Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Iranian activist: “US pressure on Iran has affected civil society more than the regime”

On December 19, 1978, at just 11 years old, Sanam Naraghi AnderliniBritish-Iranian author and founder and executive director of the International Civil Society Action Network, a human rights defense network present in more than 40 countries, left the Persian country to travel to France for a holiday. It was a time of many protests in which schools were closed, but that 10-day trip ended up being definitive. “I have returned to Iran many times, but my life ended there and a new one began,” says Sanam in an interview with EL PERIÓDICO minutes before participating, this Wednesday, in the conference ‘Neither war nor tyrants’, promoted in Barcelona by BCN4Peacetogether with the American professor John A. Powell.

The British-Iranian author has emerged as one of the most recognizable voices of the Iranian diaspora. And unites the voice of millions of compatriots contrary to both the regime like the war unleashed on February 28 by the president of the United States, Donald Trump, and the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Since the conflict broke out, there have been very diverse positions on whether the war was justified. But how has Iranian civil society reacted?

When we talk about civil society we do so from the Western vision, thinking about social activism organizations and networks. In Iran that vitality exists, but not under standard structures. Because the regime has always tried to limit them under the idea that these organizations can become very powerful. There is no such structured notion, but there has always been very vibrant civic activism, about democracy, women’s rights, human rights or the environment. But the war, from day one, became a war against the nation, not just against the State. They attacked a girls’ school, power plants and universities. Two-thirds of the places they attacked in Tehran were civilian spaces. So when something like this happens, and even more so with a paranoid State, your civic activism disappears, because people are not going to go out and protest when bombs are falling. It is a danger that comes from both sides.

Has Iranian activism been neglected by the international community?

The economic sanctions and pressure imposed on Iran as a State affected civil society more than the regime. What Americans called “maximum pressure” really oppressed and reduced the capacity for civic activism, because people became desperate to cover basic subsistence issues.

What can the international community do to support civil society in this context?

Spain’s role in positioning itself against the war was very important. Because being against war means being in favor of the well-being of society. And now that there are glimpses of a peace process, this moment is really critical, because it could be when countries like Spain take a step forward and try to get involved in the process, alleging that both Iran and the US are, in some way, asking for international support.

There is talk that Trump needs to end the war now. How do you think an agreement made in haste and for personal interests will affect the population?

First there is the question of ending the war now, and I agree with that. Then we must end the blockades and sanctions. But the process for real peace takes time. And, by definition, technical issues like nuclear disarmament or sanctions removal require attention. But there is no reason why there can’t be working groups in the meantime. The more entities that are involved, the more likely it is that peace will be sustained and that people will be able to achieve good results.

One of her fields of work revolves around the presence of women in these peace processes. And in this case we see that it is once again completely dominated by men…

If we think about building peace simply between a limited number of representatives, they will always take whoever their men are. It could have been that the Foreign Minister was a woman, but she is not. But it’s not just about representation in the sense of having a woman, because they can put anyone. It is about addressing peace in a comprehensive way. And as soon as you start doing that, the space automatically opens up for more women, because we dominate sectors like healthcare or education. 65% of university professors in Iran are women. So, if you have a specific commission that works on rebuilding universities and schools, you would want to have representation from them.

From the West we talk about women in the Islamic world from a very closed prism. How can we better understand their role outside our framework?

It is important to understand one nuance. We have, by law, women discriminated against in many areas. As a feminist, I could tell you that there is a misinterpretation of sharia, but it is what is written. So you have a discriminatory law that women’s movements have systematically fought against. But you also have sociocultural forces at play. For generations the regime tried to control and exclude women from higher education, but society was not willing to tolerate it and women overcame that barrier.

It could be said that they go at different rhythms…

We live in this strange universe where society and cultural practices are more progressive than legal foundations. Pakistan or the Arab world may have progressive laws, but the society is different. Iran is the opposite. And many people don’t see that. The Western world focuses on factors like the hijab. And, again, for three generations women have fought against that. After the ‘Women, Life, Freedom’ movement, the hijab obligation was suspended. But the irony when they imposed it was that many people from conservative backgrounds forced their daughters to wear it, but it allowed them to go to university. So they were covered, but now they could go out into public spaces. And once inside, they fought over how to dress, who to marry, etc. This bottom-up approach is really important.

What can we learn from this silent resistance?

It is something very similar to what we see in the United States with evangelicals and far-right groups that try to control women’s bodies. In Iran we have had 47 years of this experience, and women won. But there is an essential issue: if the language of the State has been violence and repression, the language of women has been non-violence. It has been like a river in a mountain hitting a rock. The rock does not move, but the water erodes it and moves forward.

Subscribe to continue reading