Many stories of the fate of Iran’s young protestors, journalists, and academics have become front page news as allegations of rape and torture on those arrested this summer comes to the front page of papers worldwide. The infamous Evin Prison is where many of those arrested political prisoners have been detained this summer, but what is known by many in Iran and ignored by many outside of the country is that rape and torture of political prisoners did not being this summer, but has been going on over the last thirty years.

Marina Nemat, a victim of Evin Prison who was lucky enough not to be executed during her time there wrote her account in prison in Evin, in her book called The Prisoner of Tehran. In her time there she was arrested for having negative views of the Revolution of 1979 and was put in prison for many years. Her perspective is an interesting one, as one of her interrogators, who was a political prisoner himself under the Shah became her husband in the end. While she was forced to marry him, there was some respect between the couple and the views he held as a prisoner himself. In the end Marina was released from prison and while all these years she has refrained from telling her story, in her book she reveals for the first time her life as a political prisoner. Marina now lives in Canada.

Another account of how foreign journalists were treated in Evin Prison was discussed when a Canadian Journalism of Iranian descent and birth, Zahra Kazemi was beaten to death in Iran in 2003. Acknowledgement of the story and actions by the previous Canadian Government was virtually absent until her son, Stephan Kazemi pushed for public protests and for help from the Canadian Government. Accounts of her ordeal in Evin Prison were that she was beaten to death and raped as well in order to defile her reputation and soul. Her body was then not returned to Canadian authorities amidst much protest. Currently Canadian Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari is being held with other political prisoners in Iran. He is one of those accused in Iran’s political court for inciting protests in the country.

The Baha’I of Iran, who’s governing council was arrested late last year for false charges echos the past arrest of the Baha’I council in the past, all who were executed after their arrest. Government persecution of this religious minority often is recycled over history via Apostate laws, accusations of anti-state activities and associations with foreign elements, and continuous monitoring of community and community leaders leading to unpublicized tragedies in many forms. One clear example of this repeat of history was the open discrimination in the early 80’s after the Iranian Revolution. In 1980-81 the arrest and the execution of the leaders of the Baha’i religious and community leaders took place. The council, named the National Spiritual Assembly, were collected and imprisoned and eventually murdered by the government. This trend continued against members of the community and any other “political” dissidents in Iran since that time. Since then, little coverage of this issue has taken place in Western and Eastern media.

All these accounts of the terrors of Evin Prison will likely lead to its destruction by the people of Iran. An argument may be made to have the prison destroyed as a means of mercy for those who will certainly be tortured and raped until death for crimes such as speaking their mind and simply being of a different political or religious ideology. To ignore Evin Prison or to be only shocked by recent activities that have been going on there for thirty years when a modern event occurs is to legitimize the history of brutal torture that has been taking place there. By all rights, it should have been destroyed years ago..now that journalists and citizens of foreign nations and peaceful Iranians are there being murdered, international focus should be finally set on and legitimately encouraged against Iran’s dictators. Evin Prison should fall as did the Bastille in France’s Revolution.   

This post can also be found on FPA’s Latin America Blog.

It came as no surprise to those who knew about the past rights abuses by Iran’s government when many Iranians, especially young Iranians, took to the streets in the last two weeks and were met with brutal retribution affecting every sector of Iran’s vibrant society including intellectuals, the media, youth and diverse cultures. While much of Western media sought to compare the protests in Iran to those of Eastern Europe and China, Iran is unique and is forming what must be regarded as its own unique movement that will produce its own unique results. A comparison of best judgment is one that would compare opposite popular political movements to that of the one in Iran, namely those in many left leaning governments in Latin America.

This week while the protestors in Iran were slowly being arrested and assaulted, Honduras had its own coup with the Judiciary, Legislature and military forcing out the Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya. Honduras’ other policy branches sought its own change by placing its own leader in power in order to quell the Executive Branch from leading a populist move to allow the President to stand for election indefinitely. Such a constitutional change for the benefit of the President and the Executive branch was successfully accomplished by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela a few short months ago. This altering of constitutional powers that limit the Executive from seeking election past a designated term in office is a common limit to the power of the President in many nations with a similar political system. While Parliamentary Democracies often have leaders stand for election well past six years (as technically you are electing the party, and not the leader), it is seen as a violation of the democratic system in many nations and allows the tyranny of the majority to rule over all sectors of society in those countries considered a Republic. In those systems, the power of the President is paramount and is only limited by the legislature and judiciary. While Venezuela’s battle over control between the branches took hold in debate and via legal measures, Honduras’ branches of government took the direct route, upsetting many supporters of the President as well as supporters of Zelaya outside of Honduras, including Mr. Obama who often is seen as the culprit of actions against leftist leaders in Latin America.

The irony of these latest popular protests in Iran and Honduras come from the support given by those who ideologically would naturally support “the other” in these conflicts. As mentioned above, Obama, who represents a US that allows for power to be tempered against the Executive by the Judiciary and Legislative branch when the Executive tries to unbalance its influence in the Republic, has openly supported the power of President Zelaya in Honduras and is helping to return the President to his office in the capital. While the support obviously comes from the manner in which Zelaya was removed, the election of Obama and great support no doubt came from the result of accusations of abuse of the Executive branch by Bush and Cheney when in office as claimed by many constitutional experts in the US and abroad. The other twist in this narrative comes from Chavez’s support of Iran’s illegitimately elected president and ruling Religious Council. While Chavez and Ahmedinejad do get a lot of support from rural and urban poor in both their respective countries, popular support for Mosavi and opposition leaders in Iran are coming from the people themselves, who are protesting against unelected leaders via a populist uprising. Hugo Chavez, the poster child for populism in Latin America, won his own support for his government and changes to the constitution via a majority of people who legitimized his power in office, yet seeks to be a populist against populism when supporting the establishment in Iran. While debate continues to whether or not Chavez forcefully silenced his opposition during elections and referendums in Venezuela, support for Iran’s current government by Chavez may have more to do with Venezuela’s geopolitics than the will of the people in Iran. In the end, the fight for power in Iran did not start with hard opposition to Iran’s Ayatollahs, as true reformers were not allowed to run for government in Iran. Iran’s leadership crisis is one of oligarchs in Iran’s leadership pushing to gain more influence and leverage over Iran’s dominant Councils and clerics and to gain support from Iran’s youth that make up more than 70% of Iran’s population as noted by many experts. As a result of violence however, many in Iran wish to move beyond a simple election of Mosavi dominated by the Religious Councils and wish to move towards a free vote and debate in society.

Iran will likely slowly degrade from within, but maintain its same structure in the process. The true measure of change for those outside of Iran is whether or not a new government, in a similar, form will choose to involve itself in the Arab world, continue to divide and conquer diverse political groups, religions and cultures in Iran and decide to promote Iranian culture and economy outside of Iran towards the West or the East. The reposition of the US and the oil market may grow the influence of populists in Latin America and illegitimate governments in the Middle East, but eventually economics and popular movements will create a debate where the people must choose between two unstable alternatives and hope for great leaders to build their nations. At best, Lebanon without political assassinations would be a welcomed outcome for Iran. Lessons from Latin America for Iran may come from those same intellectuals that are currently sitting in Evin prison in Tehran for speaking their views. One academic from Latin America similar to those imprisoned in Iran is Guillermo O’Donnell, a Latin American intellectual who often writes on differing forms of democracy. Many of his theories surround the issues of democratic institutions and voting. Simply voting does not create a democratic society in itself, but the interaction between different ideas, from grassroots movements, journalists, professors, politicians and communities produce institutions which seek to balance power in the hands of the people, and not in that of a religious oligarchy or simply the Executive. Unfortunately in Iran, once violence takes hold of any election, voting becomes not simply the symbol of a healthy democratic society but it transforms and becomes a means of protest when all other democratic institutions become disenfranchised of their legitimate authority. Equality and rights does not come from a simple ballot, as important as the process is, but comes from institution building and seeking of rights in every unique society. This is what many often abuse in Latin America, and seems to not be understood by religious oligarchs in Iran. The original form of ancient Greek democracy has evolved, and will leave those behind who do not understand it beyond its basic elements. Unfortunately as many Latin American oligarchs have known, the end result is always the same, albeit in differing and unique forms of anarchy.

This post can also be seen in FPA’s Latin America Blog.

BBC World and BBC Persian services have done a remarkable job in the last two weeks highlighting the Muslim world after President Obama’s speech in Cairo, elections in Lebanon and today’s election in Iran, as well as international links to changing events in the region. To begin, various stories put out by BBC, while not directly linked, do have an effect in relation to each other. I thought an interesting comparison would be Obama’s speech in Cairo and a story this week on Youssou N’Dour, a famous singer from Senegal who put out an album a few years ago ironically called “Egypt” which won critical acclaim and awards internationally. N’Dour is well known for his music worldwide, but as he stated, he felt that the music, liturgy, and peaceful side of Islam was not being portrayed properly in many forms of media globally. His album, which is a combination of well-known religious songs in Arabic makes up most of the tracks and is quite remarkable. N’Dour noted in the interview that many believed that because he was African, he was not Muslim, and as a result he has been touring and will tour into the United States to not only show the multi-ethnicity of Islam, but to also show the brighter side of the faith which has inspired much of his talent.

Obama’s speech in Cairo touched on many of the same issues but instead of focusing a speech on the entire Muslim world, it was focused more on the Middle East, namely Arab and perhaps the Persian world, leaving much of Africa, The Balkans, South East Asia, India, Pakistan and Turkey and Central Asia out of the main focus of the dialogue. Beyond focusing on solely the Middle East, the speech really came to represent Muslim Arabs, leaving out the recognition of the various other groups which have resided and built up communities in Arab lands over many generations and thousands of years who are not Muslims but are Arab and Persian just the same. While many of these groups have lived in the Middle East peacefully, many have outstanding issues in their respective countries that should have been addressed by the President, especially when concerning issues of human rights. While there are many cases and many cultures that deserve attention in the region, Iran’s detention of the leaders of its Baha’I community should be paramount in any speech and policy in the region as it is recent, shows evidence in the past of a likely negative result for the detained leaders, and comes from generations of persecution of this group above all others in Iran. N’Dour’s music and respect for Islam in many ways adopted the focus that Obama’s speech should have used in speaking to a Muslim world that is as diverse, multicultural and politically energetic as N’Dour’s view of a religion and culture. The challenge is not simply to build bridges between Muslims and Americans, it is to challenge the cultures that dominate North America, the Middle East and the entire Muslim world to break bread and open communications between all cultures and faiths which have roots and seek influence in the Middle East. Acknowledging all Muslims and non-Muslims who live in Islamic societies is crucial and still lacking in much of the dialogue in the region. It may be the result that people who live in the Middle East will create a change on their own, as opposed to waiting for Obama to create change for them.

The best example of real change in the Middle East came from the recent elections in Lebanon. Lebanon is the most diverse country in the region religiously as groups living in this tiny nation are relatively numerically balanced between different faiths and different perspectives on the same faith. Many believe that the coalition supported by Hezbollah would finally defeat the government of Lebanon in this last election. After years of direct protest, assassinations and political manoeuvring against Lebanon’s elected multi-party legislature and the Hariri family; who lead many of the reforms and were victims of many assassinations over the last few years, Lebanon’s people decided to give the mandate to the current government and challenge the popularity of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Many Muslims, Christians and other groups in Lebanon fought for the right for fair elections and a popular vote that challenges not Hezbollah’s work with many of the poorer communities and lack of health care in the country, but with a perspective that would likely take Lebanon back into a time of civil war and conflict with its neighbours in the region. This power to change did not come from Obama or his reengagement with the Muslim world, but from the needs and perspective of many of the people inside Lebanon itself.

Currently the votes in Iran’s elections are being counted, and the various minds and debates in Iranian society has come to represent itself verbally as well as through a large popular movement via waves of voters to choose the future of Iran. Iran’s current leader appeals to the rural and poorer urban voters and seeks to take the country’s oil profit and gear them towards social programs, challenged by the candidate Mosavi who seeks to open Iran internationally and build bridges between Iran and the West, representing many in the urban perspective of Iranian society. The internal debate in Iran is very much a local debate on where Iran’s future may be. With one of the largest and youngest populations in the world, the result of Iran’s election could make the country into an international power via economic and cultural opening, or could make Iran into a regional power where nuclear proliferation will become the main focus on the region. With North Korea pouring onto the scene and US involvement in Pakistan, any support for a nuclear Iran my illicit a strong reaction from the US and its allies. This week the BBC sought to detail links between Venezuela, Iran and Bolivia. While leaders in Venezuela and Bolivia often appeal to rural and urban poor as well, and seek to support those communities with revenue from oil profits, the ever growing connection between Bolivia’s uranium deposits and a possible sale to Iran may become the first issue Iran will have after the election. The end result and the difference between one candidate and another may be the difference between threats to others in the region and a strong US response, and Iran becoming the darling of the region’s economy with great natural wealth and a young, well travelled and educated population. While Venezuela and Bolivia might be dominated by the effects of poverty and class issues, Iran has a third element as it is in the middle of one of the most militarized regions of the globe and seeks to become part of a dialogue which would surely result in direct conflict with influential powers in the region. In reality, Islam is only part of the issues dominating the election in Iran, with culture, politics and diversity of class becoming part of the dialogue between Iranians and its leaders. The end choice is one for Iranians, but the end result will involve everyone in the region no matter what their faith.

The BBC World Service this month broke from their usually news and debate programs and showed an interesting documentary series on Iranian culture and flavour, in a four part series called The Taste of Iran. The host, Sadeq Saba goes through much of the country and explores the food which makes up a great part of Iranian culture. With each new reason for a meal, Saba also explores the history of the region of the country and festivals and traditions which come with each meal, tea and pastry. His adventure brings Saba from the top of mountains to cemeteries, from Mosques to Churches, and parks to tea houses across Iran.

In the most recent part of the series, Saba takes to Esfahan and explores many religious festivals surrounding different events and communities in the city. He discusses not only Shi’a festivals, but the history of Sunni and Armenian Christians in the city as well. The city, sharing a diverse past much like other Eastern cities such as Alexandria in Egypt in the 16th to 19th century and Damascus and Seville in the Medieval era, Esfahan was home to a mix of cultures and religions, which prospered under kingdoms of the past. Food of course, the focus of this programs was changed by this fact as well, but what stood out and what has become forgotten since after the First World War is that Eastern countries have had as much tolerance in the past as it is seen as having restrictions today. Addressing this past might help determine its future, not in Iran alone, but in the region as a whole.

While recent governments have moved more towards oil profits and agreements with Venezuela and North Korea as opposed to diplomacy with the West, the opening of culture and cooperation might help Iranian culture, and food, reach outside of the country and promote respected dialogue between the people in Iran and nations opposing the current government. Some important developments recently have taken place which might aid this progression. Firstly, former President Khatami had issued a statement that he will run again for the Presidency. While still part of the powerful elite in Iran, his pro-reform stance and support from a large youth community in Iran kept Iran on friendly terms for the years he was formerly leader of the government. Statements from many anti-Bush politicians also have taken place, offering some sense of a new dialogue with the US and Mr. Obama, likely a way to save face, but also a reality of unpopularity by many in Iran and other OPEC nations like Venezuela, and of course the cutting in half of oil prices worldwide. With so many negative relations due to past historical issues and threats of nuclear conflict surrounding the debate between the US, EU, Russia and Iran, a few positive developments in the region could not hurt. Culture, the root of pride for many Iranians can become a valued commodity outside Iran, and perhaps an export which is not produced by petrochemicals to boot.

If pride and culture is exported from Iran, and exchange of ideas and interest in the country will inevitably take shape. Much of the problems surrounding issues in the region is that whether speaking about Gaza or Israel, Iraq and Syria, or Lebanon and Iran, often the view from those in the EU and US are either limited, overly positive or overly negative, or completely enlaced in short term policy that may benefit elites in both regions, but do not take account of those communities in the Middle East that are is grave poverty, are oppressed minorities throughout the whole region, or oppose the common lingua franca of Middle Eastern policy by local governments, foreign diplomats and radical groups which produce current problems. With a new dialogue, comes the responsibility to protest in a just manner, progress in the golden age of Iranian culture would have never existed without this ability to encourage tolerance. With history, food, and politics, another Middle Eastern tradition is recognized, that of some discussion to ponder over dinner…

This Blog has also been posted in FPA's Latin America Blog.

Japan has always maintained a certain level of intrigue for foreigners, especially since the end of the Second World War due to its history, culture, economic progress and people. While Japan stands out as one of the most influential nations of the 20th Century, it has often not been a destination for many immigrants but more of a source for immigrants despite its economic prowess around the globe.

One country that has benefited from Japanese immigration is Brazil. With more than 1.5 million Brazilians with Japanese heritage, it is one of Brazils largest immigrant communities and the source for many Brazilians now moving to Japan. Next to Chinese and Koreans, Brazilians have become the third largest immigrant group in Japan. While many have descendants from Japan originally which produces cultural and legal links with Japan, many Brazilians now coming to live in Japan still require services which are key to Brazilians in the country. With 320,000 Brazilians now having Japanese residency, the concern is that integration in Japanese society make be difficult without asserting social services and education towards the Brazilian community residing in Japan.

One of the greatest concerns is education. In order to produce immigrants in Japan that can grow and work in the country, education for children 5 to 14 years of age is crucial for their future. With 33,000 kids in that age range, only 10,000 are enrolled in Japanese schools, while a further 10,000 are in Brazilian schools in Japan, leaving 10,000 kids not registered in any formal education at all, according to The Japan Times Online. Since 2001, and increase from 45 to 110 Brazilian schools was the result of many kids from Brazil having a tough time with language skills in Japanese, even to the point of being bullied and requiring often non-official school to be opened to accommodate children in the Brazilian community in Japan. While there have been discussions about trying to integrate foreign students into the public school system, the lack of adequate strategies and unfamiliarity in integrating non-Japanese students into the school system is a tough barrier to breach. Ironically, with many of the Brazilians now living in Japan having Japanese heritage, as well as citizenship in Japan due to their heritage, it is likely that the feeling their grandparents had coming to Brazil for the first time as Japanese, is similar to their experience coming to Japan as Brazilians. With Japan slowly becoming multicultural to a slight degree, it is imperative that new Japanese citizens have their needs addressed, often waiting for a paradigm shift in society to meet their needs.

French President and current EU figurehead, Nicolas Sarkozy claimed an early boost to his country's presidency of the Union yesterday, with the conclusion of the much anticipated ‘European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.’ Of course, it was a watered down version of the document that French immigration minister, Brice Hortefeux, was peddling to Member State governments earlier in the year - and rightfully so. Spain threw a wrench in the French Presidency's plans a few days ago, when it refused to agree to an addendum on integration and a Europe-wide ban on regularisations. 

According to those who have actually seen it, (it is not public information - at least not yet) it is built around five guiding principles:

So, at the end of the day, nothing in this pact is really new. 

For the most part, the Commission has already proposed legislation (EU Blue Card) and frameworks (Hague Programme) or, in fact, legislation has already been concluded as is the case for the Returns Directive.

However: Because Mr. Sarkozy has done what few others have done before him in recent EU politics (bar Angela Merkel on the environment) -  namely claim ownership and assume leadership - the media is keeping a close eye not only on him as EU President, but on the commitments made by all 27 Heads of State and Government as part of this pact. In the absence of a clear legal base for Justice and Home Affairs policy (which is linked to the adoption of the Lisbon Reform Treaty), and in light of demographic and economic need, the EU needs momentum in this crucial policy area. 

For ten years, since the initial EU Summit on immigration policy in Tampere, plans were made, legislation was written but major problems remained unadressed. Member states failed to realize the benefit of common approaches to a policy area, which by nature of the Union's open borders, could no longer be controlled unitlaterally.

We have a new window of opportunity: Europe needs migrants economically, and Europeans are beginning to understand the benefit of controlled migration. Europeans, by and large, want the Union - not their individual national governments - to develop functional policy in this area. Now is the time to turn the end the closed-door decision-making that started in Tampere. The European Parliament, NGOs and migrant organizations have to use this new window of opportunity in their favor, to ensure that the European Union gives itself the robust, humantiarian, just, equal and functional immigration and asylum policy it needs for the 21st century and beyond. 

*This entry has been cross-posted to the EU at 50 blog

The European Commission will soon present a Green Paper (i.e. a non-legislative document) examining the changes to the European education landscape to accomodate migrant children, the institution's press service is reporting.

Also, the recent Eurobarometer survey shows that European citizens want to see the Union - not national governments - take the lead on key issues in interior policy (dubbed Justice and Home Affairs in EU jargon), including on counter-terrorism and immigration measures. The Lisbon Treaty foresees a change of legal basis under which legislation can be proposed and approved for matters in this area, giving greater influence to the European Parliament, the only directly elected body of the European Union.

The French EU Presidency's whistle-stop tour of European capitals in preparation for a restrictive immigration and integration policy has hit a major roadblock: Spain. As one of the EU Member States who has profited both from regular and illegal migration (the Spanish government has issued a number of amnesties for illegals over the years), Prime Minister Zapatero has rebuffed French plans for the creation of an integration contract obligation, which requires immigrants adjust to their recieving country's “national identity.”

Experts now expect a watered down version of the original proposal to be presented by the French Presidency. In absence of the Lisbon Reform Treaty, whose ratification as is now looks unlikely following the Irish referendum, immigration policy falls under the remit of member state governments assembled in the European Council, rather than the European Parliament. As has been the case for previous immigration proposals and those pretaining to the free movement of so-called 'third country nationals’ a ‘lowest common denominator’ solution with respect to immigration can be expected.