Clashes, Claims of Election Fraud in Iran
UPdate: The rally went ahead anyway. See above. Mir-Hosein Mousavi, the reformist candidate who alleges that Friday's presidential election was stolen from him, was forced to cancel a planned nation-wide protest on Monday morning. Clashes had again broken out between pro-Mousavi demonstrators and Iranian police and paramilitaries on Sunday.
From Italian t.v., Iranian police on motorcycles charge pro-Mousavi protesters:
But aside from such dramatic street rallies, the public is expressing discontent in other ways. On Sunday at about 9 pm Tehran time, large numbers of people began rhythmically chanting "God is Great!" (Allahu Akbar). Presumably this chant was chosen because the mullah regime could hardly object to it. Loud reports were heard, of either gunfire or tear gas cannisters.
A list I am on was sent accounts of clashes between police and protesters in the city of Gorgan, in the Tehran suburb of Karaj (where the police were said to have lost control), and in Qom around Mousavi's campaign HQ.
The regime not only cancelled Mousavi's planned protest rally, but it continues to block facebook, youtube and other forms of communication. Cell phone reception is apparently chancey. The offices of the pro-Western, Dubai-based Alarabiya television network in Iran have been closed. BBC television election coverage via satellite is being blocked by the regime.
Salon.com has more
Tomdispatch.com on the looming IrAfPak war.
Globalpost has a view of the elections from the road.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/15/2009 12:50:00 AM
|
Facebook
17 Comments:
thx from Germany
Many folks on twitter are saying that the march is not canceled and that Mousavi will attend. My source (as shaky as it might be is: http://twitter.com/persiankiwi )
During the 1979 Islamic revolution protesters chanted "Allahu Akbar" from the rooftops at nighttime.
So, nighttime chants of Allahu Akbar are immediately recognized as a form of protest.
Most of the reformists are not secularists. So, such slogans aren't surprising.
One quibble. Why is al-Arabiya 'pro-Western'? It's like calling Lebanon's March 14 'pro-Western'. More accurate to say that al-Arabiya is owned by the Saudi royal family. It is pro-US-imperialist, becuae the Saudi royal family are US imperial clients, but that doesn't mean 'pro-Western'. It is much more pro-Wahhabi than it is pro-Western.
Rhythmically chanting "God is Great!" (Allahu Akbar)is what the Iranains did in 1979 in the mass street gatherings that eventually toppled the Shah.
The real question is not whether there was election fraud in Iran. That is beyond question. The real question is why the Western media were so quick to accept Ahmadinezhad's claims of sweeping victory at face value, and why they have been ignoring the anti-government protests, or treating them as the passing outburst of a disgruntled minority.
What interest do information power brokers in the West have in supporting the Ahmadinezhad regime?
Thank you for your posts on the election.
I believe people are chanting "Allahu Akbar" more out of historical precedence than because the regime can't object to it (after all, there are still plenty of people chanting "death to the dictator").
As I'm sure you know, though some of your readers may not, chanting "Allahu Akbar" from Tehran rooftops was common in the days leading up to the 1979 revolution, and as such, doing this has a lot of emotional resonance and historical poignance for many Iranians.
I also think that for some people it's a way of saying that the government's days are numbered (that's certainly what the revolutionaries were telling the Shah when they chanted "Allahu Akbar" 30 years ago). But how big a turning point this marks is anyone's guess at this point.
Had Obama not given the Cairo speech, and the issue of a Lebanon-type "Obama Effect" not been a factor, the election would have been stolen by a much closer, more credible margin.
But in their eagerness to deny Obama's purchase with Iranians, they had to fudge the numbers to an incredible degree.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/western-primer-on-elections-in.html
June 13, 2009
Western Primer on Elections in Developing Countries
Some Western principles in assessing elections in developing countries:
1) When the favored candidates win, the elections are free and fair. And when they lose, elections are certainly unfree and stolen.
2) Violent protests against elections that produce winners favored by the West, are to be strictly condemned and protesters are to be called terrorists, hooligans and mobs (can you imagine if Lebanese opposition supporters were to engage in violent protests against the election results in Lebanon), while violent protests against enemies of the US when they win elections (like in Moldova) are to be admired (and the protesters in those cases are called "democracy activists".
3) It is not against free elections to have Western governments interfere in elections and in funding candidates through Western groups for the promotion of democracy.
4) Candidates (or even dictators) who serve Western interests are automatically labeled as "reform candidates" (even the Saudi tyrant is referred to as "reform-minded"), while candidates who oppose Western economic and political interests are to be labeled enemies of reform....
6) Western observers of elections are always on hand to declare an election unfair and rigged if the favored candidates lose.
7) The corruption of pro-US candidates (like the March 14 bunch in Lebanon) is preferred to the corruption of, say, Mugabe.
8) The democratic credentials of dictators immediately improve if they change their policies toward the US and if they express willingness to serve US economic and political interests.
9) Countries where dictators do a good job in serving US economic and political interests need not hold elections.
10) If favored candidates can't guarantee electoral victory (like the Palestinian Authority's Abu Mazen, whose term has expired months ago), they don't need to hold elections and will be treated as if they won an election anyway.
11) It is just not logical to assume that people in developing countries can freely ever decide to make choices that are not consistent with political and economic interests of the US....
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
I give great credit to those brave Iranians who take to the streets to protest a stolen election. When ours was stolen in 2000 we rolled over and took it and look what it brought us.
As Tom Engelhardt has reported, we are unleashing and unmuzzling more hounds of death to have their way with Afghanistan and parts (?) of Pakistan. Obama has given cover, i.e. opaqueness, to any form of violence his new commander in the area sees fit. (No more need to capture and torture, just kill on the spot.) Nation building by body count.
Tom's rational view of our current military establishment, and its ready capacity for violence anytime/anywhere, for any reason (explain Somalia), might be aptly called "Goons Without Borders, GWB". where have I seen those initials before?
Now that that's taken care of we can turn our full attention back to Iran and wring our hands 24/7 over the dubious election. You would think that the "winning" candidate is proposing war on its neighbors or the US, but after five years of being the incumbent, the "winner" has done no such thing.
Maybe we should indicate to Iran models of egalitarian democracy that we wish it to emulate. Saudi Arabia and Egypt come to mind, since we embrace them so warmly, and emulation - in the democratic egalitarian sense - should be achievable in the near term.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/oslo-update.html
June 15, 2009
But have you noticed? Saudi propagandists are outraged about the Iranian election. Saudi propagandists insist that fair and free elections be held at once in Iran. Kid you not. Good night.
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
The ending of the video you posted from Italian TV is simply amazing. Demonstrators have taken a fallen riot police to the side and giving him water and attending to his wound.
These people need to be recognized and be awarded for their compassion.
And to Mr. AbuKhalil's excellent analysis, I would add the following . . .
12) When a party that is opposed to the Washington consensus wins an election, the U.S. foreign policy establishment will frequently use terrorist violence to overturn the result. (Nicaragua, 1980's; Lebanon and Palestine in the 2000's)
AJ Oliver
Emeritus, POLSCI
Heidelberg Univ., Ohio
I agree with the comment above. Co-sign.
In the midst of the violence and confusion, the frustration and fear, I saw footage of citizens escorting a dazed policeman away from harm. My heart goes to Iran today.
++++
Mr. AbuKhalil had a good analysis of events todate. I think what we are seeing in the streets of Tehran will change the maps of middle east forever.
The protest in Iran is much more about the process of election than the rigging of election. If candidates are not satisfied on the fairness of their election (as three out of 4 are not) then there are issues. People come to street in defense of their candidates right.
Sooner or Later the demonstrators will win and this will change the face of middle east.
No longer can Mubarak's of this world put their son in power with 99% vote. Without the Presidents for life or kings, a whole new middle east will emerge.
Exciting times!
Post a Comment
<< Home