Posts Tagged ‘Iran’
I heard the Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi talk about the situation in Iran on Monday (July 13, 2009). What she said was very impressive.
Shirin Ebadi said many more people have been killed in Iran in the aftermath of the elections than we know now. “What happened in Iran is an obvious human rights violation”, she told a Deutsche Welle journalist.
Ebadi described the first day of demonstrations in Tehran after the Iranian elections: “When the Iranian people demonstrated peacefully, there were no problems – not even a window was broken. But towards the end of the demonstrations shots were fired from office buildings. Some died and many more were injured. That was the beginning to the state’s crackdown. That night at 3 a.m., a student residence was attacked, five students were shot dead and several were injured.”
Shirin Ebadi said the government’s actions were neither in line with the Iranian constitution, nor with Islam, nor with human rights.
Ebadi said the Iranian people would continue their demonstrations. But the protest would take on new forms because of the government crackdown on the street demonstrations. Ebadi added that this continuing protest and the criticism from within the Iranian clergy will further destabilize the government.
The Iranian human rights activist called on Germany and Europe to increase the pressure on the Iranian government.
But Ebadi made it very clear that she’s opposed to military intervention and economic sanctions. Those, she said, would only hurt the people of Iran.
Shirin Ebadi criticized the West for only concentrating on the nuclear dispute in its negotiations with Iran. “You wonder,” she said, “whether the Europeans only care about their own security and not the security of the people in Iran.”
She also criticized companies like Nokia and Siemens, saying they had delivered technology to Iran, which is now being used to monitor and control the citizens.
Ebadi is an outspoken human rights activist
I was impressed with Shirin Ebadi’s courage to speak out. Some of her co-workers in Iran have already been imprisoned by the regime. But that doesn’t deter her from fighting for human rights for the people of Iran.
When asked whether giving interviews to foreign journalists in the West could cause problems for her in Iran, she replied “That’s not that important to me. I consider this a task that has to be done.”
What surprised me was that Shirin Ebadi had left Iran shortly before the elections and has not been back since then. She said that her co-workers had urged her to stay in Europe and raise awareness for her cause there. She’s in constant contact with her colleagues back home, who keep her informed about the situation in Iran.
Of course, she’s freer to talk and to take action when she’s in Europe than when she’s in Iran. But it’s risky for her, nevertheless. After all, her husband and her family are still in Iran. They might have to suffer the consequences of her actions abroad.
But despite the risks, Shirin Ebadi expressed confidence that she would be able to return home “after I have finished my job here.”
According to Wednesday’s edition of The New Light of Myanmar (an English newspaper published by the Burmese government), a British man was deported “for sake of friendly relations“.
Apparently he had entered Burma on tourist visas in recent years and reported for the BBC from there.
For the Burmese government, that’s a crime.
So Burma blacklisted him. And when he tried to enter the country again this week, he was sent home on the same flight “for the sake of friendly relations between the two countries.”
How insecure must a regime be to be so paranoid?
If the regime had nothing to hide, they could just let foreigners into the country – be they journalists, aid-workers or tourists.
If the journalists then really reported things that weren’t truthful, others would prove them wrong. They’d lose their credibility immediately and they’d most likely lose their jobs.
But I guess authoritarian regimes like Burma, China, Iran or North Korea think they can control public opinion. The idea of free flow of information must be among their worst nightmares.
I’ve attached the full text of the Burmese article below. It speaks for itself.
“A journalist who is working for BBC was deported yesterday as he broke visa rules and regulations. Mr Andrew William Harding, a British citizen, arrived Yangon International Airport on Thai Airway TG 3069 flight at 12.45 p.m. yesterday and showed his tourist visa to enter Myanmar. He was deported on the same flight.
Andrew William Harding also entered Myanmar with tourist visa in 2006. During his stay in Myanmar from 6 to 13 June 2006, he interviewed anti-government groups and aired false accusations and fabricated news in his “Undercover Burma” programme. He showed his tourist visa and entered Myanmar again in 2007. During the stay in the country from 7 to 12 September, he met with those creating unrest in Yangon and put their demands for the unrest in his broadcast.
As he broke the visa rules and regulations and entered Myanmar, he had already been blacklisted.
His previous passport number when he entered the country was [number omitted] and he held [number omitted] and tried to enter Myanmar yesterday. Journalists from news agencies in Western countries illegally entered the country very often and made fabricated news with the help of anti-government groups.
Without taking action against the British journalist, the government deported him for the sake of friendly relations between the two countries.”
Source: The New Light of Myanmar, Rangoon, in English 7 May 08
More information from the BBC and DW on the situation in Burma:
I came across a BBC study the other day, in which participants in 34 countries were asked about the image of their own and other countries. All in all, 17.000 people were polled. They were asked about their views of countries like the U.S., Israel, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Germany, the UK and the European Union.
US no moral authority any more
Most news media that have reported about this study commented on the fact that views about the United States are slowly improving globally. While this may be so, I think it will take a long, long time to re-establish the U.S. as a moral institution in the world. The days, when the USA stood for high moral standards, democracy and human rights are long gone. Abu Ghoreib, Guantanamo, the whole unstoppable “War against Terrorism” have ruined the image of the U.S. in many countries around the world.
The deplorable image of the USA is something I’m often confronted with when I work abroad. I used to be proud to say “I lived in the U.S. for many years and it’s a great place” – I can’t really say that any more. I’ll immediately catch flak and be confronted by all the injustices that have been committed in the name of fighting terrorism. That’s what sticks in people’s minds.
The atrocoties of Abu Ghoreib or the attempts to legitimise torturing prisoners are what people in many countries think of first, when they think of the USA. And not the fact that the U.S. is still a country where people enjoy freedoms and prosperity that are unthinkable in many other places. Or the fact that the political system, the media and the blogosphere in the U.S. are still able to expose wrongdoings and make sure that those responsible will face the consequences – things unthinkable in many other regimes.
But if we get back to the BBC study now, all that seems to be changing slowly. The image of the U.S. is improving. Gradually. Slowly. Recovery will take a long time…
Of course, for me as a German, the results for Germany were stunning: in this international poll, Germany was the most positively rated country of all. I wonder if the champagne corks popped in Angela Merkel’s office…
Perception and self-perception
When you look at the study, another interesting aspect is how countries see themselves. Not surprisingly, countries with a free press – one that is critical and self-critical of what’s happening in the country – have a mixed self-image. In the U.S., for instance, 56 percent of the people see their country mainly positive, 36 percent mainly negative. In Germany, 75 percent of the citizens have a positive image of their country, 10 percent have a negative impression. In the U.K. the ratio is 60 to 27 and in France 63 to 16.
But then look at China: 90 percent of the Chinese have mainly positive views of their country, only four percent have mainly negative views. That’s quite a contrast.
I wonder why that is so. Is it the effect of the propaganda media? Or is it the general mentality of the Chinese, who are extremely proud of their country and might sometimes even consider themselves superior to others? Or is it a combination of these factors?