- 14 December 2009
-
- 7 Comments
-
-
-
- Diplomacy, Events in Iran, Human Rights in Iran, Iran Election 2009, Sanctions
NIAC Applauds House Members for Introducing 2 Pieces of Landmark Legislation
14 December 2009 Posted By NIAC
Both the “Stand with the Iranian People Act” and the “Iranian Digital Empowerment Act” Introduced Today
Contact: Phil Elwood
917.379.3787
For Immediate Release
Washington, DC – The National Iranian American Council welcomes today’s introduction of the Stand with the Iranian People Act in the House of Representatives, and applauds the bill’s sponsors Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN) and William Delahunt (D-MA). As policy makers evaluate how best to resolve the nuclear issue and change the Iranian government’s behavior, it is imperative that the Iranian people not get lost in the debate.
Also introduced today was H.R. 4301, the Iranian Digital Empowerment Act, by Representatives Jim Moran (D-VA), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), and Bob Inglis (R-SC). This vital legislation will ensure that the Iranian people are not denied access to necessary tools for bypassing government spying efforts and communicating with each other and the outside world as they continue to make their voices heard.
CLICK HERE TO TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO SUPPORT THESE HISTORIC BILLS!
(Click here for a summary of SWIPA – English Version, Persian Version)
(Click here for a summary of IDEA – English Version, Persian Version)
“The Stand with the Iranian People Act” (SWIPA)
Due to current sanctions, most forms of people-to-people exchanges between the US and Iran are prohibited without a special license. This means that US policy actually blocks Americans and Iranians from working together on projects like building hospitals or schools in Iran or promoting human rights. The Stand with the Iranian People Act (SWIPA) enables US Non-Governmental Organizations to work directly with the Iranian people and eliminates barriers that only serve to cut Iranians off from the world community.
SWIPA also targets companies that provide the Iranian government with software and technology used to censor the Internet and spy on the Iranian people. These companies currently receive US government contracts in spite of their aid of Iranian repression-SWIPA eliminates this funding. SWIPA also targets human rights abusers within the Iranian government by imposing travel restrictions against them and encouraging other governments to do the same.
NIAC President Trita Parsi explained the significance of SWIPA: “Standing with the Iranian people does not mean speaking loudly about solidarity with Iranians while continuing to push for sanctions that punish the very people we claim to support. It doesn’t mean imposing democracy on Iran from the outside in a manner that undermines the people in Iran who are already fighting for it. Standing with the Iranian people means-as a first step-rethinking decades of unhelpful US policies on Iran that unintentionally have served to strengthen Iran’s hardliners.”
“Iranian Digital Empowerment” Act (IDEA)
NIAC President Trita Parsi welcomed the new proposal, calling it a “long overdue correction of one of the most glaringly self-defeating aspects” of US sanctions on Iran. Due to ambiguities in current US sanctions law, companies and private citizens in the US are barred from sending software to the people of Iran, including important communication and anti-censorship tools that ensure the free flow of information. The Iranian Digital Empowerment Act clarifies that US sanctions do not apply to software that enables the people of Iran to circumvent government monitors and censors as well as communications software and services.
“Sanctions alone are not going to alter the Iranian government’s behavior,” Parsi said, “but the last thing US laws should do is hinder the Iranian people’s ability to access information and communication tools online.” Recently, Microsoft and Google suspended certain instant messaging services in Iran, citing their obligations under US sanctions. Facebook also considered cutting its service to Iran prior to the election, though ultimately decided against such a move, which would have deprived the Iranian people of a critical outlet for communicating post-election events to the outside world. Still, current regulations are ambiguous about the legality of offering online services to Iran.
Related posts:
7 Responses to “NIAC Applauds House Members for Introducing 2 Pieces of Landmark Legislation”
If only the Stand with the Iranian People act encompassed the pro-establishment as well as the anti-establishment, for to ignore the people that make up the
pro-establishment is to view Iran in a most unrealistic manner.
And if only the Digital Empowerment Act provided ordinary Iranians with fully supported, legally imported operating system software with which to utilize these comparatively minor add-ons.
If only.
@Pirouz:
From the description above, this act allows US Non-Governmental Organizations to work directly with the Iranian people on projects like building hospitals or schools in Iran or promoting human rights. Thus, the act encompass all Iranians. It has nothing to do with pro-establishment or anti-establishment.
What does it mean to “encompass the pro-establishment” to you? Perhaps you’d feel more comfortable if the act allowed American organizations to work directly with the establishment to assist in rape, arrest and killing of the anti-establishment.
This is good legislation, but I doubt anything will really have any impact as long as the dictator and his henchman ahmadi are in power.
@Iranian-American
By my comment, I was referring to the language used in the act. The language portrays a monolithic populace solely in anti-establishment terms, when in fact the pro-establishment element of this populace could be as high as 60% or more (according to the WPO poll).
And I-O, there’s no need to resort to a reduction-to-the-absurd.
@Pirouz:
I would suggest looking more at concrete projects this legislation refers to rather than trying to read too much into the “language used in the act”.
And I-O, there was no reduction-to-the-absurd. It was an honest question. When the legislation is referring to building hospitals and schools, I was (and still am) confused as what this has to do with pro-establishment vs. anti-establishment.
Well, I-O, let’s reverse your reductio ad absurdum:
Perhaps you’d feel more comfortable if the act allowed organizations to work directly with the American establishment to assist in sexual abuse (Abu Ghraib), arrest (Bagram), torture (Guantanimo) and killing (drone attacks) of ordinary Iraqi and Afghan citizens.
It works both ways.
Still, I didn’t say I was against the acts, or against NIAC’s applause. All I did was point out that Iran’s political dynamics are not monolithic, and I also addressed the hypocrisy of allowing comparatively minor add-ons to operating system software which they are forced by sanctions to acquire by extralegal means.
Pirouz, I have found in disagreements many times absurdity is in the eye of the beholder. I have often found many (though not all) of your comparisons of repression in Iran to repression in US absurd (as many others have). I find it absurd to take issue with this act because of the language, where the bill is clearly talking about building hospitals and schools and promoting human rights. The notion that such projects are anti-establishment, I find completely absurd.
Perhaps you have found some of my comments absurd. That is sometimes the nature of disagreement. Asking for more clarification sometimes helps, and other times just leaves one more confused.
If, for the sake of argument, I am able to put aside the absurdity of the claim that this act ignores the pro-establishment, the natural question is if schools and hospitals are “anti-establishment”, then what type of projects would be “pro-establishment”. As projects to assist in the rape, arrest and torture of the anti-establishment are the only things I could think of, they are both the least and most absurd guess I could come up with. I agree it is absurd, but from my perspective, we entered absurdity with your claim that this act “ignores the pro-establishment”.
And this is one of those cases where I’m left more confused, still unsure as to what non-absurd things such a bill should include to “encompass the pro-establishment”. And sometimes, this is the nature of disagreement.