November 6, 2007

A mess of drama!

I just accidentally noticed something extraordinary on BBC one. They are showing a TV series called Spooks. The episode I am seeing now is about an Algerian extremist who has escaped home arrest and plotting with local Iranians in the UK to attack US businesses here. So far one could guess almost anything, but moments later you find out that this Algerian is in touch with the Iranian Embassy! There is talk about nuclear achievements of Iran and their involvement in terrorist attacks against the US. Well, so far this is the normal line of propaganda. But then you see the scene at the Embassy (which is obviously supposed to happen in recent year). There are armed guard wearing the Revolutionary Corps Gaurds uniform at the door of the Embassy (an extremely unlikely thing for almost any embassy in the UK). And when you enter the Embassy, you see a lavishly luxurious place, like a palace (what did they think of the Iranian Embassy?). You see men wearing ties and these men are diplomatic digintaries of Iran! You see women at the embassy wearing no veil. A certain lady tears her dress in a murder scene inside the embassy and her bra can be seen, etc. Well, what a drama!

This is full of imagination and lies. I woder why the Iranian Embassy has never criticized the BBC for this stupid theme, particularly at a time when there is this political crisis and controversy about Iran. Anyway, watch Spooks and laugh at it. I always thought the idea of making up such cheap series only comes up in Iran. I never knew that such superficial ideas also appear in the BBC! Well done, BBC! Did they ever think to themselves that if they are Muslim fanatics, they would not have unveild Muslim Iranian women in the embassy. At least they could have paid one visit to the embassy, not to come up with this embarrasment. I thought they would be more mature than this. But for what it's worth, this is just drama, not news or analysis. It is at least good they do not make news based on their drama series.

September 25, 2007

A shameful disgrace to academics

The controversial visit of Ahmadinejad to the US has been a revealing mirror for what goes on in American politics and the level of degradation of values such as freedom of speech, democracy, human rights and even law itself.

Many Iranians do not agree with their president’s rhetoric. After all, what can they expect from him? They all know what kind of a character he is. Yes, he has been defiant before the Americans and this is exactly what a lot of people, Iranian and non Iranian alike, admire in him. The rest does not matter to those who like him. Those who criticize him do not agree with his extremist opinions. However, what happened in Columbia University was vivid evidence to the fact that politics has degraded the American society to an extent that even the President of the University would just literally lose it and forget his extremely critical role.

Whatever Ahmadinejad is or says cannot be a good enough excuse to address him with such harsh and particularly indecent and impolite words. This was way below the dignity of a university president. And guess what? Ahmadinejad is absolutely right in saying this was no manner of hospitality. This man is ruthlessly correct in what he says. President Bollinger has spoken in a manner which was by no means befitting of the President of such an esteemed and reputable university. It would not be unfair to say that he literally disgraced the University of Columbia. He simply got carried away with all the propaganda and the pressure he was under for inviting the man. If he ever intended to say such discourteous and uncivil words, it would have been a lot better if he did not even invite the man to address people there. What did he mean to do? Make fun of Ahmadinejad? Had he forgotten that the man is not merely an ordinary individual? In that capacity, he was also representing a sovereign state. Forget about the fact that people may not like him in his own country. You should not have forgotten about your own values and the decorum which was indispensable to your office, you were not a politician and you should not have followed the rhetoric of American politicians. I am truly sorry for you, President Bollinger. You just blew one chance you had for showing the world that you can be independent of the political and ideological chaos which surrounds you.

September 28, 2006

Muhammad's Sword

By Uri Avnery
23-09-2006

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

Continue reading "Muhammad's Sword" »

July 4, 2006

Sweet victory

The Germans deserved every bit of this loss in the world cup! The Italians played stunnigly beautiful. It was impeccable. They never wasted a ball. Always perfect and thoughtful. The Germans always looked so arrogant, so selfish, so bad-tempered. The amazing thing is that the English commentator was supporting the Germans and ignoring all the efforts of the Italians. I loved the game. I have never ever in my life enjoyed a football match so much. Fantastic!

May 24, 2006

Ridiculous apology

Sometime ago, a chap called Amir Taheri had spread a rumour that the government of Iran is preparing a law to impose certain dress codes for Jews and Christians in Iran. His claim was that this law had been approved by the Majlis and is now going to the Guardians Council. Many bloggers in Iran pursued the issue and it was later revealed that the entire story is the invention of Mr. Taheri.

Frankly, I think the whole idea behind such a rumour is to add another excuse for a military intervention in the case of Iran. Don’t you think somebody is deliberately putting certain pieces of a puzzle together to suggest the idea that the government of Iran is not better than the Nazis who forced the Jews to wear a certain marking on their dress and hence saying that the agenda of Iran is no different than the agenda of Hitler?

First of all, such a law has never been passed. It is a mere misinterpretation and clear slander. The political agenda is quite clear behind Taheri’s claims. The guy is so cheeky that he keeps defending his imaginary thesis without providing any evidence. A little study into his background shows what sort of a person he is. It is still funny that this man keeps repeating his ridiculous illusions. Isn’t there anybody there to wake him up? How far would he go in betraying his homeland? This is not an issue of defending a certain political system. It is an issue of integrity and honesty. This is a dishonest act. To him, means justify the ends. No one wishes to eradicate injustice by injustice and dishonesty. This chap has apparently exactly this very same approach to the political issues of Iran. This is just disgusting.

P.S. Read this post in Farsi (with all other Farsi bloggers links): "Who are you serving by these lies?"

April 24, 2006

Stop this war!

This is the full text of a letter by three Iranian ladies who are scholars of British universities against a military action on Iran. It is first published in Financial Times on 17th April 2006. It has also been published in Salaam News.

Essential that we do whatever possible to prevent a war on Iran

By Haleh Afshar, Ziba Mir-Hosseini and Elaheh Rostami-Povey
Financial Times
17 April 2006

Sir,

As three Iranian British academics, we are writing to express our grave concerns about the growing threat of war against Iran. It is essential that we do whatever is possible to prevent such a disaster.

We would like to clear a number of misunderstandings about Iran. As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Iran asserts its right under Article IV of the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The announcement last week of a nuclear breakthrough is part of this right and is intended for peaceful purposes.

Iran has complied with Articles I and II of the NPT not to acquire nuclear weapons, and Article III, where it accepts full safeguards. It has signed the NPT additional protocol and has allowed intrusive inspections beyond what is required by compliance with the NPT. Numerous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency have failed to provide any shred of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

Iran has repeatedly announced that it is committed to replace the course of confrontation with good-faith interaction and negotiations, as equal partner, for a peaceful solution to its nuclear issue. It has stated its commitment to non-proliferation and to the elimination of nuclear weapons, and considers nuclear weapons detrimental to its security.

It has declared its readiness to abide by its obligations under the NPT and to work for the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. It has invited the west and the world for cultural and technological collaboration.

Iran strongly condemned the September 11 attack and participated in overthrowing the Taliban regime in late 2001. In return, under the pressure of the neoconservatives in the US and their supporters globally, Iran has faced intimidation based on speculations about its intention of producing WMD. For the majority of Iranians in Iran and outside Iran, this hostility towards Iran is about returning Iran to a client state for the benefit of US oil corporations and denying Iran's rights to research and development for generating electricity in the future, independently.

Iran is not a threat in the region or to the world as was suggested by the American Jewish Committee's full-page "statement" in the Financial Times recently. Iran is surrounded by India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel, which have nuclear weapons.

The US, UK and Israel, which perceive Iran as a threat, themselves possess WMD and refuse to commit to nuclear disarmament. Iranians believe that Israel may well use its nuclear weapons against them. They are all too aware that Israel has refused to sign the NPT and has not allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear programme.

The only chance the world has of avoiding another disastrous US military adventure in the Middle East is to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through diplomacy. It is essential that all voices opposed to the devastation of a new war in the Middle East speak out now. We need funds for human needs, not endless wars and conflicts.

Haleh Afshar,
University of York

Ziba Mir-Hosseini,
London Middle East Institute

Elaheh Rostami-Povey,
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

April 22, 2006

Are they rubbing nose with the Americans?

It is definitely right that the priorities of the Iranian government now are not set correctly. There are lots of things they have to do for the country before attending to nuclear issues. For certain, this campaign for nuclear energy is not yielding any economic gain in the short run (and maybe not even in the long run). Yet, there is also another serious issue at stake. The Americans (i.e. the Neo-cons or rather the chicken hawks) are casting the image of an arrogant, self-centred bully in the international community. More than anything else, one can easily see the deep hatred of the neo-cons of the existing political system in Iran, which is very simply blinding them to the interests of humanity and the ordinary citizens of Iran. They would never mind if it is the nuclear issue or a different one. As long as their interests are not satisfied within this system, they shall continue to push this struggle. Even in theory, their politics is undermining democracy both domestically and internationally for the Americans. The United States is truly a cradle for democracy, but it appears that it may turn into the doomed grave of democracy as well. Power alone can never guarantee democracy. The power which makes democracy simply a guise for concealing its truly undemocratic methods is the prime enemy of democracy. Iran is definitely no worse than the Arab allies of the US in terms of human rights. I think it is the people of Iran who should deal with the nuclear issue rather than a bullying arrogant like the neo-con administration of Bush. I do not see any clear prospect for the people f Iran to love Americans once for good. Whatever they may do is conditional upon the happiness they receive. You cannot guarantee happiness for these people, as you could not do so in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let them deal with the issue their own way.

February 3, 2006

A defamatory free speech!

This is not an issue of limiting the boundaries of free speech. It is a question of harnessing racial and religious discrimination and provocative, insulting and harassing behaviour. Republishing those cartoons was simply fuelling a fire which did not have to be lit at all. Is free speech only promoted by drawing a cartoon of the Prophet of over one billion Muslims? Are these cartoons helping us in anyway to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and violence around the world of Islam?

The result is obvious. What was the end of these cartoons? What were they meant to achieve in the first place? Now what is the purpose of stirring the troubled waters again? Politicians all around the world, regardless of their faith, can play a vital role in calming the situation. I have always admired the thoughtfulness and discretion of British politicians. We just saw one example of it in London bombings in July where the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London very courageously dismissed any ideas of racial or religious hatred against Muslims in general, while at the same time condemning the brutal acts. I witnessed the same logical, solid and respectable reaction from the government tonight in Jack Straw’s remarks, where he said, “There is freedom of speech, we all respect that. But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory.” I hope extremists would not call Jack Straw a Muslim radical who does not know the meaning of free speech!

Read the full story of Straw’s remarks in BBC: Straw condemns cartoon row press.

December 24, 2005

The old lovely snow!

Damn it! The met office is always fooling us here. At least three times listening to their weather forecast, I have been waiting for a snow. Not even a proper snow, just any snow! Last night I saw something like snowing down there, but it is all sunny and clear today. It is just the day before Chirstmas here and NO SNOW! How many years has it been since I saw a proper a snow? This is not fair!

December 15, 2005

The madness of power

It may sound really absurd that the new President of Iran is always saying weird things revealing an eccentric character who does not hold the slightest regard for not only the international community but also for the establishment within Iran. Logically, one would say that these remarks should at least have some interest for the Iranian nation. It should not be merely the ravings of a sick mind. However, the appling thing is that this is simply isolating the country even further. To many people, it may not be a question any longer whether this chap realy cares about the interests of this nation. What is he avenging these days? Who does he want to fight with? What is with this man that he can hardly ever justify his existence without 'fighting' or 'war'? Could the Iranian politicians ever learn diplomacy? I believe that even in the worst conditions, it is possible to practice 'diplomacy' but this needs a minimum prerequisite which is recognizing even your rival or opponent for 'talks' at least. There is one clear messge in all that this man is saying: we do not recognize any 'dialogue' any more! There is no further 'negotitation'! From now on, you have to play by my rules only, the rules that I have set and I am the only one who believes in it. Yes, rules of the game have changed in Iran. But does he need a bully like Bush to teach him this is not the way to survive in this world? Is he ready to sacrifice everything just to prove his insane theory? One thing is for sure though, the Iranian population, the majority of them, are much more moderate than what he thinks.

November 14, 2005

Nasrin Alavi on Radio 4

A colleague of mine just told me that Nasrin Alavi was on Radio 4 with Andrew Marr. I am just listening to it online. I cannot pass any judgments on the content of the talk. As I am listening, she is making some good points. In any event, this is entirely different from what appears in a book. I mean in a book, you cannot talk. Nobody is asking you questions. In a book, you are free to use your own words with incredible liberty. I will try to record the piece and make it accessible for everyone if it goes into archives. Anyhow, we do not have a face of Narin Alavi, we do not have her real name, now at least you can listen to her voice! This is something after all this hidden existence!

Listen to it online. I have recorded the talk. It is about 7 megabytes.

November 13, 2005

We are Iran II

The following is another review raising basically all the points I had touched upon in my BBC review. This review is published in New Statesman. The bolded items below are my emphasis.

We Are Iran
Nasrin Alavi Portobello Books, 336pp, £12.99
ISBN 1846270014

Reviewed by Amir Amirani

Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has rarely been off the western news agenda. The recent outcry over the diplomatic blunders of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a case in point. But the picture of Iran presented in the west has seldom been accurate in the past, and it is unlikely to improve with the publication of Nasrin Alavi's collection of Iranian blogs, We Are Iran.

As official media channels are tightly controlled by the state, Iran now has more web diarists than most countries. Though Persian (or Farsi) is only the 28th most spoken language in the world, it is the fourth most popular language for blogging. There are about 64,000 Iranian bloggers currently online, of whom a small sample is represented here. Iran's bloggers face real threats. Some of the most vocal and politically active among them are being arrested, as the government clamps down on dissent.

Alavi intends to paint a picture of the Iranian people's struggle to develop a civil society based on democratic principles, but reproducing excerpts of blogs - intended to be read as evolving portraits of the writers' thoughts and ideas - is problematic. It is curious, therefore, that We Are Iran has no preface, no introduction, no foreword, no author's note and no acknowledgements. Editorial context - such as how many bloggers were approached, over what period the blogs were read, how many agreed to have their blogs used for the book and how many refused - is absent. Given the risks to the bloggers themselves, and Iran's fraught relations with the west, these are serious omissions.

Alavi's book most often reads like a political polemic, dressed up as an insight into the hearts and minds of young Iranians. The bloggers' Iran "is not the Iran of bearded ayatollahs and thuggish militias", the dust jacket proclaims. One has to conclude that being a bearded cleric is, in and of itself, a Very Bad Thing (rest easy, Dr Rowan Williams, they are not talking about you). Only one Iranian cleric, a moderate with his own blog, makes an appearance, lumped together with the blog of an extremist pro-revolution Hezbollah group. This amounts to Alavi's stab at balance.

Her commentary makes no secret of her deep distaste for the present government in Iran, whose style of Islam she brands "mutant". In this book, anything positive that has happened in Iran since 1979 is in spite of the revolution, and all the bad things that have happened are because of it. Even the clerics' policy of free education has, according to Alavi, resulted only "paradoxically" in women accounting for a third of all doctors, 60 per cent of civil servants and 80 per cent of teachers, as well as outnumbering men in universities. Anything that fails to fit the anti-government agenda is described as a paradox: the "Shia Paradox", "Cultural Paradoxes", "The Paradox of Education for the Masses", "Womanly Paradoxes". So there you have it. Iran, land of paradoxes.

The blogs themselves are, however, admirably articulate, brave, heartfelt, funny and sad - in fact, pretty much as you'd expect. Where the bloggers express political views, they are overwhelmingly critical of the government, and there is little doubt that the excerpts have been selected to decry various aspects of life under the Iranian regime, leavened by occasional forays into lighter matter. But is this really a surprise? Need we be told that the educated youth in any country, including Iran, are out of tune with their rulers?

We Are Iran claims to be "a group portrait of today's real Iranians". But as another Iranian blogger, who does not appear in the book, points out, the vast majority of Iranians do not have access to the web. As in most countries, Iranian bloggers "represent the views of a very limited demographic group - affluent and otherwise privileged individuals". I liked reading the blogs in this book, but I want to know the views of the majority of Iranians without blogs.

This book may be well intentioned, but it is not terribly sophisticated. There will continue to be, as there has been in recent years, a blossoming of writers, commentators and film-makers who have emerged as heroic rebels from within. They are eager to blast inequities at home to a fanfare of applause from the west, ever hungry for horror stories from this country that we've grown accustomed to seeing portrayed as forbidding and fearful. But the truth about Iran is more complex than this. If there should be a second edition of this book, the publishers could usefully revise the title to Are We Iran? Less catchy, but I dare say more accurate.

Amir Amirani is an Iranian film-maker and journalist living in London.

November 12, 2005

Are we 'Iran'?

The first book about Persian weblogs has just been published. I have already written a review of the book in BBC Persian (A black and white image of blogosphere). The book 'We Are Iran' written by Nasrin Alavi, is in my opinon a monolithic book which although addresses a number of very important issues in the blogosphere, generally misses one big point: the Persian blogosphere as described by the author is not the ‘entire’ Persian blogosphere.

I was expecting a book which could address the issue in a far more sophisticated way. At least here in my own weblog, I have the liberty to address the issue and raise some points which I could not raise in a journalistic review for the BBC. I will try to divide my review or rather comments and critiques into a number of chapters to avoid a lengthy post.

First of all, the title of the book sounds too pompous to me. What on earth is the meaning of ‘We are Iran’? Is this choice for the title not manipulating the mind of the reader even before starting to read the book. With all due respect and without undermining the importance of the book, I strongly believe that the author could at least avoid this assumption and negative impression by the readers by choosing a less sensitive and less problematic title.

The book, at least what I have seen, does not have an introduction at all. There is no proper biography of the author in the book. Not knowing who the author really is and what her background is can be one of the problems with this book (this small piece is all that you would ever learn about the author!). The book hardly ever properly explains what has been the basis or criteria for selecting a limited number of weblogs for her study. Is it that they have a high number of hits? This is for sure not true. There are a number of weblogs which hardly ever have more than an average of 50 hits per day. Again, why is it that some weblogs are frequently quoted, Shabah having the highest frequency among them?

My main argument in my review for the BBC was that the author is greatly under the influence of politics and tends to interpret and contextualize all these weblog contents in the light of political events in Iran. Although, politics greatly impact the content of the blogosphere, I believe that the story has been too far fetched. Otherwise, the author could at least write a foreword for the book and explain what she truly attempts to achieve by writing this book. Rather, she could even choose a title more befitting for the book which could better relate to the content of her research.

Let me leave this first part of my words about the book and I shall get back with next chapters of my review or rather opinions about the book.

(See also this English piece by Hoder in his English blog, 'A book on blogs in Iran')