Net Loss

Will the Internet save Iran from its theocratic rulers? Five million Iranians are online, and Persian is now the third most common language in the global village of blogs, according to Stanford researchers. The Times of London has dubbed Iran's feisty blogosphere, now over 100,000 strong, "a new species of protest that is entirely irrepressible" and that "may be the harbinger of revolution." The Nation Online claims "a fierce debate about the country's future [that] is underway in the blogosphere" and speculates that it "could help open up that society." Even an Iranian politician has spoken of the Internet's transformative power: Former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a prolific blogger himself, told a British magazine last fall, "The net is influential and will bring more pressure for change.... [N]ow that young people consider themselves members of a worldwide movement, they have higher expectations."All this optimism cools international calls for urgent action to thwart Iran's nuclear armament by raising hopes of an imminent political transformation from within. But, in reality, the Internet may actually impede political change in Iran. It is well-known, for example, that Iranians consume massive amounts of Western entertainment--sports media, pop music, and other elements of global culture that the regime in Tehran bans from the public sphere. This injection of hours of high-speed fun into Iranian homes makes daily life under a theocracy less different from daily life anywhere else--and probably less difficult to tolerate. The truce between the reigning mullahs and their subjects may well have been fortified, rather than undermined, as a result. The African Union (AU) made a noteworthy decision on January 24: For the first time in its brief history, the organization denied the AU chairmanship to the government hosting its annual summit--in this case, the genocidal Sudanese regime. It gave the nod instead to Congo Republic President Denis Sassou- Nguesso. The United States praised this development effusively. "I think it is really great, because it affirms that the AU has standards and principles," said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer. But the move hardly signals a new commitment to human rights by African leaders. Nguesso isn't exactly a model democrat (like the National Islamic Front, which dominates Sudan's government, he came to power via a coup). And the fact remains that Sudan should never have been the site of an AU summit. This in itself did far too much to legitimize the Khartoum regime. Moreover, there may now be a temptation toward complacency: Having momentarily highlighted Khartoum's destructive conduct in Darfur, African leaders may conclude that a chastened National Islamic Front will settle down and stop the genocide. Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than modest diplomatic reprimands to stop Khartoum. The regime has recently been militarily active in West Darfur and may be on the verge of a war with neighboring Chad. That could leave hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons, on both sides of the border, without access to humanitarian assistance. * Joseph Braude is the author of The New Iraq: Rebuilding the Country for its People, the Middle East, and the World. * Eric Reeves is a professor of English Language and Literature at Smith College and has written extensively on Sudan.

By Joseph Braude; Eric Reeves