Evan's Corner: Vanguard: Women in the Iranian Election Campaign and Protest

The Woodrow Wilson Center

Vanguard: Women in the Iranian Election Campaign and Protest

July 13^th, 2009

On Monday July 13^th, the Woodrow Wilson Center brought together a distinguished panel of female scholars to discuss the role of Iranian women in recent political turmoil. The panelists included founder and president of Eclectic Woman, Pari Esfandiari; former member of Iranian parliament and visiting scholar at Umass Boston, Fatemeh Haghighatjoo; vice president of innerChange associates, Jaleh Lackner-Gohari; University of Chicago professor Norma Moruzzi; and CSU Northridge professor Nayereh Tohidi. The discussion was moderated by the Wilson Center’s own Dr. Haleh Esfandiari.

Nayereh Tohidi began by arguing that women’s space in Iranian society has been growing for sometime. A decline in fertility rates, a growing female press, and incredibly strong female participation in higher education all reveal that women in Iran are extremely active in all realms of society. Tohidi asserted that women have always played an important role in Iranian history, but particularly in the past ten years, women have been reasserting their strength and influence. Tohidi also noted that many of the strict social restrictions imposed by the Ahmadinejad regime targeted women specifically, and this is part of why the reform movement has enjoyed such widespread female support. Tohidi further illustrated that reform candidates have been extremely cognizant of the female voting block, and as a result, many candidates involved their own wives more actively in their campaigns. This inclusion of Iranian “first wives” began in the 2005 elections, but was used by all four candidates in the most recent election to woo female voters. Even before the protests, the campaign itself represented progress by specifically highlighting women’s issues, a subject that had been marginalized in the past.

Jaleh Lackner-Gohari had a slightly different take. Gohari did not dispute the important role of women in Iranian history, but she did refer to their current political activism as, “unprecedented.” Gohari asserted that many women felt let down by the Khatami administration’s inability to implement positive changes for women. As a result, women began to believe they could not rely on politicians to institute social change, and they took on this responsibility themselves. This may have been the driving force behind large amounts of female-oriented press and much broader participation in the campaigns and protests. Gohari also pointed out that social and legal restrictions on Iranian women effect every class. Because of this, the women who are participating in the protests are from all different economic backgrounds. They are united by a collective dissatisfaction with their status as women.

Fatemeh Haghighatjoo discussed her time in the Iranian parliament and how she sees the role of Iranian women. Haghighatjoo referred to women as the, “agent of change in Iran.” Social restrictions on women relaxed slightly during the reform movement of the nineties. However, since Ahmadinejad became president these social restrictions have returned, and united women against the regime. In Haghighatjoo’s view, this is why the pictures of Iranian campaign rallies, and also the protests are dominated by images of women of all ages and classes. Haghighatjoo also explained that women have an incredibly powerful role in Iranian family life, and many women have been responsible for spurring their husbands, brothers, or sons to become politically active.

Norma Moruzzi has been traveling back and forth between the US and Iran since 1997. In her travels she has met activists from all walks of life, and believes that the current opposition movement in Iran has the broadest base of any movement since the revolution. In Moruzzi’s opinion, the current clashes in Iran are not reflective of battling elements of society, but rather a very “narrow” portion of the government vs. “everyone else.” Moruzzi agreed with the other panelists about the role of women, but wanted to stress the “universality” of the protesters. Moruzzi also felt it was important to note that the West’s image of Iran has completely transformed as a result of the election fallout. Images of women in full burkas and crowds chanting, “death to America” have been replaced with images of peaceful crowds asking that their votes be counted. Regardless of how the political situation within Iran shakes out, the Iranian people have been humanized in the eyes of the world.

Pari Esfandiari echoed Moruzzi’s point about the images coming out of Iran. Recently, a movie entitled, “The Stoning of Soraya M” depicted an Iran that was backwards and fundamentalist through the story of a young woman being stoned to death for adultery. Esfandiari pointed out the “irony” that this film should come out at the same time as pictures of young, modern women in Tehran leading protests, and throwing stones at militia troops. Esfandiari also noted that women were crucial in the nature of the recent political campaigns. Because so many young Iranian women are in college, they are at the forefront of technological and international fluency. As a result, women were central in developing a tech-savvy campaign, and contributing some of the art and creativity that gave the green movement such a potent and resonant identity.

The panelists were all asked how the Obama administration should handle relations with Iran going forward. The speakers all seemed in agreement that the Obama administration must not recognize the new regime. Right now, the Iranian population may be one of the most pro-American in the Middle East. However, the panelists all felt that if the Obama administration sat down with Ahmadinejad and gave his election more legitimacy, it would represent a massive betrayal in the eyes of the Iranian people. The United States has gained back some esteem only by staying out of Iranian political affairs, and must remain on this course.

Evan's Corner: The Iranian Presidential Elections: What Do They Tell Us?

The Woodrow Wilson Center

The Iranian Presidential Elections: What Do They Tell Us?

6.30.09

On Tuesday June 30^th, the Woodrow Wilson Center hosted a discussion entitled “The Iranian Presidential Elections: What Do They Tell Us?” The speakers included renowned journalist and WWC policy scholar, Robin Wright; independent scholar, Farideh Farhi; senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Fariborz Ghadar; and political editor for The National in Abu Dhabi, Emile El-Hokayem. WWC’s own Sam Wells moderated the discussion.

Mr. Wells prompted the speakers with a series of important questions regarding the accuracy of the media's presentation of recent events in Iran. Robin Wright spoke first about what is clear and what is still unknown.

Wright started by pointing out that the election itself and the peaceful protests following it were a “political showdown.” However, the following violence represented a “physical showdown” that elevated the stakes of the conflict from a disputed election to the legitimacy of the Supreme Leader. Wright noted the use of Twitter and Facebook by opposition members. Wright also pointed out that even before the elections, the internet had connected Iranians to the rest of the world and filled them with growing desire to be more economically prosperous and socially free. Wright argued that today’s opposition movement is “very distinct” from the student movements of the late 90’s. Wright asserted that the opposition has a broad base that cuts across class and age. Maybe most significantly, the opposition also has the support of many powerful clergy members. Despite this, Wright warned that the regime has an equally potent coalition and controls the para-military forces that are at their most powerful since the revolution. Wright went on to explain the vulnerability of both sides. The opposition is vulnerable because of its lack of leadership. Mousavi has always been an accidental leader and may lack the charisma to lead such the opposition. If Mousavi proves ineffective at capturing momentum, the opposition may have to look elsewhere for leadership. The regime's vulnerability is a lack of unity. Wright illustrated that there are fissures within the highest levels of clergy, and the revolutionary guard may also be split on which side to support. Wright summed up her assessment by noting that however long the regime can succeed in suppressing the opposition, “the genie is out of the bottle.”

Farideh Farhi began her analysis by saying that the events following the election have been “the most significant” in Iran since the revolution, surpassing the rise of reformist policies and even the Iran-Iraq war. Farhi stated very clearly her belief that the election was not merely manipulated, but “completely cooked.” In her view, the regime predicted a typical turnout of 60% of the Iranian electorate, with better turnout among conservatives. In this scenario, a 2/3 majority for Ahmadinejad might make sense. However, Farhi explained that when a much greater number of Iranians showed up to vote, mobilized by opposition rallies, the regime failed to adjust their numbers to account for such broad participation. Farhi noted key miscalculations on the part of both the regime and the opposition. The opposition miscalculated by believing that although there would be vote manipulation of a few million votes, a more massive manipulation would not occur. The regime miscalculated by believing that a cynical electorate would not show up and vote for a reform candidate. Farhi also stated that Khamenei’s Friday prayer speech was not consistent with his supposed tendency to stay out of politics. Khamenei’s endorsement of both Ahmadinejad and the use of violence against protesters has shaken the legitimacy of his leadership. Farhi argued that Khamenei’s legacy will no longer be about standing up to the United States, but instead about suppressing his own people.

In addition to his post at CSIS, Foriborz Ghadar is the founding director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Global Business Studies. Ghadar shed some light on the role of the economy fomenting discontent in Iran. Ghadar illustrated that crude oil production has increased in recent years, but not as quickly as domestic consumption has grown. As a result, much of the oil is not exported, and GDP growth has been “erratic.” Ghadar also argued that some widely reported statistics about Iran’s economy seem implausible. For example, unemployment has been reported somewhere in the teens, but Ghadar believes it really lies in the twenties. Coupled with 20% inflation this gives Iran a misery index somewhere in the forties, higher than it ever was in the United States during the Great Depression. Ghadar also explained that although the government directly accounts for about 35% of Iran’s economy, the government indirectly controls another 30% through patronage. Ahmadinejad has garnered some popular support by dolling out oil money to the poor, and reformers would like to distribute government revenue in other ways. Ghadar seemed to be saying that one of the things reformers are fighting for is the ability to get control of the government purse, and invest the money with their own allies and patrons. Ghadar suggested that control of this money is a crucial element of the current conflict in Iran.

Emile El-Hokayem was able to offer the perspective of the Arab states on Iran. El-Hokayem claimed that many Arab states have always considered Iran a military dictatorship, and recent events have simply “lifted the veil of Iranian democracy.” Gulf leaders had been disappointed in the past by Iran’s reformers, such as former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. El-Hokayem shared that many gulf leaders are wary of Mousavi, or any reform candidate that may improve relations with the United States. The American alignment with Sunni power structures and Israel has worked for many gulf-states, and a shift in this relationship may threaten their interests.

The speakers also addressed the nuclear issue and seemed to have some degree of consensus. Robin Wright argued that before the election, Khamenei had several “trump cards” to play against the United States in negotiations over the nuclear program. The speakers seemed to agree that Iran is already enriching uranium, and the United States would likely have to acquiesce to at least accepting nuclear energy in Iran. Wright also pointed out that Ahmadinejad might prompt negotiation with the Obama administration, putting the new American government in the excruciating position of choosing between progress on the nuclear issue and support of democratic reformers.

Evan's Corner: Conflict and Religion in US Foreign Policy: A New Way?

Conflict and Religion in US Foreign Policy: A New Way?

Center for Strategic and International Studies

The Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted a discussion examining the role of religion is US foreign policy. The guests included Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, senior US correspondent for the Middle East Broadcasting Center, Prof. Shaun Casey, associate professor of Christian Ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary, Ambassador Sudjadan Parnohadiningrat of the Republic of Indonesia, and Mr. Amir Ramadan, Charge d’Affairs for the Egyptian Embassy in Washington.

Before getting down to more specific policy discussions, the panelists addressed President Obama’s speech in Cairo. Mr. Ramadan pointed out that although the speech was widely reported to be addressing the “Muslim world,” it was really a “political” speech. Ambassador Sudjadan agreed vigorously, noting that Indonesians felt the speech was not addressed to them. The ambassador explained that the millions of Muslims in south Asia thought that the president’s speech was about Middle Eastern politics, and not the faith of Islam. The ambassador went on to say that Indonesians are hopeful that Obama will speak to south Asian Muslims more directly in future speeches.

The panelists all stressed that Islam was not the center of the president’s Cairo speech, and also should not be the central preoccupation of US foreign policy. Mr. Ramadan argued that religious themes have no place in policy, and that is why his own Egyptian government has banned religious political parties. The speech was really about key political issues, such as the reconstruction of Iraq, and a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Ramadan stressed that pragmatic solutions to these political issues must be the goal of US foreign policy.

Professor Casey did not entirely agree that religion should be absent from government. Casey said that the government needs more staff devoted to understanding the role of “lived religion” around the world. Casey explained that the counter insurgency strategy being employed in Iraq calls for an advanced knowledge of Islam as it is practiced. So much of counter insurgency is a battle for hearts and minds, and the US military does not have the human resources to interpret and interact with religious life in Iraq. Casey went further suggesting that the proselytizing, evangelical approach of some of the army chaplains was extremely counterproductive. Casey advised that the US military train a core of servicemen in “world religions” to better understand and contextualize the spiritual traditions of foreign nations.

The ultimate consensus of the panel was that US foreign policy going forward needs to address the individual political realities of each Middle Eastern country. Ambassador Sudjadan and Mr. Ramadan illustrate that that two predominantly Muslim nations can have completely different domestic and international concerns. In some cases, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan, a greater understanding of country specific religious practices can be informative. However, these national religious traditions must never be misinterpreted as representative of all Muslims, and politics, not religion, must inform policy.

Evan's Corner: The Approach of the Halakah and Sharia to Contemporary Legal Issues

Briefing in the United States Library of Congress
Sponsored by
The Law Library of Congress and the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress

The Approach of the Halakah and Sharia to Contemporary Legal Issues

Participants:

Rabbi Shlomo Yaffe-Dean of the Institute of American and Talmudic Law
Issam Michael Saliba-Legal Specialist of Islamic Law at the Law Library of Congress

Summary:

Recently, the Law Library of Congress and the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress presented a discussion exploring the utility of “religious” legal systems. The term “religious law” causes much consternation and bristling from those who see the civic and spiritual worlds as fundamentally separate. In the West, people often imagine they have more thoroughly separated “Church” and “State,” and that a law reflecting Judeo-Christian values is not inherently religious. The view of Western legal systems as “untainted” by religion reflects an attitude that more overtly religious legal systems are less capable of handling modern legal problems. Rabbi Shlomo Yaffe and Issam Michael Salibal, made convincing arguments that fundamentally religious legal systems are, in many cases, well-equipped to face contemporary legal issues.

Rabbi Yaffe began by giving a brief history of the evolution of Talmudic law. The Rabbi explained that the basis for all Judaic law are the five books of Moses, which are viewed as immutable as they are supposed to be divine in origin. However, within the evolution of Judaic law, the Rabbi explained that these scriptures are more like a “table of contents” than a list of rules. The rabbi went so far as to say that if one “tries to live based on scripture” the way he or she lived “would not be Judaism.” One of the main criticisms of any legal system based in scripture is that it must be immovable and inflexible. The Rabbi illustrated that this is not true. The scripture cannot change, but the interpretation of the scripture is very much a continuous argument that Judaic scholars are able to plot from antiquity to modern day. Within the world of Judaic legal scholars there are consensus on some points, but on others there are minority and majority positions.

The Rabbi used a scriptural example to illustrate his point further. The Rabbi offered Exodus 21:22 “And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman’s husband makes demands of him, and he shall give restitution according to the judges.” This passage is at the center of modern Judaic scholars positions on abortion. In their view, the phrase “no fatality” implies that if the woman does not die, then no human life has been taken. Scholars also note that the killing of the unborn child is still a crime according to the Talmud, but it is not equivalent to murder. The Rabbi stressed that on countless modern issues: from assisted suicide to artificial intelligence, the scripture offers relevant instruction. Furthermore, this instruction, far from stifling progress, fosters a vigorous scholarly discussion regarding specific modern interpretations. The Rabbi argued that through this process, the Judaic legal system is every bit as “complicated,” and “sophisticated” as the American one.

While Rabbi Yaffe expressed that there is no distinction in Judaism between civil and religious life, Issam Michael Salibal noted that there is such a distinction in Islamic law. The Islamic schools of Law, derived originally from the Koran and Hadith, now rely upon legally established precedents. In other words, unlike in Judaic law, Muslim lawmakers cannot refer to the original religious texts, but instead must consult the decisions of authoritative Muslim jurists. This tradition is not contradictory to other legal systems and may have inspired many elements of common and civic law. Many of the institutions and schools within Islamic law are separate entities from other political or religious authorities, and their responsibility is to their legal tradition, not to scripture or ruler.

Salibal pointed out that while critics often harp on the perceived shortcomings of Islamic law, they never try to engage the Islamic legal system. For example, Salibal claimed that Sharia “clearly states” that Christians have the right to practice their religion under Islamic law. If there are political or religious authorities, stifling this freedom in the name of Islam, they can be challenged within the Islamic legal system. Salibal also discussed more controversial points of Islamic law. He pointed out that while there are precedents for harsh punishments, such as stonings, the law reserves these punishments for those who are “unrepentant.” In Salibal’s view, this leaves room for victims to challenge their punishment, again within the system of Islamic law.

Both speakers did an excellent job at explaining, and in some cases defending, these two “religious” legal systems. On difficult contemporary issues, such as abortion and cloning, these systems offered no easy answers or solutions. Then again, neither does the Christian one.

By Evan Barrett

Evan's Corner: Analyzing Obama's Speech to the Muslim World

Mere hours after Barack Obama delivered an historic speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) and the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) presented a panel discussion analyzing the speech. The panelists were a diverse group, representing a wide range of organizations, but each asked a similar question: will this unquestionably brilliant speech be backed up by changes in policy?

It is hard to deny the skill and knowledge evident in the president’s speech. Will Marshall (Progressive Policy Institute) called the speech “masterful,” and Geneive Abdo (The Century Foundation) agreed it was certainly “brilliant.” The president’s use of Koranic passages, as well as his references to the damaging legacy of colonialism illustrates his understanding of the region, and the concerns of its people. Rich Eisendorf (Freedom House) noted that no American politician has been able to project such a sense of respect and understanding since Jimmy Carter. The panelists concurred that the speech raised the level of dialogue, but also that this may prove problematic if the words are not coupled with political change.

Abdo referred to the president as “evasive” when it came to laying out specific policy goals. Obama said, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Abdo noted that while it is encouraging to have the president speak out against the expansion of settlements, he did not indicate what the US would do to force Israel’s hand. Radwan Masmoudi (CSID) echoed this argument, pointing out that the United States has been against expanding settlements for twenty years, but has yet to apply the necessary pressure to make settlements stop.

The panelists were skeptical of other aspects of the president’s speech as well. Obama stated he is committed to, “governments that reflect the will of the people.” However, Will Marshall argued that the United States has supported some of the more repressive governments in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There is no real indication that these relationships will change, particularly since the president chose to give his address from Cairo.

On countless subjects, the panelists agreed that the president spoke eloquently, but did not go far enough explaining how to implement political change. He talked about extremism, but did not address the American policies that foster such movements. He talked about development, but did not address lackluster trade policy between the West and the Middle East. No one argued against the power and beauty of Obama’s words. However, it is an open question whether or not those words will be backed up with political action, and these panelists aren’t holding their breath.

Evan's Corner: Summary of Project on Middle East Democracy Event

Project on Middle East Democracy
Rediscovering Multilateralism: Toward a Cooperative Approach to Middle East Reform

The Project on Middle East Democracy held a workshop entitled “Rediscovering Multilateralism” inviting powerful voices from the Middle East, Europe, and Washington to discuss new, more cooperative approaches to Middle East reform. After the workshop, POMED hosted a panel discussion to allow participants in the workshop to report their reactions.

The Panelists all expressed great gratitude that the European perspective was included in this Workshop. Nora Younis, an Egyptian blogger, was surprised to get this perspective, pointing out that similar workshops often focus exclusively on the Middle East in relation to the United States. Amir Motahari (European Commission) said that Europeans have “very high expectations” about the United States role in the Middle East. Motahari expressed that Europeans would be better served to be more involved, as instability in North Africa has an impact on immigrant communities in Europe. David Adesnik (DoubleThink Magazine) concurred, noting that the workshop opened his eyes to the issues of Arab minorities in Europe.

The panelists also attempted to summarize salient points from the workshop. Motahari emphasized that the EU cannot “buy” or “impose” reform, particularly as it has very little military presence in the Middle East. Younis added that engagement has to be comprehensive. The West cannot attempt to exclude political Islam from political involvement as this form of exclusion simply fosters more extremism. Adesnik added that civil societies are places where organizations compete freely for political space, and there must be “multiple, viable pathways” towards civic involvement.

After the panelists spoke, they allowed audience members to pose questions. Several people asked about neoliberal economic policies, which were supposed to foster political reform in North Africa. Motahari did admit that the results of these policies so far were “not satisfactory,” but also explained that the EU believes economic progress impacts political reform very slowly.

When asked about Obama’s upcoming speech in Cairo, Younis said she believed that Obama had “no real leverage” against Mubarak, and so she had no great expectations for the speech. Another audience member picked up on this idea, asking what Western governments can do to get leverage against Middle Eastern regimes. Adesnik argued that the United States military presence in the Middle East is quite problematic, as it makes the United States seem a hypocritical human rights advocate, and this weakens the United State’s leverage.

Finally, an audience member noted that Egyptians have been faced with a choice between an autocratic administration and political Islam. Where is the third option? Motahari explained that like it or not, most powerful opposition in Middle Eastern countries is some form of political Islam. Motahari went further, expressing that he would love for a third option to emerge, but he has yet to see one he would call “credible.”

Evan's Corner: Summary of Wednesday's House Committee on Foreign Affairs Hearing

United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs
Building Capacity to Protect U.S. National Security: The Fiscal Year 2010 International Affairs Budget

Chairman Howard Berman (D-California) opened the hearing by explaining the purpose of the International Affairs Budget. The budget should promote defense, diplomacy, and development. Chairmen Berman noted that in recent years, defense has been given much broader support and funding than diplomacy and development. The new budget represents a reassertion of commitment to diplomacy and development and this will occur in the form of increased funding for USAID and the State Department. Foreign assistance will be doubled by 2015. In a preemptory justification of the increases in the budget, Chairmen Berman explained that preventing failed states is always more cost effective than dealing with them after they fail.

Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew followed Berman’s opening remarks, explaining the increases in the budget. The 2010 fiscal year International Affairs Budget is 53.9 billion dollars. This is a 9% increase from 2009. Lew explained that the Obama administration wishes to prioritize funding for efforts that will help other governments remain “stable and secure.” The budget proposes a 45% increase to USAID programs. There are currently 1000 Foreign Service Officers. This should be doubled by 2012. USAID should also pursue comprehensive civilian programs, coordinated with the military in conflict areas such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. USAID is committed to increasing human capacity in developing nations. Lew also mentioned that the budget strategically focuses on nations with potential for conflict and instability.

Congressman Engel (D-New York) expressed concern that aid money in Gaza might reach Hamas. Deputy Secretary Lew explained that all urgency assistance money is subject to a review process. This process attempts to assure that money goes to the right people.

Congressman Connolly (D-Virginia) addressed the issue of military versus civilian projects. The congressman posited that the military in Iraq and Afghanistan were responsible for civilian projects they were neither trained nor equipped to handle. The congressman noted that a significant portion of military spending is going towards these projects, and this money is entirely separate from the International Affairs Budget. Deputy Secretary Lew argued that the military is extremely flexible, and this flexibility is one of its strengths. Military assistance in civil projects is a good thing.

Congressman Boozman (R-Arizona) was surprised that millions of dollars had been cut from refugee relocation funds. However, Deputy Secretary Lew explained that this was simply because the State Department anticipates decreased refugee-creating conflicts in the coming year. This is largely because of the increased refugee numbers in 2009, as a result of the conflict in Gaza.

Congressman Wexler (D-Florida) applauded the State Department for its programs training Palestinian security forces in Jordan. Wexler considered that these young men will soon be the leaders of an elite class in Palestinian society, and will owe their careers to the United States. Deputy Secretary Lew agreed, stating that these programs were specifically designed to foster a powerful moderating force within Palestinian society.

Congresswoman Watson (D-California) stated her belief that the merger of USAID and the State Department was a failure. Watson pointed out that the prerogatives and missions of the two organizations were fundamentally different. Deputy Secretary Lew disagreed. Lew said he did not want to “diminish” the administrator of USAID, but he saw enormous need for coordination between the State Department and USAID under the leadership of the Secretary of State. Lew also said that a problem such as poverty could be seen both as a human rights and national security issue.

Finally, congresswoman Lee (D-Texas) asked how to battle the strangle hold large corporations have on contracts with USAID. Deputy Secretary Lew replied that all USAID contracts are being reassessed. Lew explained that in the past, the State Department and USAID have lacked the human capacity necessary to enact their own policy. The increases in the International Affairs budget seek to increase this human capacity, and the influence of contracted organizations should naturally become less pronounced.

Transcript of hearing

By Evan Barrett