پستها
۱۳۸۹ اردیبهشت ۶, دوشنبه
۱۳۸۹ فروردین ۲۷, جمعه
Interview with Professor Johan Galtung, the father of Peace research
Interview by Behdad Bordbar
A conversation with one of the most important dissident intellectuals of our time.
Johan Galtung
Johan Galtung, distinguished professor of Sociology, Peace and conflict research and world renowned founder of the academic discipline of peace research and founder of PRIO, is currently director of TRANSCEND, a global peace and development network. He has served at so many universities that he has "probably taught more students on more campuses around the world than any other contemporary sociologist. The long life peace activist during the 1970s predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1990.
I had the honor to interview him on Iran.
A conversation with one of the most important dissident intellectuals of our time.
Johan Galtung
Johan Galtung, distinguished professor of Sociology, Peace and conflict research and world renowned founder of the academic discipline of peace research and founder of PRIO, is currently director of TRANSCEND, a global peace and development network. He has served at so many universities that he has "probably taught more students on more campuses around the world than any other contemporary sociologist. The long life peace activist during the 1970s predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1990.
I had the honor to interview him on Iran.
Israel is very concerned about a Green victory in Iran
By Behdad Bordbar
I have a rare chance to interview with professor .Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States, He is professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins.
In 2002, Parsi founded the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) "to enablea Iranian Americans to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and that he has since run it as a grass-roots group aimed at strengthening their voice." Through the organization, he supports engagement between the US and Iran in belief that it "would enhance our [US] national security by helping to stabilize the Middle East and bolster the moderates in Iran.
Q: It seems that the situation in Iran has reached the point of no return. The demonstrators in the streets have calling for weeks for the downfall of the Islamic Republic, hence the removal of supreme leader from power. But opposition leaders, so far, remained uncertain, while the debate over the future of democratic movement is going on. What is your opinion about future of Green movement?
A: I believe that the Iranian people's aspiration for democracy, human rights and proper representation is unbeatable. The struggle for democracy in Iran is more than a century old. It has faced many obstacles; its progress has not always been unidirectional. But the forces for authoritarianism and repression don't have time on their side. Whether the movement will be victorious in the short run, or in the medium term, is difficult to predict. But I think it is undeniable that the aspirations are not going away, and hence, whether it is manifested through the Green movement or through some other form, the demands for democracy will remain till they are met.
Q: The Iranian leadership's handling of the dispute over the tenth presidential election, which resulted in violent crackdown of protests, had a significant effect on future of Islamic regime. You have broad connections with intellectuals, politicians and journalists. How do you sum up political analyses or Iran's current situation in Washington?
A: The policy in Washington is entering a new phase, the pressure track. Though the President Obama says that the door for diplomacy is still open, not many resources are put into it. And frankly, it is not clear whether diplomacy under these circumstances - where Iran seems incapable of making big decisions - is valuable. At the same time though, the pressure track is unlikely to produce any results. And the fear is that just as sanctions are seen as a political necessity today due to the perception of diplomacy failing, there is a risk that military action will be seen as a necessity in 12 or so months from today, when the sanctions path has been deemed a failure.
Q: As we know president Obama came to office with hope of 'a new beginning' of engagement with political leaders in Tehran. He said his administration was committed "to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This offer was rejected by Tehran. Supreme leader of Iran warned negotiating with the United States would be "naive and perverted" and that Iranian politicians should not be "deceived" into starting such talks. Last week Iran arrested leader of Jundullah, Militant Islamist organisation and blamed United States for support of terrorism, while there are strong rumours that his arrest only became possible through the help of Americans. Do you think the strategy of negotiations with current administration has come to its dead end?
A: The picture is quite a bit more complicated than your question reveals. From the US perspective, hope for this round of diplomacy has been depleted. Yet, there isn't any real confidence that pressure will lead to a solution. But starting a new round of diplomacy while the Iranian regime seems incapable of making decisions, and while nuclear-first negotiations risk hurting the movement fro democracy, may be unwise.
Either way, any new potential diplomacy, the mistakes of the past must be corrected. Diplomacy must give equal weight to the human rights situation in Iran and should not be cantered or exclusively about the nuclear issue.
Q: The new head of IAEA informed the international community that Iran is not co-operating with the UN nuclear watchdog's investigation into the country's nuclear programme .United States and its allies are going to impose new sanctions on Iran. Is the international community in your view taking the right approaches?
A: There is little confidence that sanctions will work, even among its proponents. The question has to a large extent become about imposing either broad based, indiscriminate sanctions, or targeted sanctions. Indiscriminate sanctions have in the past only hurt the Iranian economy and at times even strengthened the regime and the IRGC. Targeted sanctions that hit the people in the regime responsible for the human rights abuses and the nuclear program seems wiser, though there are question marks about their efficiency as well. At the end of the day, no one singly measure can be successful. It's about crafting a policy that combines various measures and utilizes all their strengths.
Q: Mr. Ahmadinejad is well known for his rhetoric's against Israel; Iranians have consensus that Iran is not a security threat against Jewish state. Israeli lobby is strongly trying to convince public opinions that Iran is working to develop a nuclear-armed bomb/missile. In the other hand Israeli leadership repeatedly said they put all the options on the table .How serious are threat of direct conflagration between Iran and Israel?
A: The risk of a war initiated by an Israeli attack on Iran is increasing. In the past, Israeli rhetoric about bombing Iran was mostly aimed at putting pressure on the US and the EU to be tough with Iran. At this point though, particularly with the deterioration of US-Israeli relations, we are entering an era of greater uncertainty.
We also have to keep in mind, as several Israeli officials have told me, that Israel is very concerned about a Green victory in Iran. The Israelis fear that if the Greens win, Iran will become a country that continues to develop nuclear energy, but with a nicer face and with much international sympathy for its emerging democracy. As a result, for the Israelis - who focus on Iran's capabilities more than on its regime - they will face greater difficulty isolating Iran, pushing to sanction it or to build a consensus around bombing it. Add that to the fact that any attack on Iran likely would enable the regime to go after the Green movement with even greater brutality, and you have a very explosive mix.
I have a rare chance to interview with professor .Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States, He is professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins.
In 2002, Parsi founded the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) "to enablea Iranian Americans to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and that he has since run it as a grass-roots group aimed at strengthening their voice." Through the organization, he supports engagement between the US and Iran in belief that it "would enhance our [US] national security by helping to stabilize the Middle East and bolster the moderates in Iran.
Q: It seems that the situation in Iran has reached the point of no return. The demonstrators in the streets have calling for weeks for the downfall of the Islamic Republic, hence the removal of supreme leader from power. But opposition leaders, so far, remained uncertain, while the debate over the future of democratic movement is going on. What is your opinion about future of Green movement?
A: I believe that the Iranian people's aspiration for democracy, human rights and proper representation is unbeatable. The struggle for democracy in Iran is more than a century old. It has faced many obstacles; its progress has not always been unidirectional. But the forces for authoritarianism and repression don't have time on their side. Whether the movement will be victorious in the short run, or in the medium term, is difficult to predict. But I think it is undeniable that the aspirations are not going away, and hence, whether it is manifested through the Green movement or through some other form, the demands for democracy will remain till they are met.
Q: The Iranian leadership's handling of the dispute over the tenth presidential election, which resulted in violent crackdown of protests, had a significant effect on future of Islamic regime. You have broad connections with intellectuals, politicians and journalists. How do you sum up political analyses or Iran's current situation in Washington?
A: The policy in Washington is entering a new phase, the pressure track. Though the President Obama says that the door for diplomacy is still open, not many resources are put into it. And frankly, it is not clear whether diplomacy under these circumstances - where Iran seems incapable of making big decisions - is valuable. At the same time though, the pressure track is unlikely to produce any results. And the fear is that just as sanctions are seen as a political necessity today due to the perception of diplomacy failing, there is a risk that military action will be seen as a necessity in 12 or so months from today, when the sanctions path has been deemed a failure.
Q: As we know president Obama came to office with hope of 'a new beginning' of engagement with political leaders in Tehran. He said his administration was committed "to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This offer was rejected by Tehran. Supreme leader of Iran warned negotiating with the United States would be "naive and perverted" and that Iranian politicians should not be "deceived" into starting such talks. Last week Iran arrested leader of Jundullah, Militant Islamist organisation and blamed United States for support of terrorism, while there are strong rumours that his arrest only became possible through the help of Americans. Do you think the strategy of negotiations with current administration has come to its dead end?
A: The picture is quite a bit more complicated than your question reveals. From the US perspective, hope for this round of diplomacy has been depleted. Yet, there isn't any real confidence that pressure will lead to a solution. But starting a new round of diplomacy while the Iranian regime seems incapable of making decisions, and while nuclear-first negotiations risk hurting the movement fro democracy, may be unwise.
Either way, any new potential diplomacy, the mistakes of the past must be corrected. Diplomacy must give equal weight to the human rights situation in Iran and should not be cantered or exclusively about the nuclear issue.
Q: The new head of IAEA informed the international community that Iran is not co-operating with the UN nuclear watchdog's investigation into the country's nuclear programme .United States and its allies are going to impose new sanctions on Iran. Is the international community in your view taking the right approaches?
A: There is little confidence that sanctions will work, even among its proponents. The question has to a large extent become about imposing either broad based, indiscriminate sanctions, or targeted sanctions. Indiscriminate sanctions have in the past only hurt the Iranian economy and at times even strengthened the regime and the IRGC. Targeted sanctions that hit the people in the regime responsible for the human rights abuses and the nuclear program seems wiser, though there are question marks about their efficiency as well. At the end of the day, no one singly measure can be successful. It's about crafting a policy that combines various measures and utilizes all their strengths.
Q: Mr. Ahmadinejad is well known for his rhetoric's against Israel; Iranians have consensus that Iran is not a security threat against Jewish state. Israeli lobby is strongly trying to convince public opinions that Iran is working to develop a nuclear-armed bomb/missile. In the other hand Israeli leadership repeatedly said they put all the options on the table .How serious are threat of direct conflagration between Iran and Israel?
A: The risk of a war initiated by an Israeli attack on Iran is increasing. In the past, Israeli rhetoric about bombing Iran was mostly aimed at putting pressure on the US and the EU to be tough with Iran. At this point though, particularly with the deterioration of US-Israeli relations, we are entering an era of greater uncertainty.
We also have to keep in mind, as several Israeli officials have told me, that Israel is very concerned about a Green victory in Iran. The Israelis fear that if the Greens win, Iran will become a country that continues to develop nuclear energy, but with a nicer face and with much international sympathy for its emerging democracy. As a result, for the Israelis - who focus on Iran's capabilities more than on its regime - they will face greater difficulty isolating Iran, pushing to sanction it or to build a consensus around bombing it. Add that to the fact that any attack on Iran likely would enable the regime to go after the Green movement with even greater brutality, and you have a very explosive mix.
۱۳۸۹ فروردین ۲۵, چهارشنبه
Regarding The 2010 TIME 100 Poll
Regarding The 2010 TIME 100 Poll
Please use this text and Email to letters@time.com
Dear Editors;
During the past few days, the supporters of Mirhossein Mousavi, the opposition candidate in the disputed Iranian presidential elections and a prominent figure in the movement that followed the elections demanding civil and political rights, have found the 2010 Time 100 Poll as an avenue to voice their opinion to the international community at large and make their demands and the prominence of their heroic move clear. After months of brutal crackdown of a movement that has repeatedly been compared to Gandhi's nonviolent move against British colonialism and the American Civil Rights Movement which has succeed in enforcing a deadly political silence on the Iranian streets, the 2010 Time 100 Poll once again provided a rally ground for re-energizing the same will to be viewed and counted as that the manifested itself in the Iranian streets through the past month. It was thus of no surprise that Mr. Mousavi's votes kept increasing and reached to the top of list on the late hours of April 13th 2010. The main fundamental distinction between Mousavi and his rivals on the 2010 Time 100 Poll was that Mousavi was being supported by great segments of a nation and symbolized not merely a politician but a movement that rose out of the demand to be counted. “We are countless!,” as one motto of the Green Movement explicitly said. Currently, I see people claiming to have complained to Time regarding the resort to fraud by voters of Mousavi. “They must have slave robots voting for them,” one person claimed. I am writing this email not only to remind you that this is an untrue claim given the fact that mobilization for Mosuavi was done on a large scale through not just famous Iranian websites but in some cases satellite televisions, but also to remind you of some of the circumstances in which the Iranian people voted for Mousavi: 1.There were repeated cases of government filtering of the Time website through the voting and many people claimed that the state is purposely bringing the internet speed in Tehran to an unbelievably low level to block the voting process. 2.On April 14th, 2010, the Iranian right-wing newspaper Kayhan wrote a story on how inspire of the fact that the “bankrupted opposition” are using Time to voice their message, Lady Gaga, “a counter-moral singer” is still at the top: http://kayhannews.ir/890125.... 3.Kayhan's report itself showed how sensitive the government is on the issue. In spite of such serious limitations, the will to make Mousavi, as a symbol of the collective consciousness of a movement, outstanding in the list has succeeded so far. I would like to once again thank you for the opportunity you are providing to us, the citizens of the international community, to voice our opinions.
Sincerely Yours
In paragraph three I referred to the mobilization for the voting on Iranian media outlets. One case can be found in the Iranian Digg-like website Balatarin: http://balatarin.com/topic....
--
Please use this text and Email to letters@time.com
Dear Editors;
During the past few days, the supporters of Mirhossein Mousavi, the opposition candidate in the disputed Iranian presidential elections and a prominent figure in the movement that followed the elections demanding civil and political rights, have found the 2010 Time 100 Poll as an avenue to voice their opinion to the international community at large and make their demands and the prominence of their heroic move clear. After months of brutal crackdown of a movement that has repeatedly been compared to Gandhi's nonviolent move against British colonialism and the American Civil Rights Movement which has succeed in enforcing a deadly political silence on the Iranian streets, the 2010 Time 100 Poll once again provided a rally ground for re-energizing the same will to be viewed and counted as that the manifested itself in the Iranian streets through the past month. It was thus of no surprise that Mr. Mousavi's votes kept increasing and reached to the top of list on the late hours of April 13th 2010. The main fundamental distinction between Mousavi and his rivals on the 2010 Time 100 Poll was that Mousavi was being supported by great segments of a nation and symbolized not merely a politician but a movement that rose out of the demand to be counted. “We are countless!,” as one motto of the Green Movement explicitly said. Currently, I see people claiming to have complained to Time regarding the resort to fraud by voters of Mousavi. “They must have slave robots voting for them,” one person claimed. I am writing this email not only to remind you that this is an untrue claim given the fact that mobilization for Mosuavi was done on a large scale through not just famous Iranian websites but in some cases satellite televisions, but also to remind you of some of the circumstances in which the Iranian people voted for Mousavi: 1.There were repeated cases of government filtering of the Time website through the voting and many people claimed that the state is purposely bringing the internet speed in Tehran to an unbelievably low level to block the voting process. 2.On April 14th, 2010, the Iranian right-wing newspaper Kayhan wrote a story on how inspire of the fact that the “bankrupted opposition” are using Time to voice their message, Lady Gaga, “a counter-moral singer” is still at the top: http://kayhannews.ir/890125.... 3.Kayhan's report itself showed how sensitive the government is on the issue. In spite of such serious limitations, the will to make Mousavi, as a symbol of the collective consciousness of a movement, outstanding in the list has succeeded so far. I would like to once again thank you for the opportunity you are providing to us, the citizens of the international community, to voice our opinions.
Sincerely Yours
In paragraph three I referred to the mobilization for the voting on Iranian media outlets. One case can be found in the Iranian Digg-like website Balatarin: http://balatarin.com/topic....
--
۱۳۸۹ فروردین ۲, دوشنبه
۱۳۸۸ آذر ۲۹, یکشنبه
مرد نکو نام نمیرد هرگز , مرده آن است که نامش به نکویی نبرند
خبر فوت آیت الله منتظری غیر منتظره بود او که با صلابت بارها در ماههای اخیر با جراید مصاحبه کرده بود و نامه های طولا در تقبیح سرکوب معترضان نوشته بود ظاهرا سرزنده و قادر به دنبال کردن اخبار سیاسی بود. وی بالمآل به رهبر معنوی جنبش سبز تبدیل شده بود.
مرحوم طالقانی و منتظری پدران معنوی جنبش حق طلب مردم ایران در مبارزه علیه رژیم ستم شاهی بودند. هر دو این بزرگواران رهبران بومی مبارزه با استبداد بودند. دین دار بودند و زبان مردم کوچه بازار را می دانستند. با استناد به سنت نبوی و حدیث و قرآن حاکمان ظالم را انظار و تبشیر می دادند. هر دو سابقه زندان و شکنجه در زندانهای شاه را داشتند اما بخت با مرحوم طالقانی یار بود که او چند ماهی پس از پیروزی انقلاب درگذشت و مرگ و شکنجه و تبعید بسیاری از یاران پیشین را ندید.اما مرحوم منتظری که خود از بنیان گذاران نظریه ولایت فقیه بود توانست نتیجه عملی قانون اساسی را که در تصویب آن نقش داشت را به عینه ببیند. فرزند او به شهادت رسید;بستگان او در همین حکومت اسلامی اعدام شدند, رهبر انقلاب آیت الله خمینی از او رو گردان شد و او در برابر تصمیمی سخت قرار گرفت. سکوت و در قدرت ماندن یا اعتراض و ترد شدن از جانب دوستان سابق از جمله آیت الله خمینی و حلقه رهبران جوان تر نظام.
منتظری راهی را که حق می دانست را انتخاب نمود و به اعدام مخالفان رژیم اعتراض نمود. نتیجه این اعتراض عزل او از نیابت رهبری بود. در دوران خامنه ایی انتقادات صریح او منجر به حبس خانگی و سالها فشار گویا خللی در اراده او به وجود نیاورد. او خود می گفت نه به دنبال مقام و رهبر شدن بودم و نه آرزویی دارم.
به قول بابک مینا منتظری قهرمان عصر زوال قهرمانان بود. قهرمانی که یک تنه نقش یک رهبر دینی معترض را به رغم حبس خانگی و فشار و تهدیدهای حاکمیت اجرا کرد. وی بارها رفتارها و سیاستهای علی خامنه ایی را مورد نقدر قرار داد.
از جملات ارزشمند او که در خاطره ها خواهد ماند مخالفت صریح او با نظر رهبر و تقسیم ملت ایران به خودی و غیر خودی است .او می گفت:
مردم همه خودیند و همه صاحب این دین و سرزمین
این مطلب را نه از سر دینداری و ادای احترام به یک مرجع شیعه می نویسم بلکه هدفم ادای احترام به پیر مردی است که در خانه خود در قم نشسته بود و شهامت نقد گذشته خود را داشت.
وقتی مصاحبه حسن نصر الله رهبر حزب الله را دیدم که از آغاز جنگ علیه اسرائیل ابراز پشیمانی کرده به صداقت او درود فرستادم و آرزو کردم که ای کاش اهل سیاست در ایران هم چنین شجاعتی داشتند.نمونه این نوع صداقت و نقد گذشته را می توان در مصاحبه های منتظری یافت.
آیت الله منتظری در پاسخ به این سوال که او زمانی از اشغال سفارت آمریکا حمایت می کرده اما بعدا آن را اشتباه توصیف کرده گفت که آن اقدام هم به لحاظ عواقب و هم به لحاظ اصول بین المللی کار اشتباهی بوده است.
وی درباره مساله اشغال سفارت آمریکا نوشت: "اشغال سفارت آمریکا در بدو پیروزی انقلاب که مورد حمایت اکثر اقشار انقلابی و مرحوم امام خمینی بود، مورد تایید این جانب نیز بود؛ ولی با آن عوارض منفى و حساسيت شديدى كه بين مردم آمريكا به وجود آورد كه هنوز آثار آن باقى است، معلوم شد كه كار درستى نبوده، و اصولا سفارت يك كشور به منزله جزئى از آن كشور است، و كشورى كه در حال جنگ رسمى با ما نبود اشغال سفارت آن به منزله اعلان جنگ با آن كشور است و كار صحيحى نمى باشد. از قرار اطلاع بعضى از جوانان انقلابى و متعهدى كه متصدى اين كار بودند نيز اشتباه بودن آن را قبول دارند."
او همچنین در پاسخ کسانی که می گویند حفظ نظام از اوجب واجبات است می گفت: حفظ نظام نباید با اقدامات ضد اسلامی همراه باشد.
زندگی پر فراز و قرود او را نمی توان در این چند سطر بیان کرد . این نوشته احساس شخصی و ارادتی است که نسبت به ایشان داشتم.
دیشب مجاهد راه آزادی همان پی مرد نجف آبادی از میان ما رفت. فقدان او که رهبری مردمی بود و در دل ها جا داشت جبران ناپذیر است.
من بخت درک مهضر مرحوم منتظری را نداشتم.آشنایی من با ایشان بر می گردد به جلسات محسن کدیور در جلسات تفسیر قرآن در جبهه مشارکت و آشنایی با نوه ایشان که دانشجوی حقوق و عضو انجمن اسلامی بودند.من که در خانواده سکولاری بزرگ شده بودم نگاه مثبتی به ملایان و رهبران اولیه انقلاب اسلامی نداشتم.درگیری های منتظری و رهبری را هم دعوای نعمتی و حیدری و درون گفتمانی می دانستم و باور نداشتم که سود و ضرری به حال مردم کوچه و بازار داشته باشد.دوست خوبم امین بزرگین بیش از هر کس من را با شخصیت مبارز منتظری آشنا نمود
اشتراک در:
پستها (Atom)
