Velma Anne Ruth, M.Ed.
March 20, 2012
In 1999, I was studying to be an art therapist, researching criminology, when I was introduced to a violence reduction program inside Iran that addresses the dynamics of spirituality (freedom of religion), mental health, substance abuse, families, employment, education, nutrition, and related 'risk/need' areas towards local community stability. In 2001, I started an organization to address crime reduction in this fashion, was advised by my Iranian compatriot, and then 9/11 happened. When I learned that Iran was part of the attack, I said to myself, if my Iranian friends live in a country that could do something like that, my friends are in trouble. At that point, I committed to a 10 year goal of addressing counter-terrorism through justice and social means. In 2009, I 'stood' in the middle of the Iranian online revolution, protecting identities as information was coming out, and searching for ways to help. Human rights, international justice, coalition development, democracy development, anti-corruption research, starting an organization for Iranians, by December 2009, these are all areas where Iranians asked me for assistance. I said yes, still protecting identities in the course of organizing.
This past year, I have been meeting with philanthropists, talking with various Iranian organizations and individuals to find out who would be interested to work together, at a certain level of professionalism and productivity that philanthropists would expect for long-term support. There's a plan, details are being worked out, and there is an overwhelming amount of interest from all sides, not withstanding some of the bridges that had to be burned in the process, for the sake of others safety, security, and comfortability.
When I meet with potential financiers, they always, always complain about past experiences with Iranian in-fighting, saying the community will never come together, what's the use? Why should they give money to people who fight each other, instead of fight for the cause? I agree with them quite directly, but explain, it is the aggressive voices of the few with microphones that outcast the silenced secular democratic and human rights seeking majorities, it is justifiable conflicts against those who manipulate the movements towards enabling the regime and terrorism, it is protections of close-knit groups to preserve the unity that can be built, it is oppressive regimes imposing communications monitoring that is sooner met by torture and political imprisonment, and it is something that upsets the people inside Iran greatly. So to resolve, the priority is set on those groups with larger ties inside Iran, because they are the ones who are suffering for the rights to free speech, free press, freedom to organize, freedom of religion, and all the blessings we take for granted in the west.
With full on advocacy, I ask if the financiers know who the greatest American compatriots are for the Iranian people? I say the Tea Party, and the financiers become shocked and perplexed. I explain, unfortunately liberal feminists do not advocate for women's rights in the Middle East, likely because they are conflicted into believing that the majority of peoples are Muslim and prefer oppression. They don't necessarily look into the eyes of a woman who is wearing a black veil, they don't necessarily see her deep fear, and they don't necessarily know what it means to comfort her by looking into her eyes as if to say, I understand, I see you there, I feel you, and whatever you feel or think is justified.
I ask the financiers, do you know how the Tea Party is organized? It is much the same. For Tea Party, there are multiple national networks, multiple state and local networks, multiple groups, coalitions, and varied individuals. The national groups can affiliate with each other, any number of state and local groups, and individuals can participate in one or more groups. Some individuals don't affiliate with any Tea Party group, but they are observers, share principles, vote similarly on many issues, and show support for the Tea Party. I explain, the fighting between Tea Partiers and Democrats is not unlike the common debates between Iranians on varying sides of the political spectrum, it can get rash, inappropriate, offensive, but it is very normal, and very human. The only skeletal and hierarchical difference between Tea Party and Iranian opposition is that the Iranians have an international network. Glenn Beck recently explored Tea Party development in Europe, but he would have been better suited in the Middle East.
Liberals could say that Democrats are organized the same way, and I would not disagree, I would not know. But I do know that many Tea Party groups want a national movement to support the secular democratic and human rights seeking opposition towards non-violent transition. They want their troops home, but want peace, not negligence in the Middle East. Tea Party has admitted to having issues of Islamophobia, and wants to address it through education, which is very noble. They also want to provide advice to Middle Eastern and Iranian compatriots, to help support the grassroots style of their community organizing. If Democrats want to join in the advocacy, the more the merrier, because the Tea Party folks we talk to are bipartisan.
However, it has been decades that the Middle Eastern and Iranian opposition have been organizing, uprising and being oppressed again, and still, the US Government does not successfully grasp nor engage with the majority peoples. For all the institutions in DC, all the charities, all the experts and academics concerned with Middle East and democracy, decades later, things still only get worse. Why?
In 2009, I was asked to help put together an organization for the opposition, by the opposition, so that they could speak for themselves. I believe in the people. I believe in the people's capacity to be their own experts, to speak on their own behalf, identify who they want to affiliate with, nominate their own leaders, engage in a democratic process under constitutional principles they have been drafting on their own for all these years. I think the largest mistake that Washington DC has made is that the experts have failed to listen to the people, to allow the people to lead and take back their own countries, have listened to the select few who engage in conflicts of interest and incite conflict, are afraid of what they don't understand, and are afraid of anarchy. The Iranian people and their Middle Eastern compatriots across the region are nothing to be afraid of, they want the same things that Americans want for themselves, they risk their lives to engage in western lifestyles underground, and their music is arguably deeper and more passionate than the US or Europe ever experienced in the 1960s, during our social revolution.
In-fighting is a very normal, common part of democratic process, where media and social media campaigns are consuming, and passions for nations are on fire. There is a line, of course, which is also very healthy to consistently draw. If there are no boundaries, there are no guidelines, there are no common laws, and liberty continues to be trampled. However, leadership requires a higher level of campaigning, passion, language, setting standards by example, building unity for a shared vision, and coordinating opportunities for the masses. Whether it is the US government, financiers, the American people, institutions in Washington DC, or fellow Iranians, so long as there is a thread of professionalism and unity that joins as many people as possible, there can be change.
