A sexual revolution -- women moving up in Iran

To continue the focus on women from the reading, I found this article posted on a non-profit news-source called Iran Focus**'s website.  The article itself is from the NY Times, but it details some basic developments from where the article left off.  Basically, the author presents an argument that a sexual revolution is imminent, because of the allowance for basic and advanced education for women.  The more that Iranian women are learning about and seeing in global culture the alternative to their situation, the more they are demanding equal legal rights.  In this article the debate doesn't seem to be centered on clothing, but rather on legal rights such as divorce.

Another article highlighted a case in which 8 women have been sentenced to death by stoning.  A lot of international attention has been focused on outlawing the practice of stoning to death those convicted of such crimes as adultery.  Amnesty International is a major player in this effort, where many Western nations have denounced this Iranian (Islamic) practice.

What is the role of the international community in such cases?  Is it another form of colonialism to enforce Western beliefs on an Islamic nation?  Although in this case it is considered a violation of human rights by most and thus widely denounced, how much can the international community interfere with/demand change in another country's practices?  Is wearing a veil violation of human rights?  Where do we draw the line on what we accept as tolerable practice of another culture?

**About Iran Focus

Iran Focus is a non-profit news service provider that focuses on events in Iran, Iraq and the Middle East. With a network of specialists and analysts of the region and correspondents and reporters in several countries, Iran Focus is able to provide fast and reliable news and analysis on the political, social and economic situation in the region.

Iranian Jews Refuse To Immigrate

Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel:

This guardian article explains that Israel's monetary incentive was not accepted by Iranian Jews as they refused the offer to be paid to move to Israel.

I found this incredibly interesting that Israel was offering money (up to 30,000 pounds for families) to try to get Persian Jews to move to Israel. This is an example of the extreme moves that are pulled by governments to make political statements by forcing migrations.

My immediate interpretation was that Israel's motives would be to get Iranian Jews to leave Iran as a testament against Iran's extremely anti-Israeli government. But, I am now wondering if the refusal of this offer from the Persian Jewish community reflects that this anti-Israeli (or not anti, but not pro) sentiment is taken in by the Persian jews, or if they are just refusing to give up their land and national identity. Any thoughts?

Runaway Girls

To tie our theme of movement/immigration to this week's reading, which traced the history women's rights from the late 19th century to today, I found some interesting news pieces about the incidence of runaway girls in Iran. Most of the articles I found were written in 2000/2001, but it is not unreasonable to think that this issue persists today. This BBC article cites that authorities find and take in 30 runaway girls every day, a figure that may only represent a small fraction of all runaway cases. For many of these girls, the only option once they've fled home is prostitution.

The BBC article mentions the Reyhaneh House, a women's shelter that houses girls who have run away from difficult family situations. It turns out that a documentary called Runaway was made in 2001 profiling the Reyhaneh center.

Obviously runaway children are not a phenomenon limited to Iran alone. However, I did think that the BBC article and the film synopsis framed the runaway problem in the context of Iran's traditional roles/rights for women. The reading for this week talked about Iranian women "fighting back" against regressive policies that have eroded their social and political rights -- is running away a way of fighting back, a last resort indicative of a deep-rooted repression of women, or something else?

Afghan Refugees in Iran

I thought this story was an interesting parallel to last week’s post as it discusses Iran’s reaction to Afghan refugees within its borders. It’s called Times get tougher for Afghan immigrants in Iran and it comes from Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders). I chose this perspective because the most I could find about Iranians actually migrating was centered around the Islamic Revolution in the late 70s. Last week we discussed the dire situations refugees were living in once they returned, forcibly or not, to Afghanistan. This article describes another difficult situation as Iran is beginning to forcibly return more and more Afghanis. The issue arises in that as the national migration laws have become stricter i.e. legal migrants need to renew documentation; Afghans fall into illegality and then can be forced back to Afghanistan.
Besides the difficulty of the situation in Iran, balancing national sovereign issues and a destitute population, the article also speaks once again to the overall lack of international aid. I was shocked by this: “While Iranian authorities claim to spend 6 US$ a day for every Afghan refugee, United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) spends the same amount in one year.”
I think this article is an important link between the refugees we see and realizing the lengths that they have gone to escape Afghanistan, only to overwhelm Iran, and eventually get sent back. It’s an even more complicated issue than one of lack of international funding because the massive number of immigrants has begun to affect Iran.
Here’s another more recent article about the forced removal of Afghan immigrants (Iran Expels Afghan Refugees). If these migrants are truly refugees, as in they applied and received status under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees/1967 Protocol, how can they be removed? I was under the impression that refugee status meant permanency and that there was a legitimate life-threatening concern in one’s home country that required international protection. If these Afghan immigrants are refugees (in the legal sense) is Iran acting illegally? If so, can anything be done? Or, is this just an example of a nation exercising its sovereign rights and demonstrating the weaknesses of international accords?

Iranian relations

I found this article, http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/22/alieza_iran_un/, by a foreign anylast discussing what the implications of further mismanagment of Iran could lead to. The anylast felt the Bush administration had done a horrible job with Relations of Iran and that it was up to Obama's administration to take a different route for relations. Clinton in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2sL_zITWJc, states that this change of policy is also needed, and that the administration is willing to speak with Iran about detering nuclear weapons and sanctions.
The journalist feels that some of the solution to the problem of nuclearization with Iran has to do with working with the people rather then just the leaders. He states there has been thousands of protests within Iran against the Islamic republic, and their is evidence of how upset the people are. It's also evident that the people of IRan are capable of making their concerns known and doing something about it, hence the revolution of 79, but it is difficult to see how the United States could aid this change. How can the oppresion of people by Religious Law be changed? How can the people of Iran bring about change in their country? If the United States changes its diplomacy efforts with Iran, in what ways could this bring about change for not just Iranian U.S. Relations but also regional relations, relations to the Islamic revivalist movenments among people in other countries, and also Israeli relations? Sorry this is a little off topic....

Overall Refugee Picture

In reading all these articles I found many interesting, but also feel like we've jumped all over the place and so I found myself searching for an overview perspective on the refugee situation. So I searched on the human rights pages and found that Amnesty International is not present in Afghanistan and Human Rights watch is reporting on the huge blunder to women's rights that Brennan posted on.

On the UNHCR (UN Human Rights Council) website I found this article: UNHCR and Pakistan government sign Letter of Mutual Intent. A letter was signed last March indicating future cooperation between Pakistan and UNHCR with regards to the massive amounts of Afghan refugees whos situations have changed since the Taliban has fallen. Pakistan agreed to continue to support the dwelling of Afghan refugees as UNHCR funds

There are as many as 1.7 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan now and over 4.4 million have returned to their home country since the support program began in 2002. It seems to me the the UNHCR's presence in this situation is huge. This is hopeful since most of what I have found of the international communities influence on the refugee situations has not been as influential.

Form of Rape Legalised in Afghanistan

President Karzai recently made the rape of Shi'ite women by their husbands legal. Here is a news source-http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/04/20/legalized_rape_in_afghanistan/

I know we are supposed to talk about movement of people - how is our cultural influence by American presence be also an influence on this issue? As occupiers, how do we deal with issues like this where we strongly oppose the politics? To me this issue highlights the clash of cultures especially when one is a dominant force and presence. USA has been fighting for Afghani women's rights especially for the schooling of women. What should be done in this situation? Is it fair that we are imposing our cultural norms on Afghanis when our reasoning isn't the same as the explanation for our presence??