 |
| |
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
The Iranian capital, Tehran, has seen a third night of student protests against the Islamic authorities - but only a few hundred demonstrators turned out.
A heavy security presence made it difficult for large crowds to mass as they did on previous nights, and students were mainly confined to areas near university residences.
Police blocked roads around the campus, and prevented hardline pro-government militias from clashing with students.
The country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has accused the United States of trying to foment disorder and division, and warned protesters not to expect any pity.
The authorities have blamed US-based satellite TV channels for inciting the protests.
The number of people protesting on Thursday night was far smaller than the several thousand who turned out on the previous two nights.
Some students chanted "Freedom, freedom" and "Democracy, democracy".
Others shouted "Khamenei the traitor must be hanged".
But the protests have also been directed against reformist President Mohamed Khatami, as well as hardliners who are blocking the president's attempts at social reform.
As on earlier evenings, a few dozen hardline militia members on motorcycles armed with chains tried to approach the students, but they were held back by police.
There were a few stone-throwing incidents, but no clashes.
About 80 people were arrested earlier in the week, but most have now been released.
Blame
On Thursday, Ayatollah Khamenei again blamed the United States for provoking the protests.
"Leaders do not have the right to have any pity whatsoever for the mercenaries of the enemy," he said.
Many people have lost hope in Mr Khatami, reports the BBC's correspondent in Tehran, Miranda Eeles.
After voting him in six years ago on a platform of reform, Iranians - especially the young - are fed up at the slow pace of change.
The authorities are anxious for the situation not to get out of hand.
They have stressed to students that they will not tolerate a repeat of the events of 1999, when clashes with law-enforcement officers lasted for three days and left at least one student dead.
Those anti-government protests were the most serious since the fall of the Shah in 1979. About 70% of Iran's 65 million population is under 30, and has little or no memory of the late Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution. |
Personally, I think the constant harping about the US on the part of the mullahs is a particularly poor attempt to paper over the failiures of thier rule.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
IIRC, there's a general strike breing planned in Iran for July 9th. It'll be interesting to see how succesful that will be.
(I wonder if there will be any protests (in support of those striking) in the US.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
But did the people protesting have anotion of what type of soceity they wanted at the end? (read, like Western Europe, like West Germany) And in many East European states there were major dissident figures, and in Poland you had Solidarity.
|
Well, generally Iīd say many protestors thought of democratic changes on their societies without changing into a clearly "Western" model, because the consequences of such a complete shift to a new society were feared. Think of the Czech idea from 1968 - a "human" communism (they called it democratic socialism, but it was not exactly the same as social democracy known from Western Europe). I think that is what many people wanted initially, because many thought it would be possible to have both the advantages of communist and capitalist concepts together.
Of course OTOH there were also people from the beginning who wanted a clear orientation towards the West. But generally this was not the dominating idea first, it became it only during the process, because of the difficulties of a "capitalist" reality. Means if you start to change a system towards democracy and free market, you canīt stop easily were you want to preserve elements of communism, esp. not when the ugly things of the communist past are brought into public discussion (which wanīt possible before) and when you have existing successful Western examples directly at your borders. From my experiences in Eastern Germany at some point the entire process got its own dynamics towards the west. It was fueled by Western Germany, but not "forced" upon us from outside. It wouldnīt have been successful without the people accepting the Western idea finally as working alternative.
From what I know Iīd say at least in some countries of Eastern Europe this development took place as described above (eg. Czechoslovakia -sp?, Eastern Germany, to some extent in Poland and Hungary). Iīm not sure about eg. Baltic or Balkan states.
Last edited by BeBro on 16-06-2003 at 18:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
In most of those countries there were no organized political opposition forces, they developed within the process that lead to those revolutions in the East. |
But did the people protesting have anotion of what type of soceity they wanted at the end? (read, like Western Europe, like West Germany) And in many East European states there were major dissident figures, and in Poland you had Solidarity.
Plus in Eastern Europe its was more than students tking to the streets, and the governments in eastern Europe could always be denoucned as formations of an outside power (the USSR), but the Iranian goernment is the result of a revolution itsef: no one impossed the system on Iranians from the outside. |
over 250 Iranian intellectuals have put their names to a petition calling for change - and back in Decemeber there were protests connected to the jailing of a dissident figure. There do seem to be dissident figures, theyre just not very familiar to us in the west.
The moderate reformers in the Khatami govt have been a dissappointment to many iranians the students at least - its hardly a mark against the students that they dont care for Khatami - it may well be a sign of their political realism that they dont expect much from him. IIUC there are Iranian reformist MPs who are also discontented with Khatami.
News reports seem to indicate that the students are receiving at least some support from other elements of the population - reports of motorists honking support, etc.
Also reports of demonstrations outside of Teheran - in Shiraz, Isfahan, and elsewhere.
But yes, it could still peter out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
dont think so either - Iran's shiism is related in complex ways to mass of Muslim fundamentalism, which is salafist, and thus sunni.
in 1979 Saudi had been heart of salafism, and of sunni fundamentalism such as it was. But saudi was royalist and conservative. Salafi terrorism existed (egyptian muslim brotherhood killed Sadat shortly afterwards) but no real state base.
The Iranian revolution was called heretical (because Shiite) by the anti-radical saudis - the iranians responded by emphasizing a more general islamic radicalism, and reach out to discontented Sunnis. Saudis responded by more aggressive outreach to sunni radicals, and strong funding and pushing of salafist islam - to avoid being "outradicaled" and to divert possible revolution. In this context Saudi supported some of the more extreme salafist elements among the "arab afghans" during the Soviet war in Afghan.
So while there have from time to time been alliances of convenience between sunni and shiite fundies (eg hamas and Hezbollah) there is an underlying tension and rivalry.
The situation is more analogous to communism during the sino-soviet split - with Iran taking the role of Maoist China - heretical, but more radical, and able to shame the USSR into more radical aggressive approach. Imagine the effect on the USSR if China, rather than the USSR had collapsed. A definite change in the balance and the dynamic, but could have been dismissed as the logical fruit of heresy. |
This is an eye opening analysis. Thanks lotm! An excellent point that you made is the more extreme direction that the existance of a fundamentalist Iran has pushed the Saudi's in. Another Iranian revolution, coupled with a hopefully democratic Iraq, would seem to be a major pressure cooker in the makes for the Saudi royal family.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
|
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
How long did that dynamic last from beginning to end? Was it months? Years? |
Well, I was quite young in 1989, but I remember it as a time of some months. The most decisive developments were between Nov. 1989 (after the Berlin wall had fallen) and the first free elections in the East (March 1990, re-unification was in October 90).
It is difficult to describe, political changes moved at light speed, nearly everything seemed possible, and the end of the development wasnīt at all clear at this time. Remember that at the beginning of this time, the old communist party was still in power (until those elections of spring 90). But their influence was fading away so fast, it was amazing. People simply didnīt care about them anymore - and still there was no anarchy. Sometimes there were fears those guys from the old regime could try to turn everything back, but they were totally overwhelmed by the development. The communist party still controlled army, police and security forces, but their loyalty melted away, and the party leaders were totally helpless in dealing with the situation that the people simply made what they want.
quote:
Also, how was what the US or West Germans said about the matter perceived in Eastern Germany? |
Well, thatīs difficult to tell. Before Nov. 89 Iīd say it was more subtle - people used Western media a lot to get more information, to find their political position against the regime. But it didnīt work as a direct influence in a way that the people simply adopted exactly the positions known from the West.
This happened finally in spring 1990 when political parties from Western Germany aided their newly formed Eastern counterparts in the election campaigns - then the idea of re-unification became the driving political force. I know for sure it wasnīt in autumn 89. At this time most people (even many in Western Germany) thought esp. the Soviet Union would never allow that, because then the balance between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries would change dramatically.
From the international perspective, people were very thankful to Gorbachev, that he didnīt react on the changes as the USSR did so many times before in the East (with tanks like 1953 in Berlin, or in Hungary 1956, or in Czechoslovakia 1968). Also I remember that the US was for a unified Germany during the so-called "Two Plus Four talks" while the others of the WWII allies had some more concerns about it. But personally I think from mid-1990 there was an unstoppable process towards a single Germany, everything else would have been just another interim solution.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-06-2003 21:42
|