Kommentarer om Iran (in English also)

Hej kära läsare,

Jag försöker att vara aktiva via sociala medier, även om det ibland innebär att man inte hinner vara lika flitig när det gäller längre artiklar. Nedan finner ni dock några kommentarer rörande det kommande valet i Iran, som efter mer än tre decennier fortfarande styrs som en religiös diktatur.

Scroll down for the article in English, which was requested by the Canadian Embassy in Sweden

______________

Valet i Iran skedde i skuggan av den omvälvande händelseutvecklingen Mellanöstern och Nordafrika och som ingen vet hur en skall sluta. Den har inte inneburit någon lösning på folkens svåra problem i regionen. Folken i Mellanöstern saknar alternativ till de störtade regimerna. Politisk islam, som där försöker manövrerar för att öka sitt inflytande, innebär ingen lösning. Som i Iran, där politisk islam praktiserats betyder bara bevarat kapitalistiskt ekonomiskt system med stor arbetslöshet och växande korruption ideologiskt rättfärdigat med intolerant islamistisk fundamentalism kombinerad med brutalt politiskt förtryck. Motsättningarna i samhället fördjupas och konflikterna ökar.

Den nuvarande presidenten, Mahmud Ahmedinejad, kan inte bli omvald. Han lyckades i förra valet bli omvald tack vare en odemokratisk valordning, där väktarrådet utestängt kandidater från att delta med motiveringen att det inte var tillräckligt goda muslimer samt med hjälp av omfattande valfusk.

I den svenska riksdagen är det uppenbart att inget parti gillar den iranska regimen. Våra regeringar har dock alla i årtionden inte låtit sig generas av ett växande handelsutbyte med Iran. Ett handelsutbyte som med hjälp av ett mycket abstrakt och verklighetsfrånvänt resonemang rättfärdigas med att goda affärer med Iran kan tänkas påverka regimen i en något mer tolerant och mänsklig riktning. Verkligheten är dock den motsatta. Regimen använder detta utbyte i syfte att stärka sin legitimitet. Den iranska regimen har i 30 års tid visat att den är totalt ointresserad av dialog och helt okänslig för kritik utifrån. Den är nyckfull, opålitlig och skyr inga medel när det gäller att behålla makten. Den svenska Iranpolitiken präglas av en egenartad kombination av politisk naivitet, misslyckade försök till diplomatisk smartness och cynism när det kommer till ekonomi och handel.

Starkt missnöje men inget program

Men de två stora politiska partierna i Sverige är minst sagt oklara i sin syn på de oppositionella krafter som finns i Iran. Både socialdemokrater och moderater har vurmat för Mujahedin, som är en makthungrig islamistisk organisation som ser sig som en konkurrent till den härskande regimen och som per automatik ser sig som den nuvarande regimens efterträdare. Den är demokratiskt ytterst tvivelaktig.

På senare år har emellertid intresset för de stora svenska partierna, särskilt socialdemokraterna, riktat sina blickar mot den rörelse som kallas för Gröna bandet. Hur väl organiserad denna rörelse är det ingen som vet. Men under protesterna mot hur det senaste presidentvalet gick till blev det klart att Gröna bandet var en löslig och spontan missnöjesrörelse – en folklig resning. Den saknade en anständig ledning. Men det fanns genast ett antal mindre anständiga politiker som gärna ville gripa tillfället i flykten och kidnappa rörelsen för egna syften – den mesta framträdande av dem var MirHussein Moussavi. Han är den av Khomeinis ministrar som efter Iran-Irakkriget gav order om att tiotusentals politiska fångar avrättades.

Obskyra kontakter

De som stödjer Gröna bandet skall veta att man stödjer en folklig missnöjesyttring och inte någon organisation som står för något alternativ. Skulle den iranska regimen störtas genom en kraftfull folklig missnöjesyttring finns det ingen inom det Gröna bandet som kan stå presentera dess program. De enda organiserade oppositionella krafter som finns är de fria och självständiga fackföreningar som kämpar för sina rättigheter, vissa grupper inom studentrörelsen och underjordiska nätverk bland kvinnor. Dessa är idag svaga förföljs av regimen.  I världen utanför Iran har deras kamp uppmärksammats på en del håll. Den svenska arbetarrörelsen kan dock inte sägas ha gjort det tillräcklig grad.

Inom socialdemokratin har man fortsatt att odla illusionen att man kan påverka regimen med dialog med regimen och dess företrädare. Förra året anordnade t.ex. Palmecenter ett halvhemligt seminarium för västvänliga och USA-stödda oppositionella iranier i Stockholm. Men också nyligen riksdagsseminarium som sossarna och moderaterna var på sitt håll med exil oppositionella  alltifrån Shah-anhängare , liberaler, nationalister och konservativa.  Syftet med seminarierna var tydligen att reda ut hur Iran ska demokratiseras. Bland de medverkande fanns en brokig samling av rojalister, liberaler, nationalister och republikaner, klanledare m.m. Flera av dem har i praktiskt taget inga kontakter med eller något inflytande i dagens Iran.

Bland de inbjudna och närvarande återfanns dessutom Muhsen Sazghar, grundaren av det iranska revolutionsgardet (Spai Pastaran). Han bär ansvaret för en lång rad brott mot mänskliga rättigheter.

Han är ansvarig för blodiga operationer i Iranska Kurdistan, Turkemensahara och Khuzestan. Sazghar är en mördare och torterare som är skyldig till många studenters, kvinnors, arbetarledares och vänsteraktivisters lidande och död – alltså en förbrytare som borde ställas inför Internationella brottsmålsdomstolen.

Vore det inte rimligare att riksdagens två största partier, i all synnerhet socialdemokratin, ägnade sig åt att söka kontakt med och ge stöd till de organisationer som verkligen bekämpar den iranska regimen istället för att föra en meningslös dialog med i demokratiskt avseende obskyra organisationer eller när det gäller människorätten kriminella krafter inom den iranska regimen, som ändå struntar blankt i vad motparten i dialogen säger?

__________

When you look upon Iran you must at first put a few but important questions and find the correct answers on them. You must ask: Who is in power in Iran? And who is not! On what political, social or military base is the governing power founded? What methods does the regime use in order to stay in power.

In Iran there is no freedom of expression, no freedom of the press or other media. Criticism or opposition against the regime is not allowed. If you oppose the regime you will be punished hard – often extremely hard. Your criticism can easily be classified as thoughts or ideas which are “against God”. For a crime “against God” you can be sentenced to death. If you want to stay alive keep you mouth shut!

But if there is no freedom of expression there are no legal possibilities to act politically.

But are not there elections, an elected president and an elected parliament and an elected government?

Yes, they are elected, but who nominated them. It was not the people. The candidates who were introduced to the people were not elected they were selected. They were selected by the Council of Guards – a small group of mullahs. If you are not regard by them as a good Muslim they will expel you from the list of candidates. In the very end there will be very few candidates left on the list of the very best Muslims. And those who have appointed these people are people who regard themselves as the absolute best Muslims in Iran.

But there is not only a Counicil of Guards, there is also the Spiritual leader, ayatollah Khamenei, who is the greatest interpreter of the Koran and Gods will. Without his will nothing can be done.

The Iranian regime must be regarded as clerical dictatorship not as a democracy. But the parliament – it is often said that there exist a great deal of reformists in the parliament.

That is correct. But what program do they have? Do they want Iran to be a real democratic state? No not at all. They want some changes in – perhaps opening the marcet toward the EU,  but they do not want to change the system – they want to keep it. Followers of the Iranian government and the followers of the reformist fraction in the parliament have different ideas but none of them wants real political democracy.

Thinking of this – that none of them wants real political democracy – I can not see any important change in the regime when it comes to democratic and democratic rights. Governmental circles of power and the reformist have however one thing in common – they want stay in power or conquer it for their own purpose and privileges.

During the elections 2009 there were big popular demonstrations against the manipulations of the election process. . The people who took part in the demonstrations called themselves The Green Ribbon. It was a spontaneous uprising without decent leaders with a clear program on what type of change they wanted. They were only united against the regime. Some undecent leader among the so called reformists tried however to kidnap the uprising an use it for their own purpose, like Hussein Mussavi. As minister during ayatollah Khomeini and after the Iran-Iraq war he was responsible for the murder of some ten thousand defenceless political prisoners. Mussawi however did not succeed. Today he is in house arrest.

I have no illusions when it comes to the new president Rohani. It was not the earlier presidents Rafsanjani and Ahmedinnejad who made the decisions. It was the Council of Guards and ayatollah Khamenei. He was the one who in the end decided everything. And this will not be changed.

Khamenei and the leading clerical clique in Iran have very deformed picture of the world outside Iran. At he same time they know that they have methods and instruments to stay in power and they have no scruples in using them (torture and murder) in great extent.

For 30 years the western world has tried to have a dialogue with this clerical clique. And absolutely nothing has happened. In a way you can blame USA for this. It was a bitter loss to lose such a true ally as the shah Reza Palavhi, US government and it reacted diplomatically clumsy and gave ammunition to the anti-west and fundamentalist powers in Iran. Then they supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. They boycotted Iran economically. All these circumstances did not create a good atmosphere for dialogue.

Europe on the other hand wanted a real critical dialogue. But was it possible for Iran to believe in such a dialogue? Europe was so close connected and influenced by the USA. The commercial exchange between Iran and Europe expanded. The blockade against Iran was not as strict as the one USA had proclaimed.

The Iranian regime preferred however not to listen to the criticism from Europe. It has instead used the commercial exchange to strengthen its legitimacy in the outside world. Inside Iran the sanction has been used by the regime to paint a picture where Iran as a state is threatened from hostile powers from outside.

For more than 30 years this so called dialogue has went on without any result at all. The regime does not respect democratic and human rights at all.

There is noone who has a clear picture of the resistance against the regime today. There is of course no legal opposition party. There are some illegal parties but how strong they are is difficult to say. For a long time there have been illegal political parties active among the Kurds in the north of Iran like KDP and the socilalict movment Komala.  For the moment there is a split among them. The most vital resistance inside Iran today seems to come from the clandestine trade unions and student organisations. They work under very difficult circumstances.

During this election we have not seen anything like the The Green Ribbon. That opposition seems to have been dissolved.

It has been interesting to see what media has written and talked about during the election campaign. Media has given great attention to the economy, which is in total chaos. The unemployment is enormous, inflation is running, corruption is widespread, enterprises do not pay their workers a.s.o. This is naturally true, but it has bet described on a very abstract level. Rohani is said to be a person who has been unsatisfied with Iranian economic development and media try to present a picture of hope connected to his person. But that hope is very small. Perhaps it does not exist at all. The president does not decide what shall be done. It is the Spiritual lead, Khamenei who decides what shall be done and he does not care about the people at all. He and his clerical colleges is only interested in the power of their own.

So why does not western media focus on the situation of the people. Why do not they examine for example on the totally corrupt court system with totally incompetent judges. Why do they not describe the terrible situation of the women in Iran. In these issues not very much ha been written and talk about. Like mony other countris in Meddle East women´s life in Iran is terrible and is getting worse. But in media in the west the situation of the women was only used as an instrument in the propaganda for something else – for example an military intervention in order to put a west-oriented regime into power. (When that was done everybody ha sforgotten the women.).

If media tried to describe the concrete conditions of the workers, the students, women and children in stead of focus on abstract figures of economic growth we should know more of what is going on in the Iranian society.

When it comes to the question of the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb the situation is complicated. First of all the Iranians deny that they are going to build a nuclear bomb, but then the Iranian regime will of course say to the USA and other countries who do not believe in Iranian proclamations: You should be the very last one to come to us and moralise and criticise us – you who are the strongest nuclear power in the world. And why don´t you criticise Israel, who already has built a nuclear bomb. And why not criticise Pakistan, where there is a terrible political chaos which has went on for decades. The situation Pakistan is very dangerous. But you have cooperated with all kinds of regimes in Pakistan, of which some even have had intimate connections with the Talibans in Afghanistan..

As long as the western world does not do anything to show its willingness to do something serious when it comes to nuclear disarmament the Iranian regime will go on to make trouble for the inspectors from IAEA and perhaps go on with their nuclear efforts and perhaps one day tell the world that Iran is a nuclear power like US, UK, France, Russia, India, Pakistan and China.

To conclude: Dialogue is difficult, but the first thing you must think of when you start one you must look at yourself and look for if there is something that must be done at home before you enter it. And that must be done on both sides in the dialogue. The main contradictory parts in this dialogue give the impression that none of them are especially interested in self-criticism, which make things difficult.

Annonser

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s