A Forum on Human Rights and Democracy in Iran - Gozaar: The Green Movement’s Fringe Benefits: An Interview with Dr. Ali Reza Nourizadeh

The Green Movement’s Fringe Benefits: An Interview with Dr. Ali Reza
Nourizadeh
================================================================================
mostofib on 19/07/2010 16:00:00

Gozaar sat down to interview Iranian analyst Dr. Ali Reza Nourizadeh about the
Green Movement. Dr. Nourizadeh is a senior researcher and director at the Centre
for Arab and Iranian Studies.  He is also a correspondent for Deutsche Welle
(German Radio), a political commentator for the radio channel Voice of America,
and a senior writer for the Saudi Arabian Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.
It seems that journalists, both in Iran and abroad, have played a vital role in
the social campaign currently known as the Green Movement in Iran. How
influential have they been, in your opinion?
In the course of the elections, due to the lack of a free press that could tell
the other side of the story, blogs played a key role in disseminating
information. And perhaps for the first time in the history of the Islamic
Republic, the overseas media also played a major role: in addition to the two
dominant overseas broadcasters of television programming into Iran—that is,
Voice of America and BBC—other broadcasters were able to play a role to a
certain extent. But at the same time, blogs and online newspapers written by
Iranians inside the country gained much importance.
During President Ahmadinejad’s first four years in power, all of the overseas
press coverage of Iranian elections was overwhelmingly negative. Then suddenly,
as the Green Movement developed, those abroad who were 100 percent against the
regime said, “Well, we may not accept the Islamic Republic regime but we
believe in this movement.” As a result, this movement or wave became stronger
by the day. In my opinion, the Green Movement was very effective in bringing the
electorate to the polls, sustaining their interest and passion, and transforming
them into a force of opposition. That’s how the power of the media became
apparent. Despite all the money it expends on the dozens of television networks
(e.g., Jaam-e Jam), newspapers, and websites under its control, and despite the
problems such media caused for reformist or protesting websites, the regime
suddenly found itself confronting a force more powerful than itself. So even
with all the power and abilities and apparatuses at its disposal, the regime
was, even if only momentarily, silent when faced with a voice that the people
recognized as legitimate.
Starting almost from the first week after the announcement of the results of the
presidential elections in June 2009, the Islamic Republic regime has been
obsessed with destroying this movement. The regime has reckoned that, in the
end, it will somehow come to an arrangement with its domestic opponents, whether
by threatening them or by arresting them and that, inevitably, certain weak
elements will step out of the arena. But what is the regime to do with the
Persian-language media overseas? Every day, newspapers are published on the
internet and articles appear on various websites and blogs. And every day, there
are interviews and exchanges of views broadcast on overseas television stations.
This is something that the Islamic regime has only just recognized might hurt
it—and that point has simultaneously dawned on outsiders as well.
For over 30 years, I have held views directly opposed to those of the Islamic
regime and my tone has always been vitriolic. The only exception was during the
first four years of Khatami’s presidency, when I had some hope that change
could be effected from within. However, this faint hope faded during Khatami’s
second term as president. It has been a novel experience for me to see the
Islamic regime reach such a point of desperation that it compiles dossiers on
journalists abroad, forwards these to INTERPOL, and labels these people
terrorists! Apparently, the regime has now arrived at a juncture where it is
connecting the movement to forces or entities abroad because it is helpless
within its own borders. Gradually, some of the young journalists inside Iran
have left the country and joined the forces abroad. As a result, they grow
stronger with every passing day.
Do you think this has been a proud moment for journalism?
Excepting the several months preceding the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the
six months following it, as well as the first five or six months of Khatami’s
first term as president, this has been the only time that a close connection has
developed between ordinary citizens and journalists. People await their
children’s return at the end of the day so their children can print out
something from the internet and give to them to read. Or they wait with bated
breath to see what this or that television program has to say about the events
of the day. In Iran, there exists within the population a group of almost
professional viewers or listeners who have followed all the programs for years.
But there are also many people who had never followed the news, who simply
watched the television series produced by the regime’s media. However, in the
course of the elections and their aftermath, suddenly, something else started
happening: children began telling their parents, “Here, read this article.”
Gradually, a new connection formed between the press and the people. The Green
Movement created a new wave of hope, and people found that they could relate
more closely to the articles and interviews.
Also, a new wave of reporters began rendering assistance to journalists abroad
like me. These were young people who recorded videos with their cameras or
called on their mobiles and provided up-to-the minute reports. Gradually, a
certain set of networks were formed, though some members were arrested and thus
suppressed. But on the whole, I believe that this is another new development,
whereby inside Iran every person thinks that he or she is a reporter and must
relay the latest news to members of the media abroad.
I think the Green Movement may have been the only time at which journalists
within Iran who had a modicum of independence and the media abroad found
something in common. Do you agree?
Absolutely. Throughout the years, the regime’s efforts had been solely focused
on building barriers between Iran and what lies outside it. This means that the
opportunity costs or risk factors associated with communicating with groups
outside Iran became very high. In practical terms, this meant that, if a young
journalist in Iran wished to contact an experienced journalist like me, he or
she would have to seriously weigh the risks of the punishment that might befall
them if their email to me was tracked. Then, like a gigantic earthquake, the
Green Movement came about and shattered this wall. I met far more young
journalists during this period than ever before. A half hour before I was to go
on air, these young journalists would call or email me to give me news, even
though it was extremely dangerous for them to do so.
In my opinion, it is a very important point that the people in Iran began to
trust those outside the country. Prior to this, most Iranians overseas fell into
a few categories. There were those who did not comprehend what was happening in
Iran, who lived in a world of their own and expected to depose the regime
overnight—and from Los Angeles! For a short while, they found a following, but
today, such views and expectations have all but disappeared. Only about three or
four such individuals have remained; they emit weak moans but no one pays any
attention to them anymore. Then there used to be another group abroad whose
members were former leftists. Perhaps due to their long exile, they took every
little spark or bit of news extremely seriously and would follow and make a fuss
over it. And somewhere in the middle was a group that followed the news inside
Iran but did not get over-excited about every new development. Those in this
group were able to find common ground with many within Iran and, together, these
elements comprise a force which is dominant today.
Was there a negative point associated with this development as well?
An interesting thing happened. When journalists inside Iran joined forces with
us outside the country, some of them began acting as monitors, and attempted to
enforce the same mentality that was prevalent in Iran: that is, a mindset that
separated ‘insiders’ from ‘outsiders’. Their attitude could be
summarized as follows: reformists to one side and to hell with everyone else. It
did not matter much if these sides included or excluded important actors such as
Hassan Shari’atmadari or this or that activist.
I will provide you with an example. Professor Shoja’eddin Shafa passed away
not long ago. Regardless of whether we approve of him politically, he was a
noted cultural figure and educator who taught at least three or four
generations. Even if we take into consideration only his translations, the
totality and range of his contributions—from his translation of Dante’s
Divine Comedy all the way to the writings of André Gide—comprise a veritable
treasure trove. When Shafa died, certain reformists who claim to be supporters
of the Green Movement wrote of him that he had defamed or cast aspersions on the
reputations of others. This is a completely baseless and inappropriate charge.
This happened inside or outside Iran?
It happened overseas. This was regrettable. However, as can be observed, even
Musavi himself has a rather high tolerance for a wide range of viewpoints.
Recently, he said that the Green Movement must be such that there is room within
it for 70 million Iranians (the current population of Iran), including the
protesters.
The Islamic regime and Khamenei himself have repeatedly said that the entire
Green Movement is the handiwork of the overseas media and have even mentioned
certain names. In your opinion, do such charges have any basis in truth or are
they fundamentally related to the sort of conspiracy theories to which all
dictators resort?
At the time of Mr. Khatami’s tenure as Minister of Islamic Guidance, Khamenei
revealed a plan to combat cultural invasion by the West, which caused Khatami to
resign. Khatami had said that, in order for us not to fall prey to the cultural
propaganda of our enemies, we must open our windows to the outside world. But in
the beginning of the reform era (Khatami’s first term as president),
newspapers published in Iran rendered the work of the Persian-language media
abroad difficult: one either had to join in and harmonize with them, or else
people would pay no attention. But of course, this does not mean that the
overseas media caused the subsequent events; the overseas media were affected by
the events and reported on them, but that does not mean that what happened was
somehow their doing.
However, it is in Mr. Khamenei’s nature to believe such things. In nine out of
every 10 sentences he utters, Khamenei says the word “enemy.” It seems that
somehow he imagines that people would not have taken to the streets in Tehran if
it had not been for the provocations and machinations of Voice of America and
BBC. This is absolutely Mr. Khamenei’s own mistake.
As my last question, how popular or how intellectual do you think this movement
is?
In one sense, this movement is a popular one: if it were intellectual, its
slogans would have been different. Those who say, “Where’s my vote?” are
people who simply want to go on with their lives and do not seek a revolution.
Such people simply wish for their children to go to school and graduate from a
university—and many of them believed that, within the closed framework of the
Guardian Council, the regime would allow them to choose whoever they wanted.
At the same time, Musavi and his wife, Ms. Rahnavard—in my opinion, a person
worthy of consideration—were able to engage the electorate’s interest and
stir passions by allowing people to believe that they could actually participate
in the system by voting, and that such participation would be to their benefit.
Naturally, the majority of those who voted (that is, 22 or 23 million
individuals) for Musavi and Karubi were not intellectuals. The traditional
leftist elements are not involved in the Green Movement and, in effect, have
been left out of the equation—in fact, they have denounced the movement. Those
set on the absolute dissolution of the Islamic regime are not part of the
equation either and do not align themselves with the Green Movement.
However, the Green Movement is not a demagogical movement, meaning that the
people did not envision having Musavi as their leader. They consider and accept
Musavi with all his limitations and do not expect a revolution or a major
transformation of the current regime. However, by voting for him, they expect
him to form and put in place a peaceful government that would be accountable to
the people and permit freer elections. The majority of the people desire a
peaceful transformation that would not cause major disruptions or upsets.
In my opinion, a mutuality of belief and a connection have developed between, on
the one hand,  the intellectuals and original thinkers who (unlike our
generation) are not idealists, and, on the other, people whose level of
awareness and understanding has, fortunately, advanced. These two different
camps have connected with each other and, as a result, the Green Movement has
been born.