever been public.
We believe the government in Tehran is seeking a secret deal with the United States. It is willing to make any concession, provided that the United States promises to remain silent about the regime's repressive measures at home. We don't want war; nor do we favor such a deal. We hope that the regime will not be allowed to suppress its people, foment a crisis in the region or continue with its nuclear adventurism.
Interestingly enough, Reza Pahlavi, last week, suggested almost the same thing:
Clearly, war is an option rejected and which, as far as I am concerned, must be taken off the table; equally ineffective, is the process of endless diplomacy which has been fruitlessly pursued, now for several years -- with the full prestige, backing and weight of the European Union, Russia, the UN and the United States. The net result of this process has been that the militant clerical regime of Iran is today not only closer to reaching its enrichment objectives, but also recklessly emboldened by the lack of resolve it has seen amongst the practitioners of international diplomacy.
Khatami's presence in the US has exposed some of the "pro-democracy" groups that have recently surfaced in large numbers.
While the State department is clearly departing from its hard line regime change approach and has started to facilitate more contacts with Iranians, regardless of their attitudes towards the Bush administration, the reaction from these groups is interesting.
One, is the Iran Freedom Concert, a Harvard based student project with support from such organizations as American Islamic Congress (AIC), Hands Across the Mideast Support Alliance (HAMSA) and Boroumand Foundation.
They started with a concert hailed by the National Review Online, to raise awareness about human rights violations in Iran. Their main supporter, American Islamic Congress (AIC), has been a vocal supporter of the Iraq invasion whose director, Zainab al-Suwaij, once had been quoted saying: “The real question is not whether to liberate Iraq, but why we have not done so already,” according to a review of the concert published in a Harvard student newspaper.
Their Iranian star was Akbar Atri, a former student activist from Tehran who was brought to the U.S. with the help of Ramin Ahmadi who runs another human rights group named "Iran Human Rights Documentation Center", directly funded by the U.S. State Department. He also appeared on a discussion panel at the U.S. senate to help a Republican senator sell his "Iran Freedom and Support Act" bill to the congress with the ultimate goal of regime change in Iran through non-military actions.
Obviously, no wonder why the the AEI has brought all these people to attack this decision too.
The interesting observation here is the way these groups, once aligned and supported by the State Department, have now started to publicly dismiss the decision by the same State Department to grant a visa to Khatami.
Someone please asks Ahmadinejad if all his promises are like the one he made on his blog to write at least one post per week?
Dr. Ronald Asmus, executive director of German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Center in Brussels, said in a press release on the GMF website:
"Ramin is a true intellectual in the finest sense. He has many friends and admirers in Europe, West and East. He represents a wonderful synergy of the best of Western and Eastern democratic intellectual traditions. We are all delighted that he is free."
Now, let's see how Mr. Asmus thinks about Iran and weather it is likely that Ramin Jahanbegloo, his admired friend, shares his point of view:
The choice of how to respond to Iran’s growing threat to the West in general and Israel in particular is not an easy one. One option is to try to stop Iran’s nuclear program via an air and missile strike -- but such a step is unlikely to work militarily and could have disastrous consequences. The other is to shift to a longer-term strategy of containment while working for peaceful regime change. While that might work over time, it is unlikely to stop Iran from going nuclear in the short term if it is determined to do so. (Source)
Toppling Saddam’s regime was a legitimate and necessary goal. His removal will make Iraq, the region, and the world a better place, the current chaos acting parts of the reconstruction effort notwithstanding. But rarely in American diplomacy has the right goal been pursued so poorly (although, to be fair, Europe also spectacularly botched the crisis).
[...]
If the United States is to be seen as a promoter of democracy in the Arab world, it must show that it is committed to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Such steps need to be matched by a strategy for promoting positive regime change in Iran. Unlike the case of Saddam’s Iraq, there is a real chance that such change could come from within. Unfortunately, that could take longer than Tehran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The West therefore needs a strategy that prevents Iran from going nuclear and encourages democratic change.
[...]
In the late 1960s, for example, the alliance adopted a grand strategy based on the Harmel Report— one critical to eventually winning the Cold War. That successful strategy combined elements of offence and defense. Nato used a strong military to deter the Soviet Union, along with détente and engagement to assist the political transformation of communist countries. Such a policy would now be called regime change by peaceful means. (Source)
American and European leaders have started to talk about the need to promote greater freedom, justice and democracy in the "Greater Middle East." While Americans see this as the crucial battleground in the war on terror, Europeans want their southern neighbors to be stable and well-governed, to stem the flows of illegal migration and organized crime. Both sides have accepted that working with local partners for peaceful democratic regime change today is the best way of avoiding violent revolution or military action tomorrow. (Source)
Here are my pictures from Shargh newspaper's building where I visited last year:
Disgusting personal attacks have risen in the past few months. They usually focus on who I am rather than what I say. But I think I have to address some of them here to clarify things and show how false they are.
This is one of the most common lines of attack on last year's visit to Iran:
He was able to go Iran and come back during the last election. At first, it was not believable for anybody because of the foul language he operated in his blog against the supreme leader. But it was true, he got a secret order from an exiled Iranian reporter (Masood Behnood) to go to Iran safely. And furthermore unbelievably, he could stay in Iran, do political activation in favor of left wingers and return Canada safely. (Source: Under the Veil)
My trip to Iran last year during the presidential elections was not that easy at the end.
As reported by Newsweek and AP later, I was detained by an official from the Ministry of Intelligence at the airport for a few hours, missed my return flight to London, threatened to stay or I'd be dragged out of the plane by a legal warrant, summoned to the Ministry of Intelligence building in Tehran, Serah-e Zarrabkhaaneh, interrogated for 5, 6 hours, and ultimately forced to sign an apology to be able to leave the country.
The well-behaved official, though, warned me not to write anything about the incident in my blog or I'd be formally prosecuted next time I was in Iran. But I didn't comply, since it was a silly and illogical demand.
Once I arrived in London, in a long Persian post, I described everything. I also posted something hinting at what happened in English. In a few days I received an email from that same official from his Hotmail account he gave me to send my apology to (Yes, they're quite high-tech!). He repeated his threat that I'd have a hard time next time I arrived in Tehran.
And the whole secret order thing from Behnoud etc. is too funny to even address. Absolutely no one thought it was a safe trip and they were all against it. But I'm a Capricorn. You know what I'm saying if you are one or live with one. :)
For the cynical minds, there are enough people who can testify on what I was going through those days. Among them, My father, my cousin Hamid, and a Mehrabad Airport official who was a friend of my cousin and there to help, saw the guy from the Intelligence Ministry. I was also in constant contact with Mohamad Ali Abtahi, Zahra Eshraghi, Solana Larsen, as well as James Corrick from the Canadian embassy in Tehran.
I met James at the Tehran embassy's main building in Abbas Abad and he kindly offered me a safe place to stay and take care of my Canadian passport.
Ultimately, if the cynics are so persistent on their claim that I'm making all this up, I'd encourage them to contact my mother so she explains why she was praying and crying when I got back from the interrogation session unharmed and why she hugged me and kissed me as if she had seen my revival from a sudden death.
My most favorite Radio 1's show is The Blue Room and it's unbelievable they're ending it at the end of September.
I'm not sure what they're going to replace it with. But I'm hoping similar, otherwise it'd be such a disappointment.
The public recantation of his views by the Iranian philosopher Ramin Jahanbegloo reflects both a genuine change of mind and significant internal changes in the Tehran regime, says Hossein Derakhshan.
There is a standard, typical formula in the confessions made by intellectuals and dissidents freed from prison in the Islamic Republic of Iran. What Ramin Jahanbegloo said in the first interview he gave after his release on bail on 30 August 2006 was very far from this template. So far, in fact, that it suggests a different explanation of what happened to the detained scholar than that proposed by Rasool Nafisi in openDemocracy (see "Ramin Jahanbegloo: a repressive release" (1 September 2006).
The first piece of evidence for this view is that Jahanbegloo's argument in the interview he gave to the Iranian student news agency (Isna) seems strong, coherent and consistent enough to rule out the possibility of it being imposed on him by his interrogators.
In a key section of the interview - which is not yet available in full in English translation - the political-science lecturer and philosopher describes how some American think-tanks provided him with research opportunities and financial support so that he could conduct comparative analysis of socio-political change in contemporary east-central Europe and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In the past few months, Secretary Rice has really changed the way the White House has dealt with Iran since Bush came to power:
Khatami is the highest ranking former or current official ever visited the States with an undiplomatic visa anf given what he represents now in Iran, it's a great sign that the U.S. has started to take the moderates seriously after all those nonsensical rhetoric of 'reform is dead, people are about to revolt' mainly advocated by the neo-conservative activists and writers.
What makes me quite confident about this new realisation is neo-con spokespersons such as Frontpage magazine or National Review Online or Michael Ledeen or Richard Perle have been attacking all these new steps. Just take a look:
Another sign is that how VOA TV has become tolerant enough to give a vioce to even the most outspoken crtics of the Bush administration (such as Hamdi Dabashi and actually myself!).
Amir Abbas Fakhravar, in a testimony along with Ledeen at a senate committee hearing, harshly attacked Radio Farda and VOA Persian TV, accusing them of becoming a platform to promote reformers. "The reform theory is suspicious and unacceptable. It allows the Iranian regime to hide behind a mask, buying more time, and thereby growing stronger every day," he said.
He finally concluded that "the VOA and Radio Farda programming must support regime change."
The deadline set for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment by the UN Security Council has passed. But sanctions are not only unlikely, they're illogical.
Read the rest in my new blog at the Washington Post.
After reading Jahanbegloo's interview after his release, I tried to find out what kind of politics the German Marshal Fund holds. But I found nothing substantial on Wikipedia.
However, I came across to a paper titled "A Transatlantic Strategy to Promote Democratic Development in the Broader Middle East", written by Ronald D. Asmus, executive director of the Transatlantic Center of the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Brussels, Larry Diamond and Michael McFaul, senior fellows at the Hoover Institution and professor (by courtesy) and associate professor of political science at Stanford University, respectively, and Mark Leonard director of foreign policy studies at the Centre for European Reform in London.
The following excerpt could shed some light on how they see the Middle East:
Since the September 11 attacks, a number of U.S. and European strategists have stepped forward to call for a fundamental paradigm shift in how the United States and Europe engage the broader Middle East—that wide swath of the globe, predominantly Muslim and overwhelmingly authoritarian, stretching from Morocco to Afghanistan. The West, they have argued, must abandon the chimera of stability offered by an autocratic status quo and instead put the weight of Western influence on the side of positive democratic change. Washington and Brussels must join forces in a partnership with reformers in the region to promote democratic transformation and human development as an antidote to those radical ideologies and terrorist groups that seek to destroy Western society and values.
Such calls have been driven by a new analysis of what ails the region and how it has fueled the terrorist threat facing the West today: an explosive mix of humiliation, hatred, intolerance, and intense anti-U.S. and anti-Western sentiment that is crystallizing into a set of extremist ideologies that twists and mobilizes religion and uses terrorism to pursue its goals. It is brewing amid a context of political oppression, economic stagnation, population booms, and pervasive inequality and injustice. The United States and Europe will not be safe from the terrorism, political instability, illegal migration, or organized crime this region is spawning unless each shifts its policies to attempt to get to the root of these ills. This endeavor will simultaneously require both political freedom and human development—the kind that generates broad, sustainable mprovements in people’s livelihoods, skills, dignity, and opportunities.