Credit: UN Women

By Sanam Naraghi Anderlini
LONDON, Nov 22 2024 (IPS)

In 1960, the Rafael Trujillo regime in the Dominican Republic assassinated the Mirabal sisters— renowned and respected for their courage and activism against dictatorship. To give their senseless violent death some meaning and to preserve their legacy, in 1999, the United Nations inaugurated November 25—the day of their assassination—as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW).

When talk of violence against women (VAW) was still taboo in polite and political circles, the UN’s stance was powerful. It put a spotlight on a pervasive pandemic of violence evident across continents and cultures that caused devastation in the lives of millions and replicated itself across generations.

The assumption was that raising public awareness and creating a political platform—a global one, no less—would prompt attention, concern, action, and genuine political will to address and eliminate this preventable form of harm and trauma.

Unfulfilled Promise of Global Initiatives

In the subsequent years, other high-profile, largely performative, initiatives followed. UN events became annual feel-good rituals, sidelining seasoned women’s rights advocates in favor of celebrity-driven initiatives.

UN Women’s campaigns, such as actress Nicole Kidman’s “Say No-UNiTE to End Violence Against Women,” featuring stern Wonder Woman-inspired imagery on reusable bottles, raised funds but did little to reach perpetrators of violence. Emma Watson’s HeforShe seemed to admonish women for excluding men—despite decades of efforts to engage men in tackling violence.

Iceland even hosted an all-male “barbershop” conference to address equality, with limited impact. Similarly, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague garnered attention with grand declarations about ending wartime rape through the UK-led Prevention of Sexual Violence Initiative (PSVI), backed by long-time activist and actress Angelina Jolie.

But his premise that sexual violence in war would be prevented if cases were documented and perpetrators faced the future prospect of criminal justice, missed fundamental facts – including that to stop war-time rape, more focus and resources should be put on preventing wars.

Meanwhile, the top-down international attention barely made a dent in addressing the problem where it resided worldwide: in communities and homes, and increasingly online—especially in times of crisis and conflict. In large part, the lack of impact of these high-level initiatives was their failure to reach the right audiences with the right messages through trusted messengers.

Relying on Hollywood actresses to inspire largely women’s audiences to unite against violence may be necessary for motivating women, but it is not sufficient. When the perpetrators of violence are overwhelmingly male, strategies, messaging, policies, and programs must also be directed at men.

Implicitly acknowledging that world leaders did not care about the social and human cost of violence against women, the World Bank took a different tack: following the money. In 2014, the Bank reported that violence against women cost countries up to 3.4% of their GDP.¹ In some countries, this was more than double their investments in education.

Implying that we should care about violence against women because it affects our bottom line is certainly a mercenary approach, but even this stark calculation failed to prompt a change in policies, practices, or prioritization of the elimination of violence against women (EVAW) as a socio-economic and security concern.

Countless diplomats, activists and bureaucrats have shaped new policies and resolutions at national and international levels. A transnational bureaucracy has grown around the agenda and EVAW has gone global with the “16 Days of Activism” campaign. Yet, 25 years later, the outlook remains grim.

We know that in Gaza women endure caesareans without anesthesia because of the Israeli blockade on food, water, electricity, and medication—but nothing is being done to prevent it. We know that in Sudan, women and girls face extreme sexual violence and rape, yet nothing is being done to prevent this violence or provide protection and care for survivors.

We saw how the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a spike of some 40% in domestic violence across the world—and yet, nothing is being done to acknowledge or deal with the issues systemically. Year after year, femicide persists. Between March 2023-2024, in the UK alone, 100 women were killed by men.

Multifaceted Solutions

Breaking the silence on violence against women through awareness-raising campaigns has certainly drawn attention to the issue. We now have increased reporting, with better data on the forms of violence and the victims and survivors. We have an increased trickle of funding for programming and, perhaps most importantly, we have clear evidence of what works. It is not surprising that the solutions are multifaceted.

Laws and policies matter. In France, as the Gisele Pelicot case reveals, the legal definition of rape matters. Similarly, changing institutional cultures matters, especially in male-dominated law enforcement. In the U.S., a 2020 study found that one in four women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime, but fewer than 5% of survivors report the assaults to law enforcement.

In the U.S., police code 20% of reported cases as “unfounded,” based on the reporting officers’ perceptions of the woman reporting the incident. The 2020 report notes that “dismissing sexual violence has become common practice amongst the police.”² Training and changing police practices is therefore essential to bring perpetrators to justice and increase women’s trust in the service.

Globally, grassroots initiatives prove that impactful change begins with local security personnel and community leaders. At the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), we have supported many of our partners in the Women’s Alliance for Security Leadership (WASL) in their efforts.

In Sri Lanka, the Association of War Affected Women (AWAW) successfully advocated for deploying female police officers to rural areas, trained male and female police officers on international laws such as UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and encouraged them to develop culturally effective approaches to addressing VAW.

In a Syrian refugee community in Turkey, our partner Kareemat has led interventions to stop child marriages that often take place because they are “one less mouth to feed.” Since fathers are making these decisions, raising awareness of the risks to their daughters and offering livelihood alternatives is essential.

To ensure the message resonates, Kareemat engaged trusted male religious leaders to emphasize that child marriage contradicts Islamic values and harms young girls. They also advocate for continued education and provide skills training, supporting girls to have their own livelihoods.

“We have observed a positive shift among many beneficiaries, especially men…agreeing on the importance of waiting until a girl reaches the age of eighteen before marriage,” says Kareemat Founder, Najla Sheikh. “These men also advocated for preparing young women by equipping them with a profession that enables them to support themselves…The beneficiaries expressed a desire to see girls achieve financial independence and be able to protect themselves in a safe environment like Kareemat.”³

Efforts to engage men in communities has expanded over the years. But as UK-based investigative journalist Sonia Sodha wrote in 2022,⁴ when it comes to the seriously violent, awareness and education is just not enough; reflecting on the differences between and within men is also essential.

Sodha highlights the UK-based project, Drive, which “has shed once and for all the feminist attachment to the idea that the key to reducing serious violence is teaching men to be better.” The project works with high-risk domestic abusers, assigning them case managers to provide support with jobs, mental health, and housing, while also serving as early warning conduits to involve police and social services when necessary to disrupt violence.

The results are astounding with an 82% and 88% drop in physical and sexual abuse respectively. Yet, access remains severely limited, with only 1% of serious abusers receiving such intervention.⁵

Meanwhile, a consistent factor in men’s violence is their own exposure to violence as children. Childhood abuse is a leading precursor of adult violence, yet in rich and poorer countries, programs to protect children are being slashed. As the wars in Gaza and Yemen show, children are increasingly the key targets of violent conflict.

Violence Against Women Amidst War and Displacement

With 56 wars raging and over 120 million people displaced by conflict, violence against women is on the rise, in increasingly complex forms. Ukraine is a case in point. Ukrainian men have become soldiers at the frontlines fighting Russian forces to protect their families and homeland.

But too often, on leave, they mete out their own trauma against their wives and children. It is wretchedly heartbreaking, yet universal in contexts of crisis and conflict.⁶ Simultaneously, displacement and economic hardship forces more women into sex work, trafficking, and other situations that heighten their vulnerability. Political dealmaking, such as the U.S.-Taliban agreement, has fueled multi-generational violence against women and children.

Over half a century since the Mirabals’ assassination, as a global community, we are certainly more aware of the horrors of violence against women. But it is still women who are picking up the pieces.

Our support networks are critical, says South African activist Bernedette Muthein, recalling “the street groups that intervene during domestic violence” and the women-led organizations that provide advice, support, and exit plans that “include stashing identity documents, clothes and money.”

Shelters and women-only spaces also remain essential for victims. But in Liberia, says peacebuilder Cerue Garlo “such issues are still not seen as national issues. The public expects women to handle them as ‘women’s issues’,” a sentiment that resonates around the world.

Time to Break the Cycle

On November 25, 2024, as the UN commemorates the 25th anniversary of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, perhaps it is worth stating it explicitly: violence against women is not just a women’s issue. It is a societal, economic, and security issue. Given the vast majority of perpetrators are men, it is also very clearly a men’s issue.

At a minimum, it is time to shift the shame and fear that women have harbored for so long, onto the men who perpetuate the violence. Too often, when such calls are made, social media platforms are flooded with #NotAllMen. Of course, not all men are implicated in VAW—and this is precisely the point. It is time for the good men—those who are indignant about and abhor such violence—to stand up, speak out, and join women to take on the challenge of ending this pandemic.

It is also time to dedicate more funding and channel resources directly to the women’s organizations working to tackle the roots, symptoms, causes, and effects of such violence.

The good news is that when the most serious abusers in the UK can be stopped, and destitute Syrian fathers can be convinced to protect their daughters, we know that violence against women is not inevitable. We just need to muster up the political will, social courage, and economic resources. Let’s not wait another 25 years to make the promise of ending violence against women a reality.

¹ https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2023/08/25/tackling-gender-based-violence-development-imperative
² https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9136376/
³ Personal correspondence
⁴ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/06/male-violence-against-women-much-more-than-toxic-masculinity
⁵ Ibid
⁶ https://gppi.net/media/Kotliuk_2024_Hidden-Front-of-Russias-War_ENG.pdf

Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, MBE, is Founder/CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN)

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Wearing a hijab in public is mandatory for women in Iran. Credit: Unsplash/Hasan Almasi
 
A group of UN Human Rights Council-appointed experts expressed their grave concern over a new draft law in Iran sanctioning new punishments for women and girls who fail to wear the headscarf, or hijab, in public. “The draft law could be described as a form of gender apartheid, as authorities appear to be governing through systemic discrimination with the intention of suppressing women and girls into total submission,” the independent experts said in a statement September 1 2023.

By Sanam Naraghi Anderlini
NEW YORK, Sep 20 2023 (IPS)

On September 16 Iranians everywhere commemorated the first anniversary of Mahsa Jina Amini’s murder by the country’s notorious ‘guidance patrol’. Arrested for being badly covered, the 22-year-old was beaten so violently, she died from brain injuries. This violence and the regime’s obfuscation of its crime unleashed a 40-year-long pent-up fury among Iran’s women and girls. Protests ensued in cities and towns across the country’s length and breadth. Young and old men, who in past generations had shown limited empathy for the daily humiliations and systemic discrimination facing women, joined. Amini’s Kurdish origins prompted the mobilization of Iran’s Kurds, Baluch, and other minorities. As protesters’ images flooded social media, the #WomenLifeFreedom movement was born. With the regime cracking down, killing over 500 people, raping, injuring, and threatening countless others, young Iranians’ message to the world was ‘be our voice’. The world responded.

A year on, what is there to show for the sacrifices and lives?

Civil Disobedience in Iran: The Fire Under the Ashes

Anticipating mass demonstrations for the anniversary, the regime rounded up people, killed more protestors and deployed security forces across major cities. Lawmakers have threatened new legislation to reinforce harsh hejab rules and punishment. Politically, faced with an existential threat, the regime’s competing flanks – hardline principalists and moderate reformists -closed rank and arguably are more consolidated than in recent years. Economically, thanks to the mix of sanctions and internal corruption, the revolutionary guard have monopolized much of the private sector space. Security-wise the state is beefed up, with a mix of old-fashioned hired hands and the latest surveillance and face recognition technologies. But facing a deep domestic crisis of legitimacy, the leadership also sought external support. This time, Saudi Arabia, Iran’s longstanding regional nemesis, was their proverbial knight in shining armor. This rapprochement with China as guarantor has enabled the regime to save face and turn eastward.

But none of this has deterred Iran’s Gen-Z. The heavy crackdowns of the past year did result in significant back-downs too. From Tehran to Mashad and beyond, many women no longer wear the mandatory headscarf. As the Persian saying goes, the WLF movement is like burning fire
underneath the ashes. Knowing the regime’s playbook, the young developed new tactics. A recent visitor to Tehran noted that for weeks prior to the anniversary, young women were sharing flyers advising people to dress in solidarity. White t-shirt and jeans for women, button down shirts and cargo shorts for men. Such nonconfrontational civil disobedience tactics are low-risk and thus high participation.

Iranians knows that the regime’s arrests of musicians, artists, students, film directors, authors, poets and even chefs, was indicative of an existential fear. With ten-year old girls ripping up photos of Ayatollah Khamenei and school age students singing protest songs, the generational tectonic shift taking place inside Iran is undeniable. It is a shift towards greater freedom, modernity, and gender equality. It is not simply a ‘bottom up’ revolution. It is a radical societal evolution that has entrenched itself in the homes of the country’s most powerful, conservative figures. To put it bluntly, the regime’s leadership know that their attempt to turn Iran into an ideologically Islamist society has failed with their own children and grandchildren, girls, and boys. This is a key political, social, and ideologically symbolic victory, that no one should underestimate.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Iranian Diaspora

The call to ‘be my voice’ led to unprecedented mobilization of the Iran’s global diaspora. A community traumatized and mistrustful of each other, characterized by their aversion to political engagement, was suddenly energized, vocal, and flexing political muscle from the streets of Los Angeles to the corridors of the European Parliament. Not surprisingly some marginal exiled political forces sought to co-opt the events for their own political gain. Others tried to forge coalitions to offer a viable challenge to the regime.

There was emotional and cognitive dissonance. At a public level pent-up anger towards the regime, coupled with hope for a different future, became the emotional fuel for diaspora participation in demonstrations and political activism. But hope and anger are not sufficient. Political figures who united around their shared opposition to the Islamic regime, faltered as they disagreed on a shared vision for the country and the roadmap to achieving it. Too often it seemed that these opposition forces, from the Monarchists to the MEK, were relitigating the revolution of 1979, with old tactics, instead of embracing the Gen-Z and intrinsically feminist nature of the WLF movement inside Iran.

A year on the political groups remain divided. The wider diaspora, however, has become more empowered and with greater access to the political arenas of their adopted nations. Their challenge now is to make nuanced and responsible choices that support and not inadvertently harm the domestic WLF movement.

The World Will Cheer from the Sidelines, but Self-interest is the Driver

The world also responded to the call of ‘be my voice’. For forty years, western media had demonized Iran through stereotypical images of militancy, aging angry clerics, black-clad women, and nuclear weapons. The burst of smiling, defiant Iranian teenagers on Instagram, waving scarves, singing, or dancing, bearing a striking resemblance to teenagers around the world, touched a nerve. The news of their arrests and assassinations, prompted greater outrage. College students, artists, rock, and movie stars, showed their solidarity, by cutting their hair, and speaking out. The emotive power of ‘Baraye’, the anthem of the burgeoning revolution, generated a level of empathy that is rare in modern times.

But public attention came with stark political realities. The heartfelt support of US, Canadian and European politicians was largely rhetorical. There is no appetite for interventionism and their overarching priority is to contain the nuclear program. For understandable reasons: On the one hand, a nuclear-armed Iranian regime that will have an interminable existence. On the other hand, Israel has consistently warned that it would not wait for Iran to achieve breakout capacity. It would strike pre-emptively. So, geopolitically, the threat of a devastating war, the unknowable chaos and human suffering that comes with it, is inextricably linked with the fate of Iran’s young.

Regionally too, despite their disagreements, the Arab states prefer the proverbial devil they know, then the uncertainly of a power vacuum that a revolution could foment.

The Saudi regime and its proxies were key players in unfolding event. Since the signing of the JCPOA in 2015 and the break in Saudi-Iran relations in 2016 they had supported the armed insurrection of ethnic groups and enabling political access to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) across Europe and North America. Private Saudi funding bolstered the satellite television channel, Iran International, enabling it to broadcast a diet of nostalgia for the Shah and anti- JCPOA messaging into Iranian homes. It was also a prime channel covering the WLF protests. But the Saudis, were neither interested in the regime’s collapse or chaos nor an independent, strong Iranian democracy, particularly women-led and feminist. Their ideal scenario was a weakened Iranian regime, in need of Saudi’s hand. This is exactly what they got.

Meanwhile the Iranian regime is benefiting from the ebbing power of democracies and the rise of authoritarianism. Its distancing from the west and closer allegiance to Russia, and the BRICS countries is a bet on greater economic ties to bolster the regime apparatus domestically. It is unlikely that the regional or BRIC countries will voice concerns over women’s rights.

So, the world may have sympathy for young Iranians but will not stand with them. So, what will become of WLF?

The answers lie in Persian poetry. The first is the parable of the Rock and the Spring. A trickle of melted snow hurtling down the mountain hits a rock. The trickle asks the rock to move aside. The rock refuses to budge. Over time, the water pools and erodes the rock, turning first into a stream and then a powerful river. Iranian women – the grandmothers, mothers and now daughters (and sons) = who have fought the regime’s misogyny day in, year out, for decades, inching back the hijab, populating universities, and fighting for equality under the law are an unstoppable river. “We will stay and reclaim Iran” they shout, refusing to be pushed into exile.

They have ideals but are not ideologically driven. In chipping away from within, they are fostering evolution and transformation, not revolution or reform.

As for the exiled figures who seek to claim leadership of WLF, they should revisit the epic 10th poem, ‘Conference of the Bird’. As the story goes, the world was in strife. The Hoopie bird calls on all birds to journey in search of the mythical ‘seemorq’, a wise leader. The birds soar above mountains and valleys, through snowstorms, firestorms, and deserts. Some give up, others falter. Ultimately thirty reach the final mountain peak with a glacial lake. ‘Where is the Seemorq?’ they cry. “Look into the lake and you will see.” replies the Hoopie. The birds peer in and see their own reflections – the faces of thirty birds (See-morq). The leadership lies within themselves.

In Iran, a year on from Mahsa’s death, the river is gathering force. There will be tough times ahead, but the millions are emerging as the Seemorq.

Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, MBE is Founder/CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), Adjunct Professor, School of International Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York. Sanam.anderlini@icanpeacework.org

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Sanam Naraghi Anderlini
WASHINGTON DC, Dec 21 2022 (IPS)

There are two sides to the problem of Gender Parity at the United Nations.

On the one hand, member states need to appoint more women to their senior ambassadorial ranks. There is always tremendous competition for the post of UN ambassador, especially if a member state is on the UN security Council.

It’s a pipeline question for the member states. To reach that level of seniority, a diplomat has to have the years of service. It will likely take time for countries to have the flow through of women ambassadors. So, the UN Secretary-Genera (SG) is correct in putting the onus on member states to change or accelerate their systems.

That said, there is still a problem within the UN itself.

In the last 5 years, many governments notably the UK, Italy, the Scandinavians have sponsored the regional women’s mediation networks. For example. I’m a member of the Women Mediators Across the Commonwealth (WMC).

The vision was to identify women with the requisite skills and experience in mediation efforts and provide a new pathway into senior UN positions particularly as Envoys and mediation work. In the WMC we have 50 amazingly experienced women from across Commonwealth nations.

Similarly, the Mediterranean Women’s Mediation Network has members from that region. For senior positions, our governments have to support our candidacy, and they have done so.

But the UN system is a blockage, because when it comes to determining eligibility, their criteria still include things like ’15 years of UN experience’. Well, the whole point is that most of us have gained experience outside of the UN bureaucracy or as expert consultants with the UN, but not as UN staff.

We bring a wealth of other valuable expertise, yet the skill and knowledge that outsiders might bring seems of less value to the recruiters, than then traditional institutional knowledge. As a result, the female candidates that member states might endorse, are blocked by the UN.

If they are serious about having more women in the peace and security sector, particularly women with the relevant experience in inclusive and gender responsive peacemaking, security humanitarian work, they need to look for us in civil society. This is where most of the innovation has happened and is happening.

The work being done by women on the ground and lessons sharing that goes on through our networks is invaluable. It is exactly what the UN needs to be more fit for purpose. It is also the path towards actual reform and renovation of the UN architecture and practice.

But it can only happen if the member states and the UN leadership and bureaucracy have the vision, political will and willingness to change their recruitment priorities and practices.

Anyone claiming they can’t find the women, is willfully ignoring the facts.

Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, MBE, Founder & CEO, International Civil Society Action Network in Washington DC.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Sanam Naraghi Anderlini
WASHINGTON DC, May 4 2018 (IPS)

New York and Washington DC may be three hours apart geographically, but in global affairs, they are worlds apart.

With the wars in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere unabating, at the UN in New York, terms like ‘conflict prevention’ and ‘sustaining peace’ are back in vogue, with world leaders attending a major summit. Meanwhile in Washington while the talks with North Korea took center stage behind the scenes the drum roll of war against Iran is revving up.

Sanam Naraghi Anderlini

On Monday April 9th Israel attacked Syrian military bases where Iranian security personnel were stationed. Seven Iranians died in the attack and tensions in the region soared. As many Middle East watchers noted, Israel was trying to provoke a retaliation from Iran, so that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could unleash his pent-up anger across Iranian skies.

As the dead soldiers returned to Tehran, Iranian officials said the strikes “will not remain without a response.” Israel meanwhile reiterated it won’t tolerate Iranian military bases next door. It launched another attack on April 30th killing Iranians, Syrians and Iraqi military personnel.

Memories of Israeli-Iranian cooperation against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war are all but erased from history as the two countries have provoked and retaliated against each other through proxies for three decades. But the war of words is escalating to war on the ground.

Undercutting the JCPOA

Second, not surprising the rising tensions in the region come in parallel with the attacks on the Iran deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has always resented. The JCPOA has prevented Iran from pursuing even the possibility of nuclear weapons, and was meant to open a pathway for broader diplomacy between the US and Iran and to keep at least a cold peace between Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran.

While Iran has adhered to the terms of the JCPOA, the US has not. The financial sanctions and threats of billion dollar penalties against banks that dare to do business with Iranian companies or citizens are still in place.

Without the promised economic benefits, the Iranian government faces an angry public and an emboldened hardline and conservative faction within the regime. Despite joining the coalition fight against ISIS, Iran’s dogged support for Syria’s President Assad adds fuel to the fire of the anti-Iran coalition.

While Netanyahu’s theatrics on May 1 gained attention, other pro-war advocates in America have also been re-inserting themselves into mainstream politics. On April 11th, Michael Makovsky a former Pentagon official and now head of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) suggested that because President Trump threatened to withdraw from the JCPOA, he has put the US in a corner.

Makovsky acknowledged that Iran is adhering to the agreement but said if Iran withdraws the US should act. “A prepared president” he wrote, “should seize the historic opportunity to follow through on that threat.” In effect he argues that regardless of Iran’s adherence, if the US withdraws, it must attack Iran so as not to appear weak. President Trump has taken the bait.

Meeting with France’s President Macron on April 24th, Trump said the US could withdraw from the JCPOA, but if Iran does so and “starts its nuclear program they will have bigger problems than they have ever had before,” adding “If Iran threatens us, they will experience a retaliation few countries have ever experienced.” President Trump may hate the JCPOA, but he despises Iran’s adherence to it even more.

Bolton, the MEK and the Regime Changers

Third, the ascent of John Bolton as National Security Adviser means ‘regime change’ policy is firmly back on the table. For those needing a reminder, this was the policy of the Bush administration after 9/11. It signals a range of covert and overt actions by the US or its proxies to bring down a regime that is deemed unfriendly to the US, and install a friendly one.

That John Bolton is an enthusiast of such a policy, and that he is publicly affiliated with the cultish Mujahedin e Khalq (MEK was on the terrorist list until 2012) that self-identify as Iran’s exiled opposition group and have shaped shifted to appear more palatable to western states, but remain widely despised inside the country, is another warning sign of an Iraq war redux.

Other ‘regime changers’ such as Eli Lake have also come out of hibernation. Early in April, Eli Lake an unapologetic supporter of the Iraq war published an interview with Dr. Shirin Ebadi, Iran’s Nobel laureate. Dr. Ebadi has long criticized the Iranian regime for its human rights abuses, and called for a variety of legal measures to bring about systemic change.

In her interview, she repeats her assertion that “the regime change in Iran should take place inside Iran and by the people of Iran…But,” she says, the US “can help the people of Iran reach their own goal” by establishing a channel to the legitimate and independent Iranian opposition.

That she’s seeking US support is of concern to many. But in calling for regime change, she is also siding against the JCPOA. The article headline screamed “Nobel Laureate is done with Reform, she wants Regime Change’ and overnight the neo-cons had their own version of a celebrity advocate.

The Economic Factor

Finally, there is nothing quite like preparing the groundswell for chaos than meddling with a country’s finances. Here too the timing and evidence is not coincidental. In February 2018, the Iranian rial lurched downward and as Iranians rung in their new year in late March, the spiral continued with a 20% loss, causing many to question machinations behind the scenes.

While Iran’s own mismanagement of the economy is also to blame, the coalescing of external factors is notable. Iranians have relied on the United Arab Emirates (UAE) markets to obtain dollars and enable transactions and trade.

But with US and Saudi involvement, the UAE instigated a new 5% value added tax, visa restrictions and tighter banking restrictions that mostly affect Iranians. In Iran a public rush to sell the rial and invest in the ever more expensive dollar or gold, prompted the government to step in and announce a single official dollar rate. Whether this allays fears and stabilizes the economy is yet to be seen. But uncertainty is in the air.

Iran has done a poor job of public relations in the US. For an older generation, images of yellow ribbons tied around neighborhood trees counting the days of the 1979 hostage crisis are seared in memories.

For a younger generation, it is images of brave women throwing off their mandatory veils as they fend off security guards. It is a far away land of angry clerics with furrowed brows where environmentalists and dual citizens are arrested.

But as pressures loom, it is important to remember that Iranians – men and women, old and young, children and grand parents are trying to live normal lives of love and laughter, joy and heartache.

In 2002 when US think tanks and media joined the Bush administration’s drumbeat of war on Iraq, the public was skeptical, but the political establishment pushed to make war seemed inevitable.

Yet decisions made on a high of adrenlin and machismo didn’t result in a ‘cakewalk of a war’. They caused unimagined misery. Iraq, a country that was the cradle of civilization that had no illiteracy in its population by 1980, is now unrecognizable. One million people are dead according to the most conservative estimates.

Depleted uranium from US weapons runs in the waterways and into veins of Iraq children giving rise to unprecedented levels of cancer. US hubris and mismanagement of the occupation and its aftermath also gave rise to ISIS.

Now cheerleaders of that war have their eyes on Iran. A country that is significantly larger and is home to 80 million people, majority young, overwhelmingly educated, and mostly fed up with the aging theocracy that isolates them from the world and thwarts their aspirations.

But this population does not want missiles raining from the sky. It doesn’t want its economy ruined. It wants engagement with the world. It is also deeply patriotic. They may rail against the regime but they will likely rally as a nation if there is any foreign attack.

Even if attacks are purported to be tactical, aimed at the heart of the regime’s center to create a vacuum of power, the ascendance of on organized opposition that is tasteful to the west is unlikely. The more likely scenario is the rise of a militant force, backed by an indignant population fueled by renewed anger towards the US and its allies.

The world should also pause and anticipate what may unfold if chaos is invoked through economic collapse and a weakening of Iran’s borders: at a minimum refugees spilling into Europe and an open gateway from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Persian Gulf and beyond.

The JCPOA is a critical foundation for preventing conflagration on a scale we have not seen. For those who still claim military attacks, harsh sanctions or other forms of destabilization are the route to peace, democracy or human rights, the body count and chaos in Libya, Iraq and Yemen is evidence of their flawed logic.

Iran’s alliance with President Assad is unfathomable, but it does not warrant unleashing chaos against Iran’s 80 million people. Neither any regional Middle Eastern states, nor the global powers have morality on their side. All are implicated in wars that have led too many deaths already.

As the May 12 deadline looms for the US’s endorsement of the JCPOA, world leaders who claimed to support Mr.Guterres’ sustaining peace agenda, have a clear moral imperative: to stand by their words and sustain the peace for the millions of civilians in Iran and beyond who would pay the price if violence escalates.

That means they must prevent this impending conflict before the fog of inevitability sets in.

Excerpt:

By Sanam Naraghi Anderlini
WASHINGTON DC, Nov 2 2016 (IPS)

For those of us who ever feel conflicted about the United Nations, the past month has been an exercise in managing absurd cognitive dissonance. First, on October 21 2016, the United Nations announced that the 1940s comic book heroine, Wonder Woman would be its new mascot for promoting the empowerment of women and girls.

Sanam Naraghi Anderlini

Then, on October 25th the UN Security Council held its annual open debate on the groundbreaking ‘Women, peace and security agenda’, now in its 16th year of existence – still full of promise, and yet barely realized. So what’s going on?

The story so far:
In the age of Trumpism, just weeks after women’s rights activists globally were disappointed to learn that a woman was not selected to head the UN, hard on the heels of a year when the outgoing UN Secretary General appointed men to 96% of the senior jobs in the system, some folks at the UN thought having Wonder Woman as the icon for gender equality for the global organization was a good idea. Not so much.

Here are a few reasons why not:
First off, the UN is a post-war institution, dedicated to ending the scourge of war and, by extension, violence. It is an institution founded on diplomacy and the principle of negotiating differences, not vilification and use of force. Wonder Woman, on the other hand, was a product of the World War II propaganda of superheroes that fight ‘evil’, using violence in the name of ‘good’.

Throughout history and geography, whenever women have mobilized around their shared identity as women, to fight for self-determination or against oppression, they have not used violence. Today, from Afghanistan to the DRC, from Syria to Colombia, despite all the risks and violence they face, the most courageous women are leading non-violent struggles. Many are mediating between armed actors, hiding and saving men and boys at risk of being recruited and killed, feeding and caring for kids, the sick and the injured. They use their brains, hearts and imagination not brute force.

This is where resolution 1325 on women, peace and security ‘kicks’ in. In 2000, after a mass global campaign, the UN Security Council acknowledged women’s peace activism and call for the inclusion of women at the tables where power is brokered.

The agenda has expanded over the years, and these days world leaders talk about ‘women at the peace table’ as if it is an obvious fact, even though it is still not the norm. The agenda has also become warped. In some countries – the ‘peace’ part has gotten lost in a haze of talk about women as soldiers.

Elsewhere, people think it is yet another instrument to promote equality in security institutions and in times of war. But if 1325 is limited to an ‘equality agenda’ we end up with women having equal rights and responsibilities as men in the current status quo.
That was never the intent of the original 1325-ers.

We did not fight for women’s equal rights to fight, die and kill alongside men. We fought so that neither women nor men had to live through the horrors of war. We fought so that women peacemakers could have equal space with the militias and politicians at the tables where the future of peace and security in their countries is determined.

We fought to end the wars that exist, and to prevent future wars. 9/11 changed the course of history, but the spirit and vision of 1325 shouldn’t get lost in the fog of perpetual war and hyper militarization.

So the choice of Wonder Woman kicking, punching and lassoing her opponents is downright offensive and simplistic.

Herein lies the irony: just ten days ago, Marvel comics unveiled a new digital comic with Syrian mothers as the story’s heroines. So we are living in an age where institutions dealing in fiction recognize and revere contemporary facts, but institutions dealing in reality are stuck in an imaginary past.

Second, if we need a mythical figure, how about Shehrzad of the 1001 Nights? She used her words, wit and imagination to save the lives of women and turn a despotic king into a compassionate wise ruler. She is recognized across many countries and cultures – still relevant across time, and far more representative of an iconic and emancipated woman than Wonder Woman. Or, as one long-time UN staffer suggested, if its fictional figures, why not Pippi Longstocking? She was strong, creative, and definitely no pin-up girl.

Third, why choose from fictional figures, when we have so very many real historic super heroes? Take the oft-forgotten Bertha Von Suttner. She was a formidable figure in early 20th century Europe. She was a renowned leader of the pacifist movement, and most importantly – the inspiration for the Nobel Peace Prize. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, was influenced by her thinking and actions. It’s time to revive and revere her memory as much as she deserves.

Others have already commented on the sartorial faux pas of selecting Wonder Woman. But there is a political and security dimension to this choice. Women are already fighting the backlash of conservative forces that believe their struggle for rights or voice in political spaces is a ‘western agenda’ designed to undermine their power structures.

Having a female figure in a low-cut bustier/corset covered in the American flag is just adding ammunition. Don’t get me wrong; I loved the kitsch Lynda Carter TV shows and comic books too. But Wonder Woman is clearly the figment of some 1940s male comic strip illustrator’s imagination.

If the purpose is to demonstrate women’s empowerment, how about reflecting the members of the very real Women’s Alliance for Security Leadership (WASL)? They live lives of extraordinary courage, vehemently rejecting weapons and arms and dedicating their lives to promoting rights, peace and pluralism, often in the face of extreme violence.

Here are just a few of the members: Fatima Al-Behadili of Iraq, who is deradicalizing young men and sending them back to school or getting them involved in social service. Visaka Dharmadasa of Sri Lanka who lost her son in the war against the Tamil tigers – but mobilized a group of mothers of missing servicemen to walk, unarmed into the jungle and meet the guerrillas face to face and open a back channel for peace talks. Hamsatu Alamin of Nigeria, who reaches into communities affiliated to Boko Haram and helps to reduce the stigma they experience, and get their kids into schools.

So to the UN Department of Comics (?): please get back to the drawing board or move over and let real women handle the situation.

Excerpt:

By Sanam Naraghi Anderlini
WASHINGTON DC, Apr 6 2016 (IPS)

Violent extremism is the topic du jour, as government officials are busy developing plans of action on “preventing or countering violent extremism” (P/CVE). In these plans there is dutiful reference to engaging “women”. The more progressive mention gender sensitivity.

But scratch the surface, and it is clear there is widespread misunderstanding of what this means or how to do it. So they tend to slide back into an age-old axiom: women are victims, perpetrators, or mothers.

But this perception misses some of the most important women involved in P/CVE: women human rights defenders and peace activists working in Iraq, Pakistan, Syria not only countering extremism but providing positive alternatives and challenging state actions.

The simplification of women to victims and perpetrators is akin to the virgin/prostitute dichotomy that has littered history for centuries. The Yazidi girls epitomize the horrendous victimhood of women, while the teenagers in the UK joining ISIS, and the girls implicated as Boko Haram ‘suicide’ bombers, personify the perpetrator. It seems that, in the male-dominated world of security experts, men determine which women matter.

Their real fascination is with the women fighters especially ‘jihadis’. They are either evil because they have transgressed unsaid but deeply riven norms of femininity and joined ISIS. Or they are the ultimate symbols of self-empowerment, brave enough to fight, and heroic, like the women in the Kurdish militias. Yet women becoming fighters is neither news nor shocking.

Throughout history, a minority of women have joined armed liberation movements (and national armies). Like many men, they are attracted by the larger cause or vision, or for revenge and justice (as with some Kurds and now Yazidis), to feel the sense of belonging and protection. Daesh promises respect, agency and responsibility for women feeling stifled in traditional homes.

There is little discussion of the complexity of women’s experiences who may be simultaneously victims and perpetrators. For example, research on young women (many under 18) traveling to Syria, reveals a strong dose of online sexual grooming in the communications between them and their recruiters.

The media’s labeling of Boko Haram female ‘suicide bombers’ obscures the fact that many are young girls, who may have been brain washed or had no power to stop bombs being strapped to their small bodies.

Female victims are finally being recognized because it would be downright indecent if they were ignored. But as with victims everywhere, they are spoken about, but not given the chance to speak for themselves or provided with the necessary care to cope with the trauma or given the opportunity to continue with their lives.

The results are plain to see. Some Yazidi girls were subjected to virginity tests by Kurdish authorities. Many are committing suicide. It is as if the label of ‘rape victims’ is etched into their foreheads in perpetuity.

Reference to mothers as the panacea against extremism is the latest trend. Mothers, we are told, wield enormous influence. They can hold back their children and inform the police. Their influence is indeed noticeable but they can wield it both directions. In Pakistan, for example, an extremist radio-sheikh railing against state corruption and sympathetic to women’s concerns offered a vision of a purer Islamic society, and successfully targeted rural mothers, who sent their gold bangles to pay, and their boys to fight for the Taliban.

Now policy makers in Washington, London, Baghdad and New York want to mobilize an army of mothers to fight their cause. But they want mothers who do not challenge them. The motherhood paradigm packages women in apolitical and non-threatening ways according to traditional, and even biological norms of femininity — it is the image of the lioness protecting her cubs.

Of course there is overlap between the concerns of parents and those of the state. But by pressing them to act as frontline whistleblowers, governments are using women. As one Iraqi woman notes, “the government wants women to mop up their mess.” Not surprisingly from England to Iraq, many mothers find the overtures of governments offensive.

The simplification of women, excludes one critical group: women who become civic activists fighting for rights, peace and justice. They may be mothers, but their motivations and actions are not limited to their own children. They understand that extremism is growing because of deeper socio-economic and political problems. They see firsthand, how poor governance and state oppression fuel grievances and radicalization, especially when moderate civic activism and dissent are quashed.

They also know that simply ‘countering’ extremism is not enough: What is needed is a positive alternative to address the grievances and aspirations of those most vulnerable to the lure of extremist movements. From Pakistan to Nigeria, they are doing it. Many are working in their communities, developing tailored approaches to engage youth and religious leaders, not just women.

They address the wider ecosystem, combining religious teachings rooted in co-existence and non-violence, critical thinking, economic skills and socio-cultural activities. Among young men, they generate a sense of personal pride, offer belonging to groups that contribute to improving their community.

Women activists also understand the interconnectivity between the local, national and international levels. They provide acute analysis and uncomfortable truths of the impact of Western military policies on their communities. They bear witness to the consequences – good and bad- of US and European training of their police and military forces. They have the courage to criticize bad national and international policies, and the creativity to offer an alternative vision for their societies.

In fighting for their vision, they put themselves at profound risk. As the Iraqi woman notes, “When we try to mobilize civilians to hold the state accountable or transform our communities, the government accuses us of regime change.”

Do women’s peace and rights activists raise uncomfortable truths? Of course they do; because they are committed to eradicating the intolerance and violence in their communities – whether it is perpetrated by non-state extremists or by states. They are in it for the long haul, for a simple reason: The threats they face are existential to their way of life.

The international community stands at an important juncture. As the P/CVE action plans and policies are being developed, policymakers can limit them to victims, perpetrators or mothers, or they can recognize the agency, vision, and leadership of women who are courageously taking a stand against these ideologies.

This would require not only listening to women, but also heeding their advice gleaned from the experience of working and living in their own communities for decades. For many policy makers, this may be just too threatening.

(End)

Excerpt: