Inside the walls of a coastal town in Morocco, several women crouch at the roadside selling bunches of herbs. One of the women catches my eye. She is nursing a baby but looks at least 60 years old. I try to see her as a woman with whom I share substantive experience. I have no children; I am not poor. As a lesbian, I do not require access to safe contraception. I do not need to worry about my rights as a married woman. Yet there is one thing that all women share – something that shapes our lives and partly determines the way we live and the choices we make – that is, the threat and reality of sexual violence.

It is this commonality that is taking me to the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations headquarters in New York this month. In the past 15 years, the women’s movement has become truly global, a development kick-started in an unlikely place: Beijing. In 1995, 23,500 women and 5,000 government representatives of 189 counties gathered in the Chinese capital for the UN Conference on Women and formulated a Global Platform for Action (PfA), through which governments should address gender inequality, including measures to end violence against women. The PfA remains the most wide-reaching international commitment to women’s equality. At this year’s catch-up conference in New York, many of the delegates will be asking how far we have come and what still needs to be done.

As I write, women and girls all over the world are being beaten by their husbands, raped, burned and mutilated in the name of “tradition”, forced into marriage, sold into prostitution and murdered for transgressing a twisted code of “honour”. Violence against women is an international epidemic. It has been identified by the World Health Organisation as a grave health issue, affecting more people than HIV and Aids.

Globally, at least one-third of all women and girls will be beaten or sexually abused once or more throughout their lives. In Kenya, 70 per cent of those asked by the Women’s Rights Awareness Programme admitted they knew neighbours who beat their wives, and almost 60 per cent said that the women were to blame. The news is not much better in the UK. A recent survey on Londoners’ attitudes to rape found that almost half think that rape victims are at least partly to blame.

The poorer the woman, the more vulnerable she is to exploit ation and sexual violence. If a woman has to fight for clean water, she may be pressured to swap this for sexual favours. If there is no work in her town or village, she could be targeted by traffickers promising her a better life overseas.

Under attack

In most countries, women have won the right to vote only within the past 50 years. There is still nowhere in the world where women have access to political or social power equal to that of men. I spoke to Rachel Carter, head of policy and advocacy at the UK-based NGO Womankind Worldwide. She believes that the main achievements of the Beijing conference have been the formation of a vibrant international movement and the development of legislation against violence towards women in countries that had no prior public awareness of the issue.

“However, the massive gap left to be plugged is implementation,” Carter says. “There is a tendency for some governments to see their country strategies, legislation and policies as an end rather than a means to an end.”

Do we need to create a new formal agreement, as we did in Beijing? “I would be reluctant because, if anything, in today’s climate, I think we would go backwards. Climate change and the rise of fundamentalism have made it worse for women. Women’s rights are being eroded. Women’s freedom was used as an excuse for the invasion of Afghanistan, but now women’s rights are being traded out and it is worse in some ways for them.”

Baroness Gould is chair of the Women’s National Commission, which provides a link between the UK government delegation to the conference and NGOs. She is similarly cautious: “If we had another Beijing, we might go backwards in terms of reproductive health, in particular abortion and contraception. There are very few countries in Africa where abortion is legal.”

There is evidence to back up Carter and Gould. Zimbabwe has long had a vibrant women’s movement, but women have borne the brunt of the recent turmoil there, and growing numbers of cases of both sexual and domestic violence are being reported. In countries experiencing conflict, or which have recently done so, violence towards women tends to have increased.

During the Beijing conference, representatives of uncompromising Catholic and Muslim countries refused to sign in support of women’s rights to abortion and contraception, or a right to sexual self-determination, and yet these are the very issues that lie at the root of women’s vulnerability to domestic and sexual violence. “If a woman lives in a country where rape in marriage is not a crime, and domestic violence is viewed as perfectly acceptable, how can she ever leave?”asks Hilary McCollum, a UK-based anti-rape activist. “And if there is no option for a woman not to marry, how is she ever going to be free from the control of men?”

South Africa is one country that is suffering from a surge in sexual violence, even though it has one of the best constitutional and legal frameworks in the world for human rights, including violence against women. After the end of apartheid in the early 1990s, and during its transition towards democracy, South Africa experienced a rapid increase in reported rapes. South African rape statistics are now among the highest in the world. In 1997, the Human Sciences Research Council released a report claiming that child rape in South Africa had reached “epidemic proportions”. One-third of reported rapes between January and September 2001 were of children between zero and 11 years of age.

According to rape crisis groups in the country, many of the rapes committed are akin to those experienced during the anti-apartheid struggle, with victims suffering extreme violence, often by multiple perpetrators. “While the history of apartheid and conflict must play a role in this,” Carter says, “I think we must go back again to the root causes of power imbalances between genders, patriarchy, and women’s bodies being used as both personal and political territory upon which wars are played out.” It has been recognised since the 1992-95 Bosnian conflict that rape is a tool of war. During the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, for example, up to half a million women were raped by combatants.

Women in rich countries are also vulnerable to pimps, rapists and wife-beaters. Dowry deaths, honour killings and female genital mutilation all happen in the UK. Girls are taken to Harley Street clinics by their Somali-born parents to be mutilated in the name of culture. Pakistani families send girls “home” to marry a cousin they have never met, often before puberty. Women born into Turkish families can be killed by their male relatives for daring to love an unsuitable man.

Heroine Harman

Honour crimes also happen to women of British descent. Wives who dishonour their husbands by leaving them or being unfaithful often die for stepping out of line. The Deputy Prime Minister, Harriet Harman, much derided for her outspoken feminism, has fought hard to prevent men from pleading provocation in such cases, a defence that can be traced back to the Middle Ages.

But the global women’s movement is making a difference. A recent Unicef report found that female genital mutilation in one region of Ethiopia had fallen from 100 per cent to 3 per cent, largely as a result of innovative public education programmes run by Kembatti Mentti Gezzima-Tope, a women’s self-help centre in the township of Durame. Meanwhile, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth, Minnesota, has saved the lives of countless women and been replicated around the world. By developing a multi-agency approach that involves the courts, prosecutors, probation and refuge workers, it has brought about a sharp fall in the number of women killed as a result of domestic violence.

“In the UK, we have made enormous progress in terms of sexual violence,” Gould says. But we live in difficult times. For Carter, relying on what she calls “paper rights”, such as those outlined in the PfA, will not translate into women’s lives being saved or sexual violence being eliminated. We need concerted action, she says, and her hope is that the conference at the UN this month will inspire just that. “We need to be able to tell men what they will gain if they give up power, which will be no easy task.

“Right now we don’t have enough mechanisms to hold governments to account, despite the PfA. Fifteen years after Beijing, and we are struggling to hold up the damn walls.”

Julie Bindel is co-founder of Justice for Women

Source: NewStatesman

US technology firms will now be allowed to export online services such as instant messaging and social networks.

Companies had not offered such services for fear of violating sanctions.

Opposition supporters in Iran used social networking sites and services to organise protests after the country’s disputed presidential poll last year.

The US Treasury said exports would be allowed of services related to web browsing, blogging, e-mail, instant messaging, chat, social networking and photo- and movie-sharing.

Low impact?

The move was intended to “ensure that individuals in these countries can exercise their universal right to free speech and information to the greatest extent possible”, it said.

“As recent events in Iran have shown, personal internet-based communications like e-mail, instant messaging and social networking are powerful tools,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said.

The department has allowed the export of services to all three countries, and the export of communications software only to Iran and Sudan, as the export of software to Cuba is governed by the commerce department.

Last year, software giant Microsoft barred users in five countries, including Iran, Cuba and Sudan, from using instant messaging services. People trying to use the service received an error message.

It is not clear whether the governments affected will be able impose their own restrictions on these services.

In Cuba, the numbers of internet users is still very low, so lifting sanctions may not have a major impact, observers say.

Earlier this year, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would be supporting the development of new tools to enable citizens to circumvent politically-motivated censorship.

Any country which restricted free access to information risked “walling themselves off from the progress of the next century”, she added.

Source: BBC

Former Iranian President Abu-I-Hasan Banisadr (left) met the Global-Editor-in-Chief of the World Security Network Foundation BrigGen (ret) Dieter Farwick to discuss the situation in Iran:“The Iranian people do not want this regime: a dark dictatorship.”

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr was the first President of Iran after the revolution in 1979. He was elected with 75 percent of the vote in the Iranian parliament. When he lived in Paris he joined the Iranian opposition in exile led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, who came in 1978 to Paris. In 1979 Abu I-Hasan Banisadr went back to Iran with Ayatollah Khomeni, part of the “inner circle”. After the revolution in 1979 he was appointed President based upon the Parliament’s vote. He was President from January 25^th 1980, until June 21^st 1980, after which he was removed from office following dubious criticism of his performance during the Iran-Iraq war. He fled from Iran to Paris where he has been living since. He is still a leading political figure among Iranians living outside Iran. The Global-Editor-in-Chief of the World Security Network Foundation BrigGen (ret) Dieter Farwick had the opportunity to interview the former Iranian President on the problematic development after the revolution, on the fragile present and on the foggy future of Iran.

Dieter Farwick: Let us look back at your time as the first elected President of Iran after the Revolution. At the start of your time in office, what were your and Ayatollah Khomeini’s visions of Iran’s future?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: The vision of the Iranian people was a new future that followed the aims of the revolution, as expressed in the popular chants and slogans of the time. The revolution was an expression of freedom. It was based on independence and self determination for Iran; liberty; development founded on social justice; and Islam as both a discourse of freedom and a spiritual link for the people. These were the publicly expressed aims of the revolution. However, once in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini opted for power over the unambiguous goals of the revolution. He and I therefore stood at odds with one another. As a presidential candidate during the election, I articulated the Revolution’s objectives as my platform and manifesto, including programmes to achieve them. The Iranian people voted, by a majority of 76%, in favour of my manifesto and to the extent that we were able to implement our agenda, it was successful. However, Ayatollah Khomeini and his people committed a coup against the elected president and the future turned into the dark dictatorship that we are facing today.

Dieter Farwick: Thirty years after the Revolution, Iran’s government is in serious religious and political difficulties. Millions of protesters are questioning the legitimacy of the government. What went wrong in the past 30 years?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: The aims thirty-one years ago were to rebuild Iranian society free from the dictatorial system of the past. However, thus far it has not been possible to completely destroy the traditional dictatorial elements within Iranian society. Historical power structures in Iran have traditionally had several bases: the monarchy, the clergy, feudal land owners in villages, and the owners of the bazaar economy in the cities. In addition, there were relationships with dominant foreign powers. The Shah’s regime destroyed the power of the economic base. It also clashed with the clergy. The revolution ended the monarchy, so the clergy is the remaining basis of dictatorship in Iran. You are aware that non-democratic regimes based on anything other than the sovereignty of the people have always been overthrown. The fall of the Soviet Union and the dictatorships of Latin America are clear examples of such regimes. The following changes have materialised over the last 31 years in Iran: first, at present a large body of clergy has dissociated itself from the current regime. Consequently, the regime has lost its religious authority. Hence, the clergy power base on which it stands is half-broken. This is the most important element of change that has transpired in the last 31 years. Second, as a result of the economy’s dependence on oil revenue and imports the regime has created an employment vacuum. Third, in political terms the regime does not allow any room for manoeuvre. It goes so far as to stop the nation from voting freely in an election where the nominees were preapproved by the regime itself. Fourth, from a sociological point of view, there is no respect for the rights of women and the human rights of both men and women are nonexistent. Creation of any social groups, such as trade unions, is outlawed. Fifth, the regime has created a closed cultural environment that is not conducive to creativity and growth. Everything mentioned above has created a society with many young people and high unemployment. This society has risen up and is now a driving force for change. Its objective is to free itself by removing this regime. These transformations have taken place in Iranian society over the past 31 years.

Dieter Farwick: Observers find it difficult to picture the real Iran from the outside, but you have better information about current events. What is your assessment of the situation? Will the regime succeed in oppressing the opposition in such a way that protests lose their importance and dynamics? Or will the opposition remain powerful enough to bring about the necessary changes in the system? Will future developments be independent of the leadership of Mousavi and Karroubi, or will this protest movement emancipate itself with the help of modern technologies?

“The Iranian people need to struggle towards freeing themselves from this regime and creating a democratic Iran”

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr:The movement started two to three weeks before the June election and it has continued for over 8 months. Over that time the regime has unsuccessfully tried to put an end to the movement. For the anniversary of the revolution, the opposition (Messrs Karroubi, Khatami, and Mousavi) invited people to attend the demonstrations at Freedom square in Tehran. The regime, for their part, had planned to present the crowds as supporters of Mr. Khamenei andVelayat-e Faqih (supreme leader). However the wisdom of the Iranian people prevailed and most did not attend. Those who did, on noticing the armed police, left the venue, leaving the square almost empty for Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech. Evidence for this can be seen in aerial pictures taken by Google, estimating 50,000 people in the square. This is despite the large numbers who had been bussed in from other cities. Further evidence is the film taken showing people busy with their picnics and children playing football. Apparently, no one was paying much attention to the presidential speech. This informs us that the Iranian people do not want this regime and no one is prepared to listen to the president, including those in attendance. The regime is unable to stop this movement. However, it is within the power of the opposition leaders to bring an end to the movement. If the opposition continues the strategy of trying to progress within the structures of the regime they will bring the movement to a halt. On the other hand if they work outside the constraints of the regime looking to make real change, i.e. looking to establish a government chosen by the people, the movement will continue. My opinion regarding Mr. Karroubi and Mr. Mousavi is that if they stay within the system then people will continue the struggle and leave them behind. However, if they decide to move forward with the people, they will succeed.

Dieter Farwick: Should a peaceful transition within the system be impossible, do you think that a danger remains that the oppressed and disappointed population might attempt regime change by violent means, considering the dramatically deteriorating economic and social situation? How probable is this?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: So far, the people have not gone down the path of violence, despite the fact that the regime is pushing them in that direction by its actions. We are against violence. A strategy of violence can be adopted by an organized political group. However, not every citizen can participate in a movement that is violent. An aggressive movement by its very nature cannot be inclusive of all people. If several armed organizations take over the movement, there would be a real possibility of Iran following the path of Iraq and Afghanistan. The only certain means of success is the method chosen by the people: a nonviolent movement. It is vital for Iran’s future and for establishing democracy that we (the Iranian people) learn to build political relationships with each other and express our differences through dialogue rather than guns.

Dieter Farwick: The vast majority of people in the ‘Free World’ desire a regime change in Iran and the departure of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who has alarmed the world and especially Israel with his aggressive diatribes on Israel and the Holocaust. How should the Western world behave in the current situation? Should it try to influence him, and in which direction? Are sharper sanctions the right way to accelerate the fall of this regime?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: We would also like the regime to be replaced by a democratic system. However, the position of the west with regards to the current regime is not clear. General Petraeus current commander, US Central Command, has stated that “President Ahmadinejad and the Irani (Iranian) leaders continue to be the best recruiters for Central Command as we embark on our partnership plans. They’ve caused enormous worry and concern by those on the western side of the Gulf “. Firstly, the west needs to clarify its position regarding the regime, so the Iranians are clear about the West’s stance. From my point of view, the West wants the current regime in place. At best, the West is looking for minor changes to the system which best serve their interests in the region. However, we want a democratic change to establish national rights for Iranians. From my perspective the west needs to be unambiguous about its wants and wishes so that the Iranian people are reassured that it is not looking for an Iranian regime dominated by foreign powers. In addition I propose that the West takes an approach of Active Neutrality. This means that it should act in a manner that would harm the regime without harming the Iranian people without direct interference.

Dieter Farwick: Who are the persons or groups that you would trust to lead Iran out of its isolation and who would be able to re-establish the reputation of Iran as a great nation with strong historical tradition and culture? Do you think that successful Persians living abroad would agree to return to their homeland to take part in the reconstruction of their country? What part would you play in this process?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: This answer to this question is for the Iranian people and not for individual figures or groups. The Iranian people need to struggle towards freeing themselves from this regime and creating a democratic Iran. They need to create a culture of development. The political groups will only have meaning within the context of serving the wants and wishes of, and governing, the Iranian people. Established individual figures should not play a role above and beyond the desires of Iranian people. There is a big group outside of Iran who has struggled against the regime of the Shah and today resists the current regime. I have no doubt these people are ready to go back to Iran, and take part in a democratic society and an enlightened culture. As for me, during the period of transfer between the current regime and democratic regime I will be happy to serve the people in whatever capacity they ask of me. However after a democratic system is established and the new government is about to get elected, I am not looking for any position in office, elected or designated. I will continue to serve my people in my country by other means.

Dieter Farwick: Iran’s nuclear programme is a special issue. There are many signs that this regime is trying to use the civilian nuclear energy programme to build nuclear weapons. What is your position on these allegations? How does the Iranian population regard the civilian nuclear programme and a possible military nuclear programme?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (left), Supreme religious leader, and President Ahmadinejad: “The regime is unable to stop this movement.”

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr:Clearly the Iranian regime has a nuclear programme and I would be lying if I said that the regime has no intention to create nuclear weapons. From my perspective, the regime has this intention. If not, why would Mr. Ahmadinejad and the head of the Iranian Atomic Agency announce that they have the capacity to enrich uranium not only to 80% but also to 100%, adding that they have no interest in pursuing this. The technology is either being used for fuel, in which case it would not have the capacity to enrich uranium to weapons grade, or it is sophisticated enough for weapons grade enrichment. In this case one cannot pretend that it is not for that purpose. It is clear that at the very least they are interested in acquiring the technology. Therefore, from my point of view the world is correct to be suspicious of the regime’s intentions.

Fourty percent of Iran’s petrol supplies are imported. Yet there is 33% to 40% fuel leakage from old pipelines. This means that if the old pipe lines were repaired or replaced there would be no need for the imports. The people find the regime’s proposals for nuclear energy comical. Iran has access to oil, gas, wind, sun, and water. The regime seems to have forgotten about all those other sources of energy, insisting on creating a nuclear power station. The people ask themselves therefore: what is the purpose of spending all this money on something that would be very expensive to use and would not be affordable by the poverty-stricken Iranian public? They would have to wonder whether the aim was energy supply or something else. It is possible that some Iranian people, on the basis of nationalistic pride, want nuclear weapons given that neighbouring Israel has access to them. However, in a free environment it would be clear to people that it is not desirable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nor is it advantageous to dismiss all Iran’s available sources of energy and aim for nuclear technology.

Dieter Farwick: How would a different civil government in Teheran deal with the nuclear issue? Would it start negotiations with the ‘Free World’? Would it accept complete, even ad hoc, inspection and monitoring of the civilian nuclear programme? Would it officially reject any nuclear programme?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: It is clear this regime is looking to create external turmoil, especially given the current internal movement. Why would it give up the nuclear turbulence? Are they crazy? They are relying on heavy external pressure to stop the pro-democracy movement of the Iranian people. They are depending on the patriotic character of the Iranians. They are assuming that the people would concentrate their efforts on defending Iran’s national territory first given the external dangers, and opt to deal with internal issues at a later stage. It is not on an arbitrary whim that Mr. Ahmadinejad agreed with the American and Russian proposal presented by head of IAEA Mr. El Baradei in Vienna, and then on his arrival in Tehran opposed the proposals. Again, a few days before the anniversary of the revolution he suggested that they were prepared to negotiate. He went as far saying that they were not troubled by the prospect of not receiving 20% enriched uranium. Shortly after that however, on the day before the anniversary, the head of Iranian Atomic Agency, Mr. Salehi, announced that the enrichment of uranium to 20% should be started. At present, unlike Mr. Bush’s time in power, the west does not have the inclination to create turmoil, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has to create one all on his own. So the answer to the question is that he will not give up on creating external turbulence. My hope is that the Iranian people will continue with the pro-democracy movement. We will then have a democracy and will resolve the nuclear issue like any other. If the movement does not succeed, the Americans have no short term intention to bomb the nuclear plants and have opted for placing missiles around Iran. They have chosen a posture of containment rather than one of attack. On the economic front, unemployment is high and poverty rife. The regime admits that 50 million Iranians are in need of state financial assistance. They have created a destitute nation. Economic sanctions will cripple the society completely. I propose that the West takes an approach of ‘Active Neutrality’. This means that it should act in a manner that would harm the regime but without harming the Iranian people. As an example, western governments should stop their banks from dealing with a regime that is taking the country’s money. They can stop western traders and arms companies from selling the weapons used against the Iranian people. All the arms sold are used on the Iranian people. They west should freeze the foreign assets of the top ranking officials. The assets should be claimed on behalf of the Iranian people. This should be done in conjunction with freezing the assets of the Shah’s regime that were stolen from Iran and are still being used outside of Iran. All these assets will be the property of the Iranian people when a democratic system of governance is established. The West can put pressure on the regime on issues of human rights, and act decisively. Currently, the human rights issues are not taken seriously by the West. People are killed in the streets; in Kahrizak prison they have raped, burned and buried people. If this is not crime against humanity, what is? The West can ask the IPCC to try the top ranking officials in the international criminal courts. All of this will be much more effective than economic sanctions. The actions taken against the Sudanese regime can be taken against the Iranian regime. They can even go as far as banning the exports to Iran of luxury items, affordable only by the regime’s elite, to make life difficult for them. This will create difficulties for the regime and will give the Iranian people the space to struggle for a free Iran.

Dieter Farwick: The student movement that took to the streets of Teheran is carried now by a generation that has only known the Islamic Republic. Who are their political icons? To whom do they relate politically? What advice would you give to them?

“The young lady Neda – killed during a peaceful demonstration – has become the icon of the non-violent resistance”

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr:The Iranian nation has a vision of liberty that it carries from the 1979 revolution. I explained this vision in your first question. The chants and slogans are clear and precise. They are saying “No” to the Velayat-e Faqih (supreme leader), “yes” to democracy, freedom and independence. They are also saying no to violence. However, in my opinion the movement is not yet completely nonviolent: the chants of “death to…” still remain. Clearly, chants of this nature encourage violence. One cannot pretend that “death to Khamenei” does not promote violence. However, given the strength of the suppression imposed by the regime, the youth of Iran has not reacted violently en masse. The instances of violence in the movement are isolated and not general. Therefore, the Iranian people are clear about the aims and objectives of the movement. They are also unambiguous about the methods they have adopted to take the movement forward. This is in particular true of the youth. However, there remains a dilemma: the people are trapped between what they think is possible and that which is desirable. They are assuming that it is possible to make changes within the current system which would result in some of their rights being respected. At least a section of the society assumes this possible. However, what they see as desirable is the replacement of this regime by a democratic government. A segment of the society does not see this wish as possible. Thus you see differences between the slogans chanted. Some say no to Velayat-e Faqih, yes to democracy, independence and liberty, and some chants are within the constraints of the regime. This shows that differences exist within the movement. However, as they progress the messages and aims will become more transparent, and the alternatives needed for the change to take place become more precise. Currently, there are many influential people in the minds of the Iranian people, some of whom are inside the regime, some outside. It was very much the same at the time of the 1979 revolution. Nevertheless, as the revolution advanced, the alternatives became clear for people. The detail of the competing visions crystallised and it became apparent how the positions of leaders and political groups related to these alternatives.

Source: World Security Network

By Simon Webb and Luke Pachymuthu

DUBAI/SINGAPORE, March 8 (Reuters) – Oil trading firms Trafigura and Vitol are stopping gasoline sales to Iran, industry sources said on Monday, joining a growing list of suppliers that have halted sales under threat of U.S. sanctions.

U.S. politicians are working on legislation to slap sanctions on suppliers of fuel to Iran to increase pressure on the Islamic Republic to halt uranium enrichment. Western powers accuse Tehran of using its atomic programme to develop weapons, while Iran says it needs nuclear electricity.

“The field of suppliers is narrowing, and Iran is getting squeezed,” a Middle East oil trader said.

The Financial Times reported on Monday that Trafigura and its rival Vitol had halted supply to Iran. Privately-owned Trafigura has its main offices in Amsterdam [ID.nLK595640]. Independent oil trader Vitol is based in Switzerland.

Vitol decided to stop participating in new tenders to supply Iran at the start of the year, the company said in a statement e-mailed to Reuters. It was completing existing spot supply deals that were made before the start of the year, it added.

Trafigura executives were unavailable for comment on whether they had made a similar decision to Vitol to honour existing supply deals.

Trafigura and Vitol will join international oil major BP (BP.L), Glencore and Reliance Industries (RELI.BO) among suppliers that have stopped selling fuel to Iran. The U.S. legislation would penalise firms that also have operations in the United States.

DELIVERIES

Shipping data obtained by Reuters showed that Vitol was unloading gasoline from the vessel NS Parade at Iran’s port of Bandar Mahshahr on Monday. The ship was carrying 34,000 tonnes, or just under 300,000 barrels, of motor fuel.

The shipment was part of “previous tenders or agreements that were concluded prior to a change of direction”, the company said. “We decided not to take part in tenders at the start of the year.”

Shipping data also showed vessels chartered by Trafigura discharging cargoes in Iran in February.

Analysts say Iran would always find traders to sell it fuel even if larger, established oil firms and trading houses stop sales. Still, the smaller list of suppliers means Tehran would have to pay higher prices for the fuel, analysts and traders say.

France’s Total (TOTF.PA), Malaysia’s state oil firm Petronas [PETR.UL] and Kuwait’s Independent Petroleum Group are among firms that continue to supply Iran, traders said.

A Total spokesman declined to comment on Monday as to whether the company may take a similar decision to Vitol and Trafigura. The volumes Total supplies were small, he added.

Iran is the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter but lacks sufficient refinery capacity to meet domestic gasoline needs, forcing it to import up to 40 percent of requirements.

The country spends billions of dollars each year covering its shortfall through purchases on the international market and then subsidising the gasoline at the pump. Its motor fuel is among the world’s cheapest.

The Islamic Republic has taken measures to restrict consumption and has rationed the fuel. The government plans to begin phasing out subsidies this year, part of a wider move to save up to $100 billion annually from subsidies on fuel, gas, power, water, food, health and education.

Iran also tested last year emergency measures to produce gasoline from petrochemical plants. Iran’s oil minister said at the time the move showed the potential limitation of any sanctions on fuel suppliers to Iran.

Analysts said the measures could only serve as a short-term solution to lack of supplies due to the high cost of production from petrochemical plants and the impurity of the fuel produced.

Iran’s purchases of gasoline from abroad for February were about 23 percent higher than the 2009 average, at more than 150,000 bpd, Reuters data showed. [ID:nLDE60U015]

“The companies don’t feel it is worth it to carry on fuel trading with anymore,” said IHS Global Insight Middle East Energy analyst Samuel Ciszuk.

“Political pressure from the United States and its European allies are starting to make an impact and deter fuel trading with Iran.” (Additional reporting by Jonathan Saul in London, Muriel Boselli in Paris and Alejandro Barbajosa in Singapore; Editing by Sue Thomas and Keiron Henderson)

Source: REUTERS

Simin Behbahani, 82, said she was about to fly to France when her passport was confiscated at Tehran airport.

The human rights activist has written poems in support of the opposition campaign against disputed elections in June last year.

Last week Iran detained international award winning film director Jafar Panahi and members of his family.

“The moment I was due to get on the plane, a man came and took my passport away from me and said that I was banned from going abroad,” she told the BBC’s Persian service.

They questioned her for hours asking questions and then ordered her to appear before a court, she said.

She was on her way to Paris to present a paper on feminism and read a poem at conference.

Election challenge

Mrs Behbahani is close to the Nobel Peace Prize winning human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, who has been living in exile since elections in June.

Supporters of reformist figures Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi say that the elections in June were rigged in favour of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian protest movement has developed into the biggest challenge to the government since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Thousands of people have been arrested and dozens killed.

Opposition supporters have faced increasing pressure from the authorities, with some hardliners labelling them as “mohareb” – enemies of God who can be sentenced to death under Iran’s Sharia law.

At least nine have so far been sentenced to death and two people have reportedly been hung.

Source: BBC

According to Iran Green Voice, Monireh Rabiee, who is currently detained, remains in high spirit but is unaware of her sentence and the  decision for its enforcement.

Monireh Rabiei, a chemical engineer, was arrested for unknown reasons after being summoned to the Revolutionary Court.

Source: RAHANA

by Setareh Sabety

To mark international women’s day I decided I should write about three Iranian women whom I came to know well when living in Iran just before Ahmadinejad’s first term. The three of them worked for me as housekeepers/babysitters and my knowledge of their lives is limited to our employer/employee relationship and class differences. But we spent a lot of time together and often our talks and interactions were more intimate than those I had with women I knew socially. For whatever it is worth I thought that I should expose the lives of three very ordinary Iranian women from different backgrounds and different sensibilities. This is for them.

Shahin khanoom was a portly and feisty woman in her forties who loved to eat and talk. She lived in Karaj with her husband and two children. Her husband who used to be employed in a factory was now too old and sick to work. Shahin khanoom was a good cook and experienced housekeeper. She was literate and looked forward to her Koran classes. She wore a black chador which was always dirty, was an active member of her mosque and was devoted to the Mahdi whom she swore to every other sentence. Shahin khanoom was not overly devout, at least around us, never really proselytizing and more concerned about making a living than the nuances of Shiite Islam. She was very friendly and managed to charm any guest in our house into giving her a good tip. Shahin khanoom knew everyone in our neighborhood of high rise apartments and was the one everyone came to when looking for help. She found jobs for many of her friends and relatives. She feigned love for my children the way only Iranian nannies do with shameless conspicuousness that may be partially fake but is comforting nonetheless.

Shahin khanoom came to me in tears one day. Her daughter had just finished her high school and was taking English and a computer literacy course. She had found a good suitor, a rich boy from the neighborhood but did not have enough money for a dowry and could not possibly agree to the match for fear of losing face that the lack of a proper dowry would surely cause. So, I set out to collect money from friends and family to add to my own contribution and gave it to her. She told me she would buy a fridge and other household musts for her beloved daughter. I told her I would love to attend the ceremony. She promised to invite us all, to the delight of my own eight year old daughter.

When several weeks passed, I asked Shahin khanoom about her daughter’s wedding plans and was told that the suitor had reneged. I was very upset for the poor girl and assured Shahin khanoom that another prospective husbabd would soon surface. A few days later her daughter came to pick her up and I ran into her in the lobby and noticed that she had had a nose job! I soon realized that the dowry money was really meant to be used for a nose job. I was going to bring it up to let her know that I had discovered her lie but decided not to when the next day Shahin khanoom came to me crying. Her husband had become angry when she, coming home from work, had cooked a dish that he hated and her son loved. He had thrown the dish at her and hit their son before storming off. Whether or not the story was meant to deter my anger at her or not I decided to comfort her and forgive her the lie about the dowry. A nose job, after all, was fast becoming as important prerequisite for marriage as a dowry in Iran.

Shahin achieved her dream of opening a hairdressing salon after two years of working for us. Only to close the salon just six months later because she was losing money. When she left to open her salon Shahin khanoom introduced her sister in law to replace her.

Fatemeh was in her early thirties, illiterate with the accent of her native Kerman. Her husband, Shahin khanoom’s brother, was an opium addict who ate opium because it was cheaper than smoking it. He worked in a shoe store belonging to another relative but did not make enough to support his habit far less his four year old son and wife. So they had decided that he should stay home and take care of their four year old son who was still too young to attend public school. Fatemeh khanoom had no experience as a house keeper but was hard working and proud. She lived in the outskirts of Karaj further from the capital than Shahin khanoom in a rented house whose toilet was a shack at the bottom of the yard. She left her home early in the morning walking down an often muddy road and taking two buses to get to our house. She never missed a single day’s work and was, unlike Shahin khanoom, very honest with a work ethic that seemed to belong more to New England than Kerman.

One day she came to work with her young and incredibly precocious son. She told me that her husband had been unable to score opium the day before because she had refused to give him money. Going through withdrawal the addict husband, one of many thousands in Iran, had taken it out on the boy and beaten him. I told Fatemeh Khanoom she could bring the boy to work every day if she wanted. Once a month I would ask the husband who was skinny and frail to come and wash windows or do some other job so that I could pay him something too. Fatemeh khanoom never again refused to pay for his opium. He was not a bad man, we had come to agree, but he was an addict who like many could not quit. When I asked Fatemeh khanoom why she did not divorce him for he was useless and abusive to boot, she told me that she would lose face in her village if she went back for her yearly Nowrouz (Iranian New Year) visit without her husband. When I asked her was it better to have an addict for a husband than none at all she told me the men in her family all smoked opium (Kerman produces the best quality of opium in the world and Kermanis are known to have a penchant for smoking it). But even if her relatives where not opium smokers it was better to keep one’s husband even if he was a murderer than walk around with the stigma of divorce. When I told her then I should probably never visit her village she told me having money changed everything and I would quickly be forgiven and have many suitors! While in Iran I often saw how money could by the most regid of religious and traditional strictures.

Roya was the first woman I employed when I returned to Iran after twenty some years in 2002. Roya khanoom was in her early twenties, a student in the last year of accounting at Tehran Azad University. Her father had been the driver of a friend’s dad before the revolution. A pretty, energetic and smart girl, she was the eldest of four sisters. She performed her prayers and fasted during Ramadan but did not believe in the hejab which she took off the minute she got inside the house regardless of the presence of unrelated men. Her father who was a fast-talking north Tehrani from Gholhak was a kind of jack of all trades who broke his fast with a shot of iced vodka that I would give him when he came around sometimes for iftar (breaking of fast after sun down). Her sister was studying English at the University in Rasht and was in love with a boy that she was secretly dating but whom she could not marry, according to tradition, until her older sister, Roya, had married.

Roya and I became very close since I was going through a difficult second marriage and she was always having boyfriend problems. She was very open-minded and hated the mullahs in power. She was, like the rest of us, very disappointed with Khatami and watched satellite Iranian television broadcasts from Los Angeles and Dubai. Like most young people I met when I lived in Iran her biggest dream was to leave. She loved clothes and makeup and spent the part of her salary which she did not give to her father on grooming. She was hard working and dedicated, a veritable manager who was running my household the second week on the job. Roya was extremely articulate and a great debater making me joke that she should study Fegh (religious law) in Qom.

She had a fiancé whom she loved. They had been dating for two years. He was a college graduate and worked for the Ministry of Commerce. It was important for Roya that her husband be at least as well educated as her. She had turned down a rich bazaari suitor for that very reason. She argued with me that a husband who is not as educated as his wife would end up resenting her. A husband feeling intellectually inferior to a wife was fatal to a marriage according to the wise beyond her years Roya. The pragmatism of women that I met in Iran, young and old, never ceased to shock me.

Finally a date had been set for her wedding after much bickering between the two families regarding the number of guests and responsibility for costs. A wedding in Iran is a serious business transaction. The price of the Mehr (or bride price) is of utmost importance. As Roya’s dad explained to me, “I have to ask for a high Mehr because if the boy turns out to be rotten who do I go to get my daughter’s reputation back?” The Mehr,(which can be cashed any time after the wedding) which I initially abhorred as putting a price tag on the woman in a marriage, actually saved Roya from the fate of Fatemeh khanoom.

The morning of the wedding Roya and her family went to the notary to sign the wedding contract but her fiancé did not show up. A few days later a distraught Roya came to me in tears. The fiancé who had managed to hide his heroin addiction had had an overdose and had been taken to the hospital a few days before. The boy’s father, afraid that the marriage would not last long and that the high bride-price would be demanded once the bride and her family found out, forced him to leave Roya waiting. If it had not been for the Mehr she would have been married to an addict which was surely worse than the pain and humiliation she had to endure for being stood up.

When Ahmadinejad got elected I moved from Iran leaving behind my own bad marriage. I have tried to keep in touch with the three women. Fatemeh works for my mother now and her husband is still at home although her son goes to school and gets straight A’s. Since I have moved she has been forced out of her rented houses five times. With the high price of rent she still does not have a place with a bath or shower. With the high price of goods she can only feed her family as much meat as my mom buys for her. Her husband still eats opium and sleeps most of the day. Shahin khanoom’s husband passed away, she married a rich Haji and is an active supporter of Ahmadinejad at her mosque according to her sister in law. Roya went on to get a job at a company after she graduated. She makes half of what she made as a babysitter and housekeeper but it was better position to have for her reputation and for finding a husband. More than seven years on she is still not married. On the phone recently Roya told me that she had never recupperated from being stood up. In her neighborhood, amongst family and friends she had lost face. She asked me if I could get her a visa and help her to leave: “this hell.”

Follow Setareh Sabety on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SetarehSabety

Source: HuffingtonPost ]]> http://www.astreetjournalist.com/2010/03/08/working-class-female-in-iran/feed/ 1 http://www.astreetjournalist.com/2010/03/08/tehran-vanak-7march2010/ http://www.astreetjournalist.com/2010/03/08/tehran-vanak-7march2010/#comments Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:32:20 +0000 admin http://www.astreetjournalist.com/?p=5730 http://www.astreetjournalist.com/2010/03/08/tehran-vanak-7march2010/feed/ 0 http://www.astreetjournalist.com/2010/03/07/our-society-will-be-a-free-society-launches-petition/ http://www.astreetjournalist.com/2010/03/07/our-society-will-be-a-free-society-launches-petition/#comments Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:54:55 +0000 admin http://www.astreetjournalist.com/?p=5724 New York, March 1, 2010—In response to the brutal crackdown against journalists, writers, and bloggers in Iran, a coalition of leading press freedom and free expression groups have launched a petition drive calling for the release of those imprisoned. More such professionals are now in prison in Iran than in any other country in the world—at least 60, 47 of them journalists.

“I know my jailers in Iran were aware of the depth of international concern,” said Newsweek correspondent Maziar Bahari, who was jailed for 118 days in Iran. “We need to raise a similar outcry on behalf of the more than 60 journalists, writers, and bloggers jailed there today. Adding your name to this petition will help us deliver the message that people around the world are watching.”

The “Our Society Will Be a Free Society” campaign—a reference to a pledge made by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on the eve of the 1979 Revolution—is gathering signatures for an online petition to be sent to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on March 20, the Iranian New Year.

To sign the petition, visit the campaign Web site www.oursocietywillbeafreesociety.org or access our page on Facebook.

“The Iranian government is counting on the world to forget about the journalists and writers who have been imprisoned under cruel conditions,” said Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. “We can’t allow that to happen.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists, PEN, Reporters Sans Frontières, Index on Censorship, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the International Federation of Journalists, Article 19, the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, and the International Publishers Association have joined forces for “a sense of shared, urgent concern for the welfare of journalists, writers, and bloggers and a profound alarm over the situation for free expression in Iran.”

For more information about the campaign and to find links to upcoming events and relevant articles please visit www.oursocietywillbeafreesociety.org.

Source: CPJ