Kyrgyzstan Latest: Appeal for Aid; "Outside Elements" Fomenting Violence? (Al Jazeera)

Al Jazeera English reports this morning:

The United Nations has appealed for $71 million in humanitarian aid for Kyrgyzstan, where more than 400,000 people have been displaced by deadly fighting.

The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said the appeal would provide aid to nearly 1.1 million people affected by the violence in the south of the Central Asian nation.

Fighting between Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks has killed at least 200 people since it erupted a little over a week ago.

"I have been shocked by the extent of the violence and appalled by the deaths and injuries, widespread arson, sexual violence, looting of state, commercial and private property and destruction of infrastructure," John Holmes, the OCHA head, said on Friday.

"I therefore urge all donors and supporters to ensure that this flash appeal for Kyrgyzstan receives a generous and rapid response."

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, has said there are shortages of food, water and electricity in the violence-hit areas.

"Hospitals and other institutions are running low on medical supplies," he said.

An appeal for neighbouring Uzbekistan, where about 100,000 refugees have taken shelter, would be launched next week, Ban said.

'"utside elements" blamed

For his part, Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan's president, accused "outside" elements of instigating the violence, saying neither ethnic Uzbeks nor Kyrgyz were responsible for starting it.

"Neither Uzbeks nor Kyrgyz are to blame for this," he was quoted as saying by the official Uza news agency on Saturday.

"These disruptive actions were organised and managed from outside.

"Forces that organised this subversive act tried to drag Uzbekistan into this standoff."

Kyrgyzstan's interim leadership has blamed Kurmanbek Bakiyev, the country's deposed president, of masterminding the violence.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, echoed those allegations, saying Bakiyev may be to blame.

"Certainly, the ouster of President Bakiyev some months ago left behind those who were still his loyalists and very much against the provisional government," she said in remarks posted on the state department website on Saturday.

"There certainly have been allegations of instigation that have to be taken seriously."

Bakiyev, now in exile in Belarus, has strongly denied any involvement in the events.

Roza Otunbayeva, the interim leader, has said the real death toll from the clashes could be up to 10 times higher than the official figure because many bodies had been buried unregistered.

Wearing a bullet-proof vest and ringed by security, Otunbayeva visited the devastated city of Osh on Friday.

Number-one complaint

Al Jazeera's Clayton Swisher, who was travelling with her, said that she was surrounded by a shouting mob at the end of her visit and had to be escorted into a building by her bodyguards.

"The number-one complaint people had when they saw the interim president was 'What took you so long to get down here?'," he said.

Otunbayeva defended her government from criticism that it has been unable to contain the ethnic bloodshed and to cope with the escalating humanitarian crisis.

"Leave us some hope! Stop saying that we are not working," she said. "Our forces say that they are coping.

Also on Friday, Otunbayeva announced that Russia would help the country in restoring security.

"Russian troops will guard some strategic sites ... to ensure security for these sites," she said.

Russia had previously refused Otunbayeva's request to dispatch military forces to help quell unrest, although the country did send humanitarian aid.

Witnesses and experts say that while many Kyrgyz were killed in the unrest, most victims appear to have been ethnic Uzbeks, a community of traditional farmers and traders who speak a different Turkic language.

Iran: Working Together? The Women's Movement & The Greens (Kakaee)

Last weekend Gozaar published a set of seven articles, all of which deserve reading, on the state of the opposition, the Green Movement, and activism for civil rights.



I have highlighted this analysis by Parisa Kakaee because it is my impression --- reinforced by conversations this week --- that the relationship between the "Greens" and civil rights groups is one of the most important issues in the evolution of the post-election situation in Iran.

A year ago today Iran was on the verge of entering a new chapter in its history. During the days before the election, an ongoing dialogue among different factions about whether or not to participate in political decision making, and the enthusiasm and excitement in the streets and at election headquarters, particularly among the youth, placed Iran in a position to undergo some unexpected events.

Different groups inside the women’s movement merged together and came to an accord over some minimum demands as their communal requisitions, and under the name of “convergence of the women’s movement to set forth demands in the election” entered the stage of the electoral campaign.

Coalition members who were present at the election centers and assemblies distributed brochures and carried placards expressing, “we vote for the demands of women.” This approach presented a new way for women to participate in the electoral process and seemed somewhat unfamiliar and unexpected for those members of society who were targeted by these messages, to a point where at times their inquiry about the nature of this practice and its place in the electoral process opened the door for lengthy discussions.

After the election results were announced, most people and social groups who were disappointed after all their efforts became desperate. In an attempt to compensate for their dismay and to claim their rights, they began to voice their protests collectively and with unprecedented unity. This was only the beginning of many aftershocks that went against all equations and became a reminder of the need for a new vision suitable for a different setting.

The irony was that while the demands of the social groups did not materialize and their inherent right to political participation was not recognized, and because women were part of the people and were campaigning by their side, and most importantly because of their known activities, women were among the first ones arrested and forced to pay a higher price.

The question is did all these events and the high repercussions bring the women’s movement closer to claiming its demands, or on the contrary is public awareness of the women’s movement that was slowly gaining momentum in society now further away and the path to success now longer than before?

Journalist and women’s rights activist Asieh Amini has an answer to this question:

Our expectations of the issues, groups and movements must be based on reality. Before the election, social groups and movements, including the women’s movement, had their own character and behavior and their interaction with society depended on the circumstances of time and place. The election disrupted all the political and social equations inside the country.

This change was not limited to the relationship between the women’s movement and the people, but was quite noticeable in other areas. Consequently we cannot expect that one social group remain unaffected by such a great event.

The pattern by which the women’s movement acted changed after the election. There was confusion among many groups and movements about how to maintain the usual trend of their activities. However, I believe that if we analyze this issue from different points of view, we may be able to draw different conclusions from what seems to be an “unpleasant event” and a “halt” in the process.

As I witness how the role of the women’s movement is becoming the subject of many analyses, or how the protest movements are adopting the non-violence approach, I see an extension of the women’s movement in society, its development and success, and not its interruption.

Following the 2009 presidential election, many activist women, not all belonging to the women’s movement, were arrested. Some unprecedented verdicts were issued against them and some of them are still serving time for their charges. It seems that the prevailing atmosphere facilitated the harsh treatment against the One Million Signature Campaign. The members who were arrested, like many other social groups, were falsely accused and went through long interrogations. Many women activists were forced to leave the country and this was a high price paid by the women’s movement after the election. As Asieh Amini puts it:

Even though the intensity of the arrests, the exodus of many citizens, the dispersion inside the country, the underground getaway, closure of internet sites, and the disruption of many demonstrations planned by women may be considered as negative, those who responded to the ensuing social movements were more than the one million individuals we expected in our Campaign, and this by itself is another noticeable accomplishment. In spite of the heavy price paid, it would be an incomplete analysis if we don’t acknowledge that the demands of the women’s movement are now being pursued in our society more seriously than before.

Khadijeh Moghadam, another women’s rights activist, believes that the way people stipulated a main demand in their protest, “where is my vote,” was something that was experienced before in the Campaign: “People, while not all aware of the Campaign’s stipulation and function, brought up a specific and tangible demand. It was the unique experience of this movement that without any leadership, and quite peacefully, this demand became pivotal.”

The change of demands after the election

Even though the convergence of the women’s movement , which included a spectrum of both secular and religious members, happened before the election, another section of this body, including some members of the One Million Signature Campaign were not in agreement with the movement’s new approach. They believed bringing up the demands of the Campaign in a new format in order to participate in the election would only serve to politicize an ongoing civil movement and would disseminate the potential of its members.

However, the women’s coalition came to an agreement over “joining the convention to eliminate discrimination against women” and “changing discriminatory laws” and announced these as the demands of the women’s movement. The result of the election, and disregard for the votes of political and social groups along with that of the public, transformed the demands and changed them into a common discourse. According to Asieh Amini, "Women’s demands after the election were not merely to change the laws anymore, but rather to seek democracy, to refrain from violence, to promulgate civil relations, to propagate civil protest and to dare say NO.”

Non-violent campaign

The major point on which the One Million Signature Campaign insisted  was to find ways to establish a dialogue with the regime and to achieve a cultural refinement of the public. These are its similarities with the Green Movement, which many activists believe has been copied successfully from the women’s movement.

What happened after the election was an overt aggression by the government, while the people persisted in continuing the campaign without violence, except for some occasional defensive behavior. Asieh Amini believes, “No excuse must distract people from the goal they believe in. If non-violent behavior is the pattern and the expectation, a peaceful and secured society must not allow any group to cause any deviation from this goal.”

The question is how can we make this behavior institutionalized? This journalist [Amini?] believes:

One of the challenges of the Green Movement and other movements such as that of women is the lack of any plan as to how to continue defensive campaigning. A non-violent campaign needs some creativity. It seems as though the think tanks that were responsible for organizing coalitions and unions in other movements, such as the women’s movement, which led to collective decision making were absent in the Green Movement. This was a serious void in what the Green Movement copied from the women’s movement.

On the other hand, an oppressive regime is nothing new. It has been seen throughout history how some political groups chose to use violence in response to a government’s oppression and how its negative impacts lingered around for many years. The civil movements received positive responses from Iranian society for choosing the most civil approaches. Resorting to violence will take us further away from security, peace, and democracy.

Another factor is that women’s presence in protests contributes to less violence. As Khadijeh Moghadam, another women’s movement activist, states:

If it were not for the presence of mothers and women in general in the public protests, there is no doubt violence would have escalated. A week after Neda was killed, the mother participants of the Green Movement, using the experience of the women’s movement, especially the Campaign, showed up in Laleh park and adjacent streets, Behesht-e Zahra, in front of Evin prison, the Revolutionary court, and the Judiciary building and demanded the end of killings, the prosecution of those responsible, and the release of those imprisoned for their beliefs. This was an unprecedented move in the history of the women’s movement in Iran.

For aforementioned reasons, although the women’s movement is considered a model for the Green Movement in some cases such as the promotion of a non-violent campaign, in order to employ more practical solutions to institutionalize the non-violent campaign, the movement needs to seek more appropriate approaches compatible with the new circumstances of this society and offer it in a more effective manner. This is because admiring the philosophy of non-violence is not enough to address the questions of the young generation who, these days, are finding themselves alone and vulnerable facing the most serious types of oppression.

US Politics Video: Campainin’ in Sweet Home Alabama with Dale Peterson (The Sequel)

Last month, we were honoured to post the campaign advertisement of Dale Peterson, "running for Agriculture Commissioner on a platform of love for his horse, a defence of family farms, and a promise to shoot 'illegals'".

Sadly, Dale did not make it to the final run-off for the Republican nomination. Happily, he has not ridden away on his horse. Instead, he has made another TV ad, endorsing one of his opponents.

And, yes, if he doesn't shoot you for being "illegal", he will if you try and steal his yard signs.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GabMEHfCjT0[/youtube]

Iran Analysis: Why the 2009 Election is Not Legitimate (Ansari)

More than a year later, the fight goes on over the validity of the 2009 Presidential election. In the face of the questions not only about the vote but also the intimidation, state propaganda, and detentions that surrounded it, defenders of the Government re-present a series of flawed polls and A report --- based on the Guardian Council's attempt to vindicate the process --- to put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "victory" beyond doubt.



I won't repeat my dissection of those defenders here, since the campaign for civil rights and the issue of the Government's legitimacy are now far beyond the elections. I'll just note that I picked up new information this week that the decision to manipulate the electoral results had been established 72 hours before the ballot.

Ali Ansari, writing for Chatham House's World Review, offers this overview, taking apart seven myths propping up the platform of a rightly-elected President:

Iran's 10th Presidential election, on 12 June last year, was the most controversial and contested poll in the 30 years of the Islamic Republic. Far from anointing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a landslide election victory for a second term, the credibility of the result was immediately in question, unleashing the most extraordinary public anger against the governing elite.

The street protests subsided, but there is little sign of the widespread anger the result generated dissipating. The situation remains tense and the governing elite is no less anxious about the future. Unlike other disputeswhich have periodically shaken the Islamic Republic, this one affects and divides the political elite like no other. The government remains determined to promote its account of a free and fair election, convinced that it has defeated a "velvet revolution". This is the reason given for the brutal crackdown, which continues to this day.

A year on, it is worth revisiting some of the urban myths which have come to underpin this standoff:

Those who allege fraud must prove their case; the government is innocent until proven guilty

Not so; in any political system which claims democratic procedures and values, it is the governing elite and holders of power who must answer to the people, not the other way round. Accountability must be transparent and not a matter of faith. Accountability is the basis of any democratic settlement, without it the process of ‘voting’ is mere procedural window dressing.

In Iran, with its fragile democracy under considerable attack, the situation is more acute.
As a consequence of the election victories of President Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and 2001,a plan was implemented to organise and manipulate the electoral system to ensure the desired result. As a result, the parliamentary and presidential elections from 2004 to 2008 saw a gradual collapse in turnout, with optimistic estimates for Tehran in 2008 barely reaching thirty percent. For particular reasons, only the 2006 municipal election was an exception.

Last year, all the major institutions of government, including those with oversight of the
election were in the hands of the government faction. At least three members of the Guardian Council, the Chief of the General Staff, and the Supreme Leader, all voiced support for Ahmadinejad. In such a climate the burden of proof --- and accountability --- lies with the government, not the people.

Read rest of article....

Middle East Inside Line: US & EU Back Israel on "Eased Blockade", Lebanon-Israeli Crisis?, Egypt's Manoeuvre, and More...

Two Powers Welcome Israel's Decision: The Obama Administration and the European Union have applauded West Jerusalem's announcement that it will ease its land blockade of the Gaza Strip. The White House called the decision a "step in the right direction". US State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the Obama administration was interested in seeing an "expansion of the scope and types of goods into Gaza...while addressing, obviously, Israel's legitimate security needs."

Gaza Latest: Varied Reactions to Israel’s “Eased” Blockade

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, added:

Israel must make sure that many, many more goods can get in to Gaza. I look with great interest at what the Israeli cabinet is saying. This is an in-principle statement ... obviously the detail is what matters.

Former Spanish PM Sees Eye to Eye with Israel: Spain had summoned Israel's ambassador following the flotilla crisis. However, former Prime Minister José María Aznar announced that he plans to promote a new initiative called "Friends For Israel" comprised of journalists, philosophers, politicians, writers, and other figures.

According to Aznar, there is radical Islam on one side and Israel that is providing the Judeo-Christian-rooted West with its Jewish elements. Therefore he says, this initiative must defend Israel's right to exist, as "if Israel goes down, we all go down." He added:

Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos... To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

The real threats to regional stability are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

Aznar also criticized Turkey:

In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organized a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

Lebanon-Israel Crisis Approaching?: Lebanon aid ship Miriam is set to sail to Gaza on Sunday. Israeli officials accused Hezbollah of being behind the mission; Hezbollah rejected the claim.

In response, Israel told the United Nations on Friday that this could "affect the peace and security of the region" and said it reserved its right to use "all necessary means" to stop the ships. Israel's ambassador to the UN, Gabriela Shalev, wrote:

It appears that a small number of ships plan to depart from Lebanon and sail to the Gaza Strip which is under the control of the Hamas terrorist regime while those who organize this action claim that they wish to break the blockade on Gaza and to bring humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza, the true nature of the actions remains dubious.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials added the Turkish-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Aid (IHH), the funders of the Freedom Flotilla, to its terror watch list.

Egypt Rejects Israel Demand on Iran Aid Ships: Cairo newspaper A-Dar reported Friday that Israel issued a request to Egypt to prevent aid ships from Iran reaching Gaza via the Suez Canal. However, Egyptian officials declined Israel's request on the grounds of the "requirements of international law" which makes it "not possible to prevent the passage of any ship through the canal".