On August 3

On this day in ...
... 1954 (55 years ago today), the French novelist known solely by her surname, Colette (left), died in Paris. She'd been born Sidonie Gabrielle Claudine Colette 81 years earlier in born in the province of Burgundy. When she was 20 she'd married a writer and music critic -- 15 years older than she -- who went on to publish Colette's 1st novels under his name. The couple divorced, and Colette supported herself by dancing in music halls and writing. Many of her novels, many featuring a strong woman character, remain popular to this day; for instance, the Claudine series (1900-1903), Chéri (1920) (subject of a new film), and La Fin de Chéri (1926). "During World War I Colette converted her husband's St. Malo estate into a hospital for the wounded." In 1920 she was made a Chevalier of the Légion d'honneur; in 1953, a Grand officier. France gave her a state funeral notwithstanding that the Roman Catholic Church because, by the time of her death, she was a 3-time divorcée. (credit for 1896 portrait of Colette by Jacques Humbert)
... 1989 (20 years ago today), then 54-year-old Ali Akhbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani sworn in as Iran's President. He would serve till 1997, then lose a re-election bid in 2005. He remains an influential politician in Iran. Last month, according to Reuters, Rafsanjani (right) said of the controversy since the disputed June re-election of his rival, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (prior posts here and here), there was "'bitterness,'" but no "power struggle in the Islamic state."

(Prior August 3 posts are here and here.)

Ahmadinejad a Persian Nixon?

IntLawGrrl Hope Lewis is right in her post below: not quite 'Nuff Said about what's happening in Iran. Not only because, as she says, the fundamental issue is the right of the Iranians to freedom of expression, association, political opinion, etc., but because the right to self-determination means being able to choose one's leaders without outside interference, as well as without fraud. So I'm wondering to what extent the media may be considered to interfere, and to what extent the events in Iran are a result of media and the power of modern commication technology.
I'm wondering this because here in Paris, I have met Iranian women who contradict the image we outside Iran have all been given of what it's like on the inside. They urge people to visit, and a young French woman's story confirms a greater openness and freedom than we believe prevails: traveling through the Middle East alone in her truck with her dog, she became slightly annoyed with the overwhelming kindness and generosity of the Iranians because she was never alone: constantly in someone's enjoyable company, always the very welcome guest. If we who oppose the imposition of the veil cover our heads to visit Iran and Iranians starved for outside contact, are we capitulating? Supporting the regime, or supporting the people?
With these questions in mind, I listened to the news on the eve of the Iranian election and heard there was a good chance President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (above left) would not be reelected. Then, just like Floyd Landis (right) blowing past the opposition to win the 2006 Tour de France after having fallen hopelessly behind (or so it seemed), he was announced the landslide winner. My husband and I joked about doping and were not surprised to hear accusations of fraud. Intriguing, then, to read in Ken Ballen's and Patrick Doherty's Washington Post article that

our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election. ...

Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal -- rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.

Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world.

When I first learned of their article, I thought they might be journalists manipulated by pro-Ahmadinejad interviewees. But Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion (a nonprofit institute researching attitudes towards extremism), Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, and they've been doing these polls for 3 years now.
So how did word of fraud spread so quickly and convincingly -- convincingly enough to get today's thousands of Iranians out into the street despite truncheon-wielding security forces? Are we being manipulated, or are they? If they succeed in obtaining what they want, manipulation may not matter in the end -- except to the extent it is further evidence of media's power to shape events and our need to be wary, and chary, of it.

In Mothers' Paradise, no men allowed

The mayor of Teheran has created "Mothers' Paradise," a park strictly for women. With an astute disposition of broad-canopied trees and surrounded by a a fence covered in green and orange canvas, the park protects women from the gaze of men on the ground and even in airplanes flying overhead. Inside the park, women are thus free to engage in sports like cycling or jogging without being encumbered by the head coverings they are otherwise required to wear. This is not the first such park in Iran, nor the first woman-only installation: before becoming Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was mayor of Teheran. There, he introduced sex-segregated elevators, taxis and hospitals where female patients are treated only by female "medical workers." While many women are happy to be able to move about freely in parks like Mothers' Paradise, women's rights activists like Teheran-based lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh point out that such parks are further instances of discrimination against women that violate international conventions. Riders on Mexico City's pink bus about which we've blogged might welcome a Mothers' Paradise or even Sotoudeh's extreme scenario of sex-segregated districts or entire cities (remember Christine de Pisan's City of Ladies?), but what women everywhere really want is not to have to exclude men, but to be free and equal in their company.

'Nuff said

(Occasional item taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes.)

This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement.

-- U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) (above left), former Presidential candidate and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The cause of his objection? President George W. Bush's statement in Israel's parliament, during a commemoration of Israel's 60th birthday. Bush likened proposals to meet face-to-face -- that is, to engage in diplomacy -- with adversaries such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to pre-World War II appeasement of Adolf Hitler. Many others objected. Here's what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) had to say:

I think what the president said in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel.