The film narrates the story of a nine year old young girl Marjane in Iran during the1979 Islamic Revolution. Through the eyes of the little girl it shows how people’s hopes were dashed as the religious fundamentalists came to power, forced the veil on women and imprisoned thousands.

Freedom of the media is the cardinal principle of democratic form of governance. Iran, in spite of its leaning towards fundamentalism, is a democratic Muslim nation. In fact, other Muslim nations opposed 1979 Iranian revolution because of fears that similar fate may be awaiting them. It is a shame that the United States which has a stated policy of promoting democratic governance in the whole world does not want democracy in the Islamic world. It seems that it fears Iranian type of democracy and has authentic information about the low esteem in which common Arabs takes United States.

The biased US policy towards Muslim nations post 9/11 have created further rifts between the United States and Muslims. While Iran is unjustified in its criticism of the film, West should also refrain from over indulgence with Islam and Muslim societies.
Is it not a fact that the French revolution which had promised and given famous slogans of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ did not fully deliver the promised ideals. Similar was the case with several other revolutions. As a matter of fact, Iranian women are far more free than the women in the other Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia. The Constitution of Iran gives a better deal to the women than the Constitutions of most Muslim countries. But still the truth depicted in the Persepolis does have some merit and Iran would do well in further improving the conditions of its women rather than unnecessarily criticizing the Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud.

Freedom of Press is the fundamental guarantee which every democracy must ensure for its people and for the domestic and foreign journalists. Democracy is in fact government by choice and no right choice can be made by the people if options available to them are not known to them. It is the freedom of speech and media which ensures such a debate whereby people get to know their options.

China which is emerging as new economic super power with a phenomenal growth rate and is already a military leader in Asia and is hosting the 2008 Olympics should realize the significance of free media at least for the selfish ends of public relations. The promise of greater freedom for the foreign media are welcome but not enough as the distinctions between “local” and “international media” is an artificial one. Sophie Richardson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch observed:

The Chinese government is already failing to deliver on its pledge to fully lift restrictions for foreign journalists ahead of the Beijing Games.

The hosting of greatest sporting event should be used as an opportunity in improving China’s ranking on the freedom of press index where it is ranked quite low - (159th). The claim to the leadership of the world will remain a weak one in the absence of poor commitment to the civil liberties. Today Internet is one of the most powerful agents of freedom. It exposes truth to those who wish to see and hear it. It is no wonder that some governments rightly fear the Internet and its ability to make the truth known. In any case, since truth can not be concealed any more, the political masters in China who are fully aware of the fact that in a borderless world of internet and blogging, restrictions on the media bring no positive results for any government, must see the new realities of the 21st century. We hope Beijing is listening.

The camp holds people suspected by the Bush administration of being al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives. The prisoners were captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. Amnesty International and other Civil Liberty Organizations have rightly termed the camp as “a human rights scandal.‘

The detainees kept at the camp were called as “illegal enemy combatants” by the Bush administration which claimed that they were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions dealing with the protection to the prisoners of war. Interestingly the U.S. Supreme Court quashed this strange interpretation to restore some of our faith in the United States legal regime on the rights accused, in June, 2006 on the petition of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, allegedly Osama bin Laden’s driver in Afghanistan.

Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners will in the future be entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. Though the Supreme Court also struck down as illegal the initial tribunal system created by President Bush to try terrorism suspects at the camp yet Congress authorized a new military tribunal system last year which as a matter of fact was as flawed as the one struck down by the Supreme Court.

All kinds of tortures such as beating, denial of food, sleep deprivation, prolonged hooding, forced feeding, forced injections, sexual humiliations of highest order etc. are in use which not only shock the conscience of the civilized world but also bring more and more hatred to the United States. An FBI agent has admitted,

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more.

US is hardly gaining anything out of this camp except ridicule and contempt from Muslims and prisoners of conscience. In spite of contrary claims by the United States, prisoners so far released from the camp have also alleged that even abuse of religion is widely prevalent at the camp which includes flushing the Quran down the toilet, defacing the Quran, tearing pages out of the Quran etc.

No one can deny that the harsh techniques of interrogation used by the US since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable. It is surprising that till date there are no trained interrogators who specialize in gleaning secrets from the suspected terrorists. Human Rights defenders were shocked to read a 2005 Harvard study which supported the selective use of ‘highly coercive’ techniques. It is good that at least Condoleezza Rice explicitly confessed in a lecture that some of the interrogations techniques used by the CIA are ‘immoral.’

It is indeed shocking that Islam’s emphasis on religious freedom and tolerance has received little support in the otherwise plural Muslim countries. There is no direct evidence in Quran which lays down capital punishment for apostasy in this world. Apostasy, or riddah in Arabic, literally means defection or backsliding.1 As an Islamic legal term, it means denouncing Islam as one’s religion by a Muslim. In fact Quran clearly lays down golden principles of freedom of religion in the following verses:
There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith. (2:256)
And say [O Muhammad]: ‘The truth [has now come] you’re your Sustainer: let, then, him or her who wills, believe in it, and let him or her who wills, reject it. (18:29)
And so, [O Prophet,] exhort them; your task is only to exhort. You cannot compel them [to believe]. ( 88:21-22)

Similarly, the traditions of the Prophet quoted in favor of such a punishment are weak. The critics have not been able to understand that the fundamental principle of Islam is ‘there is no compulsion in region.’ Moreover, Islam does recognize Judaism and Christianity as sacred and even permits valid marriages between Muslim males and Jew and Christian females. Prophet of Islam did allow even sale of pork in the city of Madina which was an Islamic state. Saturdays and Sundays were the holidays for the Jews and Christians respectively during the life of the Prophet. They were also allowed to produce and sell wines etc.

It seems that since an Islamic state was an ideological state, rebellion against Islam was treated as sedition and punished accordingly. In any case, there is no such threat to any Muslim state if some Muslims turn to other religions today, and therefore a liberal approach needs to be adopted. We cannot anymore live with such ideas as Islam does not need Muslims who are feeling suffocated within the fold of Islam, let them go and experience other religions if they so desire. At the same time, the critics of Islam should also give their fair judgments on the discriminatory blasphemy laws in the western world.

Not by Grants Alone Ensure Human Rights for People with AIDS

The tragic stoning to death of a woman suspected of being HIV positive in India few years back was not an isolated case. The first anti-discrimination law appeared in the United States, starting with the Los Angles AIDS Discrimination Ordinance in June 1985.

This relationship between prevention of AIDS and human rights may be examined in two ways. First, there are pressures and issues related to human rights norms that are created by the choice or manner of implementation of public health policies. Secondly, it has now become clear that social discrimination in all its manifestations does create an increased vulnerability to HIV infection. Thus the efforts to protect human rights are extremely important.
Protection against epidemics is one of the main tasks. In addition, public health has been accepted as a legitimate ground for limiting human rights in international human rights law. Incorporating human rights in public health issues has not been easy. Public health developed through centuries by relying on coercion, compulsion and restriction does not readily adjust to the requirements of human rights.

Human Rights Issues in the Fight against AIDS-

i. Observance of Human Rights in Public Health Policies

ii. Social Discriminations increases vulnerability to AIDS

iii. Restrictions on the movement of the People

iv. Compulsory Hospitalization

v. Restrictions on the Sexual behavior

vi. Restrictions on Occupations

The ways in which several countries have reacted to the AIDS epidemic have created a lot of human rights problem. Coercive or restrictive AIDS control has some impact on human rights. Public health surveillance which has to record the personal identity of infected persons comes into conflict with human right to privacy. Similarly, people identified as carriers are to be subjected to isolation/ quarantine. Even a classification of disease can lead to mandatory examination or hospitalization, depending on local or national disease control legislation.

There were various laws empowering public health authorities to place legal restrictions on those with AIDS that have led to violation of human rights. Some of these are:
(i) restriction on the movement of persons across national frontiers;

(ii) restrictions on freedom of internal travel due to compulsory hospitalization or other reasons such as quarantine or isolation;

(iii) restrictions on sexual behavior;

(iv) restrictions on freedom of occupation; and

(v) other miscellaneous forms of restrictions (e.g., marriage contracts).

Discriminatory Social Environment

Another major area of relationship between human rights and public health responses arose when it was realized that a discriminatory social environment does prove to be counter-productive for the HIV information/education and prevention program. Threats and coercion towards HIV-infected people had the effect of driving people away from the health and social services created to help prevent HIV transmission.

Exclusion from the mainstream of society, or discrimination on grounds of race/ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, or sexual preference led to an increase in the risk of HIV infection. Employers, landlords, school personnel, and even staff of some health care institutions showed at times exclude people with AIDS.

Real Causes of Crises

No solution can be found until and unless, we appreciate the real cause of any problem. The major cause of the Darfur conflict is the failure of traditional systems for the allocation of land and water resources and the traditional and indigenous means of peaceful settlement of such disputes. As the ability of local communities to cope with drought and famine declined in last 25 years or so, and the capacity of their traditional systems of conflict resolution such as mediation over rapidly diminishing resources became overwhelmed, opportunistic leaders not only in Sudan but also elsewhere in Africa took full advantage of the situation. British masters who had introduced the system of “native administrators” with powers to allocate land are also responsible for this crises. Continuance of a similar system with growing armament and the polarization of ethnic identities, traditional conflicts acquired drastically different dimensions and scale.

Five Options

1. United States led United Nations force invading Sudan just like 1991 first gulf war. The humanitarian crises in Darfur does call for such a proactive solution. We must ensure that shameful inaction in Rwanda’s is not repeated in Darfur. United Nations Charter does permit such a collective action. Let America’s huge military power be used for a just cause just for a change. This will also restore some of her lost prestige.

2. United Nations Peace-Keeping force should immediately ensure lasting cease fire and quickly disarm government supported militia. To ensure respectability for such a force, it should be led by an African nation.

3. Right of self- Determination may be conceded though the same has not been explicitly demanded so far but it will surely put lot of pressure on the government of Sudan.

4. Granting Substantive Autonomy to black Arabs in terms of land, other resources etc and provision of adequate infrastructural facilities like schools and hospitals.

5. Immediate Cease fire under the supervision of African Union, investigations as to the fixing of the responsibility for the Darfur genocide by the International Criminal Court and United Nations supervised referendum to ascertain people’s wishes in Darfur to solve this crises. The failure of African Union in ensuring any real peace so far makes this option less attractive. Simultaneously it should be ensured that China’s support to Sudan in terms of investment etc. immediately comes to an end which is indeed a huge diplomatic task.

Stringent Sanctions

President Bush is all set to make 1997 sanctions tougher against Sudan, later today. The US will also push for a stronger UN Security Council resolution punishing Khartoum over the ongoing violence. It plans to ban more companies from US trade and crack down on individuals suspected of violence in Darfur.

Strategic Importance of Dafur

Darfur is of great strategic importance as it straddles Libya, Egypt, Chad etc. It is indeed matter of grave concern for the international community that more than 200,000 people have already been killed and about two million were forced to leave their homes amid fighting by government-backed Arab Janjaweed militias and rebel groups in Darfur.

Oil Interests of US & China

The oil interests of the US may again come to the fore though there are doubts about presence of any real oil reserves in Dafur. China is importing 6% its oil from Sudan and thus its support to the tougher sanctions may come with conditionalities.

Non Consensual Deployment of UN Forces

It has also been suggested by some experts that Sudan should either accept the robust force stipulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1706 (31 August, 2006) or face non-consensual deployment of the forces required to protect civilians and humanitarians. But then such a non-consensual deployment may be termed as an act of aggression that impinges on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sudan. Should human rights concerns prevail over the claims of the national sovereignty is a key issue in this debate. As a matter of fact any deployment of foreign peacekeeping troops must have prior explicit approval of Sudan as the experience of US-led military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq only aggravated the situation in the respective countries and led to more chaos and loss of human lives.

Verdict-

Sanctions alone have not led to any positive results in Cuba , Libya, Iran, Iraq etc. By imposing sanctions, we punish the innocent people and not the governments or rulers who are inclined to violate all principles of international law and human rights with impunity. Do not punish nations, punish the guilty. Let Sudanese not be punished for the wrongs of their President Omar al-Bashir.

US-Iran Talks: Issues

1. Iranian support to the terrorist activities in Iraq

The United States has been accusing Iran for its role in supporting Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations in Iraq. There is some evidence of Iranian sympathies being with the insurgents opposed to America not only in Iraq but else where as well.

2. American support to anti-Iran organizations within and beyond Iran

Similarly, Iran would be justified in claiming that the United States too is involved in several spying operations against Iranian interests. It is good that the issue of Iran’s nuclear program is not on agenda. Iran would do well if it herself adheres to its oft-repeated argument against undue American interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. By the same yardstick, Iran should also keep herself away from the ‘essentially domestic affairs’ of Iraq. It is indeed difficult for Iran to stay neutral in this scenario but by doing so, Iran can earn lot of good will for itself.

3. Iranian Interests in Iraq-Legitimate concerns

Iran certainly has some rights under international law to see that Shias in Iran are not discriminated against but when a predominantly Shia government is already in power, concerns for the safety of Shia majority should not bother it too much though it cannot be denied that the frustration and anger of Sunnis have posed some very genuine threats to the Shia population after the fall of Saddam Hussain.

4. American & Iranian Interference in the domestic affairs of Iraq
It cannot be denied that both America and Iran are guilty of interfering in the domestic affairs of Iraq. Now is an opportunity for them to retreat.

5. United States withdrawal from Iraq

The United States should also realize the gravity of the situation and may assure Iran that it will be out of Iraq by the end of 2008 if not before. In any case, President Bush is under pressure from the democrats to give some timetable about United States withdrawal. The U.S. assurance will create a new hope in the entire region and will lead to greater diplomatic pressures on Iran on the issue of internal security within Iraq.

6. Expect No Miracles out of US-Iran Talks

It is true that no miracles can be expected from these talks as the two sides may not be willing to really move forward from their stated positions yet a beginning is to be made somewhere. The whole world would look forward to these talks with some hope and President Bush and President Ahmadinejad will do a service to the humanity by surprising all of us in demonstrating positive attitude against each other. Iran’s unequivocal declaration on the issue of no support to terrorism in Iran will not be any concession from it to the United States, it will in fact mean a gift to the people of Iraq who do deserve some peace now. It will be good politics and great diplomacy for Iran and will surely go a long way in furthering Iranian interests in the long run.

Verdict:

Unexpected results do sometimes come out of diplomatic talks if the same are done with the sincerity of purpose. The United States should realize that invasion of a country in the new international order may be easy but staying in the occupied territories against the wishes of the natives is always a bad bargain. The United States should have learnt this lesson in Vietnam itself but in any case four years fresh experience in Iraq has itself been quite depressing. The United States’ image has gone down and has damaged President Bush’s standing as statesman and America’s claim as the leader of the civilized world. Let both Iran and America do something to get back their lost prestige. Road to peace may be difficult one but is it really impossible to achieve peace in Iraq?