حزب مردم بلوچستان Balochistan People’s Party بلوچستانءِ اُستمانءِ گــَل
Iran Condemns Sweden for Supporting "Separatism" -BAFS
Panel of presenters from Congress of Nationalities for a Federal Iran representing Azerbaijani-Turks, Ahwazi Arabs, Kurds, Balochs and Turkman.
By BAFS; 13/12/2008 ; http://www.ahwazstudies.org
The Tabnak website, which is owned by the
Secretary of Iran's powerful Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaee, has condemned
the Swedish Green Party for recently hosting a conference on ethnic rights
at the Swedish parliament.
The
conference was addressed by Ahwazi Arab Farid Morshedi, a member of the
Democratic Solidarity Party of Al-Ahwaz who won political asylum in Sweden
following a campaign by the British Ahwazi Friendship Society and other
advocacy groups. Other participants included the Democratic Party of Iranian
Kurdistan, Komeleh, Azerbaijan Democratic Party, Balochistan National Party
and the National Movement for Balochistan. The sons of an Ahwazi Arab tribal
leader, Imad and Mohsen Bawi, who were the subject of intensive campaigns by
Amnesty International, also addressed the meeting, just weeks after they
escaped from prison in Iran with the assistance of the members of the Ahwaz
Human Rights Organisation and the DSPA. They spoke of the execution of their
brother Zamel Bawi on trumped up charges of insurgency and "war against God"
as well as their ordeal in as political prisoners. Conference participants
from Iran's ethnic parties spoke of their support for federalism to resolve
long-standing disputes while maintaining the country's territorial
integrity.
The Tabnak website claimed that the participating parties had been declared
illegal by the Islamic Republic and accused the Swedish Parliament of
interfering in Iran's internal affairs. It claimed that the participants
advocated the dismantling of Iran in the way the Soviet Union was
dismantled. It accused the Swedish Green Party of supporting separatism and
devoting large sums of money with a view to destroying Iran.
Participants told the British Ahwazi Friendship Society (BAFS) that all the
representatives present had in fact stated that federalism, as opposed to
separatism, would ensure security and stability for Iran and neighbouring
countries. The chair of the meeting, a member of the Swedish Green Party,
voiced his full support for the programme of the Congress of Nationalities
for a Federal Iran, particularly its programme of non-violent resistance,
and the realisation of ethno-national collective rights in a federal system
of government.
Green
parties in Europe have in the past condemned any military action in Iran and
voted against European Parliamentary resolutions on Iran claiming that they
could provide a pretext for war.
BAFS spokesman Nasser Bani Assad said: "The Green movement is highly
unlikely to endorse any programme that would entail the destruction of Iran
or the country's invasion.
"In contrast to the Islamic Republic, the Greens support the localisation of
power, indigenous rights, self-determination and environmental
sustainability. These are issues that are close to the heart of Ahwazi Arabs
and many other groups in Iran.
"It is clear that Iranian officials are trying to twist the argument and
generate distrust among the Greens towards Iran's ethnic rights movement.
However, our past involvement with the Greens shows that they will not bow
to pressure from Tehran and recognise that there is an overwhelming case to
oppose the Iranian regime that does not entail endorsing Washington's
agenda.
"Our strongest supporters include English Green Party leader Caroline Lucas
MEP and the Green Party human rights spokesman Peter Tatchell. We are in no
doubt that they will not be swayed by Tehran's baseless accusations."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran's good times may be ending
Isolated nation's economy may
crash along with its main export — crude oil
By WARREN P. STROBEL McClatchy-Tribune
; Dec. 13, 2008,
TEHRAN, IRAN — Visiting a mall full of
high-end electronics shops in the Iranian capital one recent day, printing
shop owner Mohammad Torabi was in the market for surveillance cameras to
protect his property. He expressed satisfaction at the selection: stack
after stack of Asian-made close-circuit TV cameras designed to work in
daylight or darkness.
"God bless China!" declared Torabi, 54, sneering at the U.S.-led economic
sanctions that are meant to crimp Iran's economy and force its leaders to
abandon any effort to develop nuclear weapons.
Buoyed by a vast pool of oil income as prices soared to nearly $150 a
barrel, Iran has until now been able to blunt the sanctions' pain. And, all
but cut off from the world financial system thanks to the U.S. Treasury
Department, it's watched the global economic crisis from splendid isolation.
Oil money has fueled runaway imports of foreign goods and services, $75
billion worth this year alone. In upscale north Tehran, BMWs, Mercedes and
SUVs share the streets with rows of Peugeots and Kias made domestically.
Late-model Japanese high-definition TVs replay the animated movie Ice Age in
shop windows. Some familiar U.S. and European consumer brands are said to be
cheaper here than in the U.S. or Europe.
Low
oil prices wreak havoc
For Torabi and 70 million other Iranians,
however, the good times are about to end.
Crashing prices for crude oil — Iran's main export — will ravage the
country's economy in 2009, according to Iranian economists and businessmen,
and European diplomats.
With oil now hovering around $40 a barrel (and Iran's lower-quality crude
selling even cheaper), bad news is just over the horizon, they say. Foreign
imports will be throttled, incomes will drop, Iran's currency will weaken
and inflation will grow even worse. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
populist spending programs, which have bloated the government budget but
bolstered his popularity with poor Iranians, could sputter to a halt.
"We will start feeling the shock in the next three to four months,"
predicted Mehdi Fakheri, the vice president of international affairs at
Iran's Chamber of Commerce.
"We will face social unhappiness," he said, and if the global crisis
persists and oil prices stay low, "maybe social unrest."
Rocky Ansari, a managing partner at Cyrus Omron International, which advises
international and Iranian firms on doing business here, said Iran's
government "should really act now rather than later" to deal with the coming
crisis.
In fact, he said, "It may be a bit too late."
Iran's economic future is of intense interest to the incoming Obama
administration and European governments. Washington has led the drive that
imposed sanctions in a bid to stop Iran's enrichment of uranium that could
be used for nuclear weapons.
Surrender is unlikely
The U.N., European Union and unilateral U.S.
sanctions are designed to pinch Tehran's access to high-tech military goods
and the international financial system. (U.N. sanctions do not specifically
target consumer goods. U.S. sanctions bar most companies, with exceptions
such as food and medicine, from doing business here, but U.S. products are
readily imported from nearby Dubai and elsewhere.)
No matter how tough conditions get, few observers here expect Ahmadinejad
and Iran's supreme religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has
the final say in such matters, to surrender on the nuclear issue.
"The regime cannot afford to say, 'OK, we give up,' " said a Western
diplomat, who requested anonymity. Nuclear development is "the only topic on
which they have a national consensus."
High oil prices, along with the U.S. removal of Iran's two neighboring
enemies, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, also have
fueled Iran's increasing assertiveness. It backed Lebanon's Hezbollah in its
2006 war with Israel, supported anti-U.S. militias inside Iraq and has
courted U.S. antagonists such as Russia, Venezuela and Cuba.
Oil funds 60 percent of the government budget, economists say, supporting
billions in public subsidies of goods such as gasoline, sugar and bread. A
research center affiliated with Iran's parliament reported last week that
the government depends on oil at $80 a barrel to keep its accounts balanced.
Iran's oil income has dropped from $300 million to $100 million a day, and
if oil prices stay in the $30-$40 a barrel range, the country could see more
than $70 billion in expected funds evaporate, economists say.
"It's a huge oil shock in reverse for Iran," said oil historian Daniel
Yergin, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of oil. "It places
tremendous pressure on the Iranian economy."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man who survived Pakistan's Gestapo
Saturday, December 13, 2008 ;
www.thenews.com.pk/
By Rahimullah Yusufzai
Businessman Munir Mengal's disclosures about his 22 months' detention in
Pakistan are shocking and painful. The only known reason for his arrest and
torture at the hands of former president Pervez Musharraf's government was
his intention to launch a Balochi language satellite television channel,
Baloch Voice. If even half of his allegations are true, it would be easier
for us to understand why so many Baloch are angry and willing to pick up the
gun and fight for their rights.
For the first time after his arrest on April 4, 2006, and his release in
February 2008, Munir Mengal has spoken in detail about his ordeal. He was
interviewed in an unnamed European country where he has found refuge by the
Reporters without Borders (or Reporters sans frontieres), a Europe-based
non-governmental organisation dedicated to the freedom of the press.
In a press release issued on Dec 11, Reporters without Borders, said: "Munir
Mengal's shocking and damning account should prompt Pakistan's civilian
authorities to open an immediate investigation into the case. It is
inconceivable that those responsible for this political abduction should be
allowed to go unpunished." The strong-worded press release added: "Mengal
was arrested, physically and psychologically tortured, humiliated and robbed
by members of the security forces, above all Military Intelligence. If
Pakistan wants to put an end to such illegal and barbaric practices, justice
must be done in this case, which has been the subject of a great deal of
comment by the media and by leading figures in Pakistan and abroad."
Munir Mengal wasn't doing anything illegal or in secret. From his account it
is obvious that he was getting his TV station registered in the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), where Dubai has emerged as the operational base for a
growing number of satellite television channels, including some with
Pakistani ownership. He had publicly announced the launch of his TV channel
to more than 3,000 people at a major event in Quetta in February 2006. And
he had willingly decided to come to Pakistan from the UAE after receiving a
call on March 28, 2006, from an official of the Pakistan Electronic Media
Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), who invited him to come to Karachi to discuss
his request for a license for Baloch Voice.
Munir Mengal alleged that, upon arrival at the Karachi airport on April 4
that year, an army officer in civilian dress confiscated his passport and
took him to a military detention centre. In his interview, he named the army
colonel and two majors who physically and psychologically tortured him at
the military barracks at Malir in Karachi. He recalled how he wasn't allowed
to sleep for 72 hours and then thrown into a small underground cell where he
spent several months blindfolded and handcuffed. He alleged suffered
physical and mental torture at the hands of his captors, who kept asking him
why he wanted to set up the Baloch Voice TV channel and as to who gave him
the idea and support for the project.
Some of the claims and allegations made by Munir Mengal constitute explosive
stuff. For example, he alleged that he was taken to see Gen Musharraf in
some army barracks in Saddar in Karachi, where the then president offered to
release him if he agreed to abandon his TV station project. The date was Oct
26, 2006, and Munir Mengal had been held incommunicado for six months. The
meeting, in Munir Mengal's words, went like this: "Pervez Musharraf was
waiting for me in a room with Gen Azeem and Maj Gen Bajwa. After apologising
for the way I had been treated, the president asked me, in English, to give
up my TV station project. He promised to release me if I pulled out of the
media domain. He also offered me a copy of his book so that I could
appreciate his commitment to Pakistan. After refusing his deal, I was taken
back to my cell and was tortured by MI agents again." Mengal also claimed
that Musharraf aide Tariq Aziz offered him a political job and money in
return for abandoning the planned TV station.
Munir Mengal claims to have witnessed many human rights violation during his
detention. He alleged that a young Baloch woman was sexually tortured and
once thrown naked into his cell for his humiliation. He wasn't aware as to
what happened eventually to her.
Another allegation made by Munir Mengal is about his interrogation by
Iranian agents in June or July 2006. The Iranians wanted to know as to what
he had done to promote the cause of the Baloch, who inhabit not only parts
of Pakistan but also Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province and Afghanistan's
Helmand and Nimruz provinces. Until now we had heard and read about American
secret agents interrogating Pakistanis and foreigners captured in Pakistan
but this is the first time that allegations about Iranians being allowed to
interrogate Pakistani Baloch have been made. If true, this means that
Iranian and Pakistani authorities are cooperating in tackling their common
Baloch problem.
All these are serious allegations and will surely be used by Baloch
nationalists to stoke the fire of resistance and even separatism. Though the
present democratically elected government wasn't involved in arresting and
torturing Munir Mengal and the command of the Pakistan Army has changed, the
present set of rulers owe it to the nation and the Baloch people to clarify
the situation in view of the negative fallout of the allegations made
against Military Intelligence. The military command too should respond to
Munir Mengal's allegations, as holding someone in custody for 22 long months
and torturing him merely for his planning to launch a Balochi TV channel is
beyond reason and unacceptable. President Asif Ali Zardari, himself a Baloch,
has already sought forgiveness from the Baloch people for the five military
operations, including one ordered by his late father-in-law, former prime
minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and taken some steps to remove their
grievances. But a lot more needs to be done to inspire hope among the Baloch
in the federation of Pakistan. It is time for the politicians to undo the
wrongs and heal the wounds of the Baloch people, who have suffered immensely
in every military operation that was launched to crush their struggle for
constitutional rights.
Munir Mengal was released by the intelligence services on August 4, 2007,
after being held incommunicado for around 16 months in Sindh. By then a
public campaign for his release had been launched by Baloch political
parties and organisations like the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists,
the South Asia Free Media Association and the Human Rights Commission of
Pakistan. The courts had also been approached on his behalf and decisions
given in his favour. The Balochistan High Court ordered his release on Sept
10, 2007, after ruling that he had committed no crime. However, he was kept
in Khuzdar province in Balochistan under the Maintenance of Public Order Act
on the ridiculous charge that he was disturbing public order, despite his
being in captivity. His woes finally ended on Feb 23 this year, but not
before someone in the security services threatened to kill him. Following
his release, Munir Mengal stayed in hiding for several weeks before managing
to leave the country from Turbat airport in Balochistan. From the safety of
his European abode, he has now told the story of his ordeal while in custody
of an intelligence agency.
As the name of his aborted TV channel, Baloch Voice, suggests, Munir Mengal
wanted to give a voice to his people at a time when human rights violations
were being committed in Balochistan and many Baloch had gone missing. He was
a prosperous businessman and had even been given a "Legend of the Year"
award by President Musharraf in August 2005. He had sold his properties and
raised Rs13 million to start up the TV station. Instead he landed in a
secret detention cell and lost his money. His plans to launch the Baloch
Voice TV channel in June 2006 are now in tatters.
At a time when private TV channels are mushrooming and the number of
stations broadcasting in national languages such as Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto
and Saraiki is growing, it is unfair to deny permission for a Balochi
language television channel. According to an estimate there are six million
Baloch living in South Asia and in the Middle East, where they have found
work and prosperity. One way of undoing the wrongs committed against the
Baloch people and removing the grievances of Munir Mengal and others like
him is to allow a Balochi TV channel to operate from Pakistan. The Baloch
must be given their provincial rights and encouraged to join the political
mainstream if the Pakistani establishment wants Balochistan to stabilise and
remain a proud and willing unit of the federation of Pakistan.
The writer is resident editor of The News in Peshawar. Email: rahimyusufzai
@yahoo.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tzipi’s nation-state —Uri Avnery
20/12/2008 ; www.dailytimes
The nation-state will continue to exist for a long time to come. But it will
not be a narrow, closed nation-state, compulsively homogenous, based on
nationalist-religious-linguistic conformity, hostile to its neighbours. The
new nation-state will be open and cosmopolitan, respectful of minorities, a
state of all its citizens
It sounds like an invented story. And indeed it is.
In this tale, an American politician gets up and declares: The United States
was founded by British Protestants who were persecuted in Europe for their
Puritan beliefs. Therefore, the United States is an Anglo-Saxon Protestant
state.
And he goes on: the United States is also a democratic state. Therefore,
people with another background — such as Native Americans, Africans,
Latinos, Asians and Jews — enjoy full equality. But they must know that the
United States is an Anglo-Saxon nation-state, while they belong to other
nation-states.
Sounds far-fetched? Indeed it is. No American politician would dream of
uttering such a statement, even if he might feel it in his heart.
Here in Israel one can say such a thing, and nobody gets excited.
This week Tzipi Livni did just that. She was speaking to high-school pupils
— the audience preferred by our politicians, who know that the great
majority of them are conformists who will listen to anything without
protest. Standing in front of these pupils, boys and girls, who will be
called up by the army in a year or two, Tzipi disclosed her inner
convictions.
Israel, she said, is a Jewish and democratic state. The Arab citizens enjoy
full civil rights. But they must know that this is the Jewish nation-state,
while they belong to another nation, and their nation-state will be the
putative Palestinian state.
This statement did not arouse a storm, not on the spot and not in the media.
It does not contradict the convictions of most Israelis. The public accepts
the view that Israel is a Jewish state, and that its Arab citizens are, at
most, a tolerated minority.
What is special about Tzipi Livni is her emphasis on the two words “nation”
and “state”. She has made them into her trademark and repeats them at every
opportunity. They give her statements a certain respectability, the halo of
a thought-out world-view, which makes her sound different from Olmert,
Netanyahu and Barak, who, of course, think exactly the same.
No one denies that the world is divided into nation-states. The nearest
thing we have to a world parliament is called the “United Nations”, meaning
“United Nation-States”. The question is only: what is a nation-state?
In historical terms, the nation-state is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Only a hundred years ago, large parts of Europe belonged to multi-national
empires. It was the dynasty that united the empire, not the national
identity of the subjects. The Austrian Empire included people of more than a
dozen nationalities, and so did the empire of the Russian Czar.
Actually, the national idea crystallised only in the 18th century. More and
more thinkers adopted the view that a society with a common origin, a common
cultural identity, a common language (mostly), a common territory and
(usually) a common religion should be united in a state of its own, which
should belong to them alone, and enjoy national independence.
The timing was not accidental. All over Europe, mass education systems
sprang up and all the peoples developed a national consciousness. Slovaks
and Slovenes began to wonder why they should be subject to the Austrian
crown, Lithuanians and Latvians no longer found it natural that they should
be oppressed by the Russian Czar. At the same time, economic and
technological advances demanded states big enough to sustain a modern
economy and a large enough army to defend its citizens (and perhaps to
attack neighbouring countries).
The classic nation-state was France. It developed a French nation with a
nationalist world-view and a national pride, and that imposed its language
and culture on the peoples that became part of France either by agreement or
by force — Alsatians in the East, Corsicans in the South, Basques in the
West, Bretons in the North. British nationalism absorbed the Scots, the
Welsh and some of the Irish. The people that were swallowed up by the big
nations generally accepted this and developed a pride in their new nations.
The Corsican Napoleon Bonaparte was the Frenchman par excellence, and the
Jew Benjamin Disraeli created the British Empire.
That was the heyday of the classical nation-state: a national state,
homogenous as far as possible, which at most tolerated its minorities or
persecuted them outright, that demanded national conformism within and made
little pretence of morality in its dealing with other nation-states.
It seems that Tzipi Livni takes such a nation-state as her ideal. But
developments have long since left that stage behind. The nation-state has
not died, but it has changed almost beyond recognition. The United States,
too, is a nation-state. But that nation is very different from the one Tzipi
Livni is dreaming about.
The American nation is composed of all the citizens of the United States.
Lithuanians, Argentinians and Vietnamese become members of the American
nation the moment they receive their citizenship. The heritage of Washington
and Lincoln is conferred on them together with their passport. They are not
required to change their religion or skin-colour.
The ultimate confirmation of the success of this system has been given by
the election of Barack Obama, the grandson of a Muslim from Kenya.
Throughout the stormy election campaign, no one seriously claimed that he
was not a complete American.
The American flag and the American constitution unite this modern nation.
The President does not swear loyalty to the Fatherland, but to the
constitution. Not the skin-colour is important, not the ethnic origin, nor
religion or language. Only citizenship. Even the requirement that the
citizen should know at least basic English is not enforced as strictly as it
once was. Demographic experts predict that in not so many years, Whites of
European origin will be a minority in the American nation-state. But it
seems that this piece of news did not arouse a storm of alarm and anger.
Everybody understands that the future and robustness of the US-American
nation do not depend on the religion and race of the American people.
Therefore, there is no “demographic problem” in America. Neurotic
demographers like our Arnon Sofer would be considered cranks over there. As
in several other areas, the United States is a model for the rest of the
world in this respect, too.
In Europe, the old nation-states persist. Even after World War II, when the
Europeans woke up from their fatal nationalist intoxication and came to the
conclusion that they had to create a united Europe, they rejected the idea
of a unified European nation on the American model. They did not establish
the “United States of Europe”, but rather a “European Union”, which is
composed of a large number of nation-states. Yet a German or a Frenchman of
200 years ago would not believe their eyes if they were to walk down Unter
den Linden or the Champs Elysees today.
The European nations are changing. They are opening up to the world. The
idea of a homogenous nation, based on a common origin, is fading. Slowly,
perhaps too slowly, tolerance towards “the stranger in our midst” is
growing, and citizenship is granted to inhabitants with a different ethnic
origin and religion, like Turks in Germany and Africans in France. It is a
difficult process that does not always advance smoothly, but that is the
direction.
It is also necessary for the very survival of the European nations. Their
birth-rate is decreasing, there are fewer and fewer local workers to sustain
the economy and pay the taxes to cover the pensions of an aging population.
Europe needs a steady stream of new immigrants, and these will join the
European nations.
Angela Merkel will not tell her Turkish citizens: “You can enjoy equality
here, but you belong to the Turkish nation-state”. One can hardly imagine
Gordon Brown telling the British citizens of Pakistani extraction: “Your
nation-state is Pakistan.”
The Arab citizens of Israel can be compared to the Swedish citizens of
Finland. These constitute about 6 percent of the population, but they play
an important role in the economy and other spheres of life. All signs in
Finland are bilingual. Finland belongs to all its citizens. Ariel Sharon’s
advisor, Dov Weisglas, once said that “peace will come only when the
Palestinians become Finns”. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that
peace will come only when we ourselves “become Finns”.
The Israeli Arab citizens in Kafr Kassem and Um-al-Fahm, near the Green
Line, can be compared to the Alsatians in France, who have been living there
for untold generations. Several times in history they have belonged to
Germany. The last time was when Adolf Hitler annexed them to the Third
Reich. Nowadays, the Alsatians are as French as any, with equal rights and
obligations, and other aspects do not interest anybody. Would the French
president, Nicolas Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian nobleman, declare that
“the nation-state of the Alsatians is Germany?”
I know, I know, all these examples do not apply to us. We Jews are special.
Fact is, God chose us.
But with all due respect to God and Tzipi Livni, I must tell the Kadima
candidate: “Madam, what you are saying is already a little obsolete.” I
believe that nation-states will continue to exist for a long time to come.
It seems that this is the social structure contemporary people prefer for
the time being. A person feels a need for national identity.
But it will not be a narrow, closed nation-state, compulsively homogenous,
based on nationalist-religious-linguistic conformity, hostile to its
neighbours. The new nation-state will be open and cosmopolitan, respectful
of minorities, a state of all its citizens, integrated in a regional
partnership, a part of the global economy, a partner in the joint struggle
for the preservation of this little planet.
That may be the future. And when does the future begin if not today?
Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist who has advocated the setting up of
a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He served three terms in the Israeli
parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Power To Iran's Most Powerful Leader
By Roya Karimi, Farangis Najibullah;
20/12/2008 ; RFE/RL's Radio Farda
Iran's parliament, the Majlis, has passed a bill that deprives the
legislature of the right to check three major regulatory bodies, in a move
analysts say is likely to consolidate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei's power.
Reformist politicians also say if the bill becomes law it would create
unnecessary impediments to potential reformist candidates for next June's
presidential election.
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, under pressure due to Iran's ailing economy,
and his reformist predecessor Mohammad Khatami are expected to run in the
election.
Oversight Bodies
Iranian media reported that the bill was passed on December 16 in the
conservative-dominated parliament by an overwhelming majority. The reformist
opposition holds less than 25 percent of the parliament seats.
In Iran's complex bureaucracy, the Guardians Council, the Assembly of
Experts, and the Expediency Council all -- in theory -- provide a regulatory
function.
The Guardians Council is in charge of supervising elections and vetting
candidates, while the Expediency Council has the authority to mediate
disputes between parliament and the Guardians Council.
The Assembly of Experts elects the supreme
leader, who controls the military, the police, state media, and has the
final say in all domestic and foreign policies.
Analysts have also said the supreme leader -- with his largely sympathetic
majority in parliament -- might also have an eye on the parliamentary
elections in 2012.
An adviser to former President Khatami, who wished to remain anonymous,
tells RFE/RL that the bill is aimed at preventing a potential
reformist-controlled parliament from using its rights to check the decisions
of the three regulatory institutions -- and by extension the supreme leader.
Hassan Shariatmadari, a Berlin-based political analyst, tells RFE/RL's Radio
Farda that by passing the bill, the legislators have taken away the public's
right to check the country's leadership.
"When a parliament -- which is elected by the people and is supposed to act
as the people's representative to check the management -- voluntarily scraps
its own authorities, it means that the parliament admits it doesn't deserve
such powers," Shariatmadari says.
Little-Used Veto
However, even reformist politicians, speaking to Radio Farda on the
condition of anonymity, admit that when they had a majority in the previous
Majlis between 2000-04, reformist legislators did not challenge the supreme
leader over control of the three regulatory bodies.
But Hussein Bastani, an Iranian-born political analyst in Paris, says the
passing of the bill is still significant.
"In the past, the Majlis has had all those rights according the
constitutions, and no one denied them. Now, they have turned it into a law.
Until now, the Majlis -- as a sign of respect to the supreme leader -- would
ask the leader's permission [to exercise its own rights.] Now, they have no
right to check and probe and it is an important development," Bastani says.
"It would take an enormous amount of courage from someone in future
parliaments to reverse this decision and reinstate the parliaments rights."
To become law, the bill has still to be approved by the Guardians Council,
and it is widely expected the 12-member body will endorse it in coming
weeks.
RFE/RL's Radio Farda correspondent Roya Karimi contributed to this report