Remittances of 2.5 billion dollars make up Afghanistan’s entire national budget.

Richard O’Regan reports from Tehran.

Should the P5+1 stand in solidarity with Iran’s reformers?

For the past 15 years, Dwight Bashir has worked on international conflict, human rights and religious freedom issues. He is a senior advisor for an independent U.S. commission focusing on international religious freedom. The views expressed here are his own personal views.

Now that the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, France, Russian, China + Germany) have embarked on multilateral negotiations with the Iranian government, it is time to look forward, not backward. The one-day talks in Geneva held last week will resume after an October 25 visit to Iran by representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to assess Iran’s newly-declared nuclear facility.

As expected, international attention has focused on Iran’s apparent willingness to send most of its enriched uranium out of the country and to allow the IAEA to inspect its latest facility. What has not received adequate attention is what happened on the fringes of the formal talks –- separate discussions between American and Iranian diplomats on human rights.

Here’s how the U.S. State Department spokesman characterized these conversations: “In addition to the focus on the nuclear program, they also had a frank exchange on a number of other issues, including issues of human rights. And we also raised the issue of American citizens who are being held in Iran…”

Understandably, the United States government asked about American detainees in Iran, but what other human rights issues were discussed? Unfortunately, there has been no further explanation.

Did anyone inquire about the hundreds of Iranian citizens injured or killed while peacefully protesting the contested outcome of the June 12 elections? Or the scores of dissidents and reformers who have been beaten by Iranian security and militia forces and unlawfully detained for weeks? What about before the elections, and the thousands of brave women’s rights activists, journalists, bloggers, ethnic and religious minorities, human rights defenders and others who have been unjustly imprisoned?

For that matter, did anyone raise specific cases such as the seven Baha’i leaders, in jail since early last year, who could be sentenced to death on October 18 on baseless espionage charges? What about the status of two Christian women, Maryam and Marzieh, who reportedly have serious health concerns yet continue to languish in prison — now for more than six months — without charge and facing the death penalty for apostasy?

Let’s also not forget that just two weeks ago, President Ahmadinejad arrived in New York on very shaky international standing with internal turmoil alive and well in Iran. Nevertheless, he still felt confident enough to spew anti-Semitic rants and anti-Western vitriol during his address to the United Nations General Assembly.

All is not lost. There is a way forward.

In addition to holding the Iranian government to account for its nuclear ambitions, the P5+1 should use its new platform to raise substantive human rights issues, and not just behind closed doors. The Iranian government has already agreed to “embark on comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations,” so human rights are fair game. In particular, the P5+1 should publicly express its genuine concern about the plight of Iranian citizens, as well as raising specific cases (a similar method was used successfully by the United States during the 1970s when it raised human rights effectively during arms talks with the Soviet Union). This message must emerge in future deliberations, otherwise the morale of Iran’s reformers and — of advocates of freedom and democracy globally — will have suffered a major blow.

The P5+1 can cite Iran’s obligations under international human rights law; in particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Iran is a party. Not only would this present a unified front among P5+1 partners, but would also demonstrate solidarity with the Iranian people. If Russia and China balk, the four Western partners can still take a powerful stand. The Iranian people need to know that the international community cares about their fate and will not trade away 30 years of transgressions for potential nuclear concessions.

The U.S. Congress can also play its part. Both the Senate and House are moving forward on providing the Obama administration with a new set of targeted economic sanctions should Iran fail to produce tangible results in a timely fashion. Current legislation under debate identifies nuclear proliferation and support for international terrorism as justification for imposing new sanctions. Final legislation should add international human rights violations to the list. This inclusion would demonstrate that the Iranian government’s poor human rights record is on equal footing with other security concerns.

Even if symbolic, Congress should also consider triggering a targeted sanction under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). Iran has been on the U.S. blacklist of religious freedom violators for 10 years, yet no new sanction has been imposed. In addition, the State Department has a statutory requirement under IRFA to identify foreign agencies and officials responsible for violations of religious freedom and can bar individuals from entry into the United States.

This requirement remains unfulfilled.

Ideally, the ultimate goal would be to get international agreement among the P5+1 on any new sanctions. Although this isn’t a must. Again, if Russian and/or China hold out, the four Western allies can still work together. Since late 2006, the U.N. Security Council has passed three rounds of sanctions penalizing Iran’s nuclear program and imposing travel bans on those individuals involved. Why not do the same for Iranian officials involved in human rights abuses? It’s high time to identify Iran’s human rights violations as a justification for tougher sanctions. This act alone would bolster Iran’s reformers to play their part inside Iran.

- Dwight Bashir

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Plug 1 under a Creative Commons license.

In this extended interview — recorded in May, prior to the crackdown following the disputed election — Iranian students discuss how they bypass filters to find music and films, both online and in shops on the streets. They also share their ambivalence about the prevalence of Western popular culture in Iran.

The Worldfocus signature story “Iranian authorities can’t stop flood of Western culture” explores Iran’s thriving popular culture and the government’s futile attempts to control what Iranian citizens see and hear.

Worldfocus producer Rebecca Haggerty spoke via Skype with Iranian film scholar Negar Mottahedeh, an associate professor of literature and women’s studies at Duke University. She discusses the evolution of Iranian cinema and the impact of the 1979 revolution on the industry, arguing that in adapting to government restraints, Iranian directors have introduced a “whole new language” to world cinema.

Watch a clip from an early Iranian film, “Lor Girl” — the first with sound ever to be produced in the Persian language. In the film, which was made in the early 1930s, a girl is kidnapped by thieves:

Watch a clip from a more modern Iranian film, “Char Changule,” a comedy about a pair of conjoined twins — one devout, the other a party animal:

These days, the Iranian authorities do all they can to control what Iranian citizens see and hear. But as Worldfocus correspondent Bigan Saliani and producer Richard O’Regan discovered during a trip to Iran earlier this year, technology is making that virtually impossible.

“I will repeat that I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations,” Obama said. “But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards, if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability…if they are oblivious to the dangers an escalating nuclear arms race in both East Asia and the Middle East, then they must be held accountable.”

In an interview with the Associated Press, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he expects next week’s discussions with the West about Iran’s nuclear program to be “free and open,” but called on the world’s nuclear powers to give up some of their weapons too.

Mansour Farhang is a professor of international relations at Bennington College and was revolutionary Iran’s first ambassador to the United Nations.  He joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss how Ahmadinejad’s nuclear stance is influenced by domestic Iranian politics, Israel and other concerns.

But on Friday, at an annual political event known as Quds Day to show solidarity with the Palestinian cause, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made some harsh comments about Israel and the West, calling the Holocaust “a lie.”

The event brought out tens of thousands of demonstrators for — and against — the government.

Do you think the Obama administration is making a mistake by engaging Ahmadinejad?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

Ervand Abrahamian, a distinguished professor of history at the City University of New York, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the state of the protest movement in Iran and talks about the country’s nuclear program.

Women outside Tehran University. Photo: Richard O’Regan

Producer Richard O’Regan ventured to Iran for the Worldfocus signature story “Women in Iran race ahead, but still face gender block.” He describes his impressions of the changing role of women in Iranian society.

The problem Iran has with its women citizens comes into sharp focus when you’re hanging around the gate of Tehran University. As the class day begins, students gush through the turnstiles. Little knots of friends eddy into campus and head off in their separate ways. Two out of three of the students passing by are women. Young women. They are, of course, Iran’s future.

What to do about the pressure for legal rights from young, educated women seems an intractable problem for the men responsible for the last few decades of Iran’s past. Like it or not, women will soon be their nation’s educated elite.

The women you talk to on campus — those few willing to risk being quizzed later about their contact with foreign reporters — say there are aspects of the system that they like. The Islamic dress code does prevent men from “checking you out.” Iranian women can’t imagine how women elsewhere put up with it.

Visiting Iran as a foreigner, you get the feeling that you have parachuted into a work in progress that no one involved can quite figure out; one which leaves outsiders thoroughly baffled. Some women push the limits of what the law permits. Others take comfort in it.

The closest we came to being in danger during our pre-election trip was when a young man took exception to his sisters and female cousins being filmed. The young women teased him for what they saw as an old-fashioned attitude. They were doing they best they could to be noticed. The law says everything but your face and hands must be covered. They went out and got nose jobs so what little the world saw of them was as attractive as possible.

From the look of things — and as a TV crew you sometimes never get past how things seem –- women are oppressed. But then there is the scene at the university gates, and even more revealing scenes outside the medical and pharmaceutical schools. Seventy percent of Iran’s medical students are female. The idea that a democratic nation can suppress its own professional class seems absurd.

Like many really knotty problems, this one stems from internal contradictions. Revolutionary Iran rooted its legal system in Islamic law. But they also were determined to create a Democracy. Not a Western-style democracy, to be sure, but Iran is governed by elected legislators. Soon after the revolution, the Islamic government began a campaign to spread literacy. The campaign worked. Nearly 100 percent of Iranian women educated since the Revolution can read and write. Before the 1979 Revolution, that figure was less than 50 percent.

But the Islamic legal system also took hold. Enshrined in it was a very traditional interpretation of what the rights of men and women should be. To an outsider, they seem a throwback to long-discredited sexist attitudes. When you sit down, as we did, with the men in power, they put forward their belief that the system keeps families stable and that women enjoy the protections it affords them. It sounds reasonable and thoughtful. But it also sounds uncannily like the defenders of patriarchy I met years ago in apartheid South Africa. They assured me that the vast majority of black people loved the system. It turned out they didn’t have that exactly right.

The problem for the men running Iran today is that the cohort of educated women they have helped create are perfectly capable of reading the Qur’an for themselves. When they do, they don’t find in it the rules they have had to live by for their entire lives. The movement to upend Iran’s legal patriarchy seems to be building. Mostly surreptitiously, activists have begun gathering signatures on a petition demanding change. Their stated goal: A million people.

So many Iranian women have come to think that the current laws of the Islamic Republic — which, in most cases, put them under the legal supervision of their male relatives — are not part of their religion at all, but part of the social customs of the Arab nomads who first adopted Islam and brought it to Persia in the Seventh Century. (Arabs in general, and nomads in particular, are not widely admired in Iran.)

Their reading has led to a nightmare for those in Iran who like the system just as it is. They see any movement for change as an attempt to overthrow the government. In one sense, it is. In a patriarchy, after all — it is the patriarchs who have all the power. Upend the system and other people take charge.

To Iran’s current leaders, a faithful religious opposition to laws and policies that they have declared to be a divine mandate is the worst kind of revolution -– one that strips them of their religious and political legitimacy by using the tools of democratic change.

You’d have thought they might have seen it coming when they started that literacy campaign.

- Richard O’Regan

Masoumeh Ebtekar served as Iran’s first female vice-president under the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami. In 1979, a young Ebtekar — nicknamed “Mary” by the Western press — became the spokesperson and face of the Iranian students who held 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy.

Her fluent English was the result of several years spent in the United States as a child while her father pursued an academic career. She holds a doctorate in immunology, currently serves in Tehran City Council, and was named a 2006 UNEP Champion of the Earth as a “champion of cleaner production in the petrochemical industry.”

Iranian-American correspondent Bigan Saliani and producer Richard O’Regan interviewed Ebtekar in Tehran in May, before the disputed election.  She argues that women have made tremendous strides in the preceding decades. Her interview also touches on whether women need men’s protection; Iranian youth and reform;  and offers a surprisingly hopeful assessment of the future of Iranian-U.S. relations.

For more coverage of women in Iran, visit our Women in Islam extended coverage page.

A large trial began this weekend for those arrested in the violence and protests that followed the election. They included many prominent politicians and religious figures. Meanwhile,  the U.S. is considering cutting off gasoline supplies to Iran if the country rejects offers to negotiate its nuclear program.

Trita Parsi, the founder and president of the National Iranian American Council, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the possibility of gas sanctions, the trial of protesters and the Obama administration’s attempt to engage in negotiations with Iran.

On Monday, seven weeks after Iran’s disputed presidential election, the country’s supreme leader endorsed the declared victor.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave his blessing to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, clearing the way for Ahmadinejad to be sworn in on Wednesday for a second term.

Watch a video of the ceremony from an Iranian television channel:

But later, there were reports of new clashes in Tehran between security forces and protesters who oppose Ahmadinejad.

One Twitter user purporting to be in Iran wrote of his discontent:

Ahmadinejad is not my president Ahmadinejad is not our president Ahmadinejad is not Iran’s president.. never.. never… never

In black monday: coup government was appointed. where is my vote? where is Iraniran’s vote?

Watch a video claiming to show Monday’s protests from YouTube user IranYouth:

A large trial began this weekend for those arrested in the violence and protests that followed the election. They included many prominent politicians and religious figures.

Protesters are increasingly angry, not only about the government’s crackdown, but about the treatment of those detained and held in prison. Trials for some of those people will begin this weekend.

Afshin Molavi, a fellow at the New America Foundation, joins Martin Savidge to discuss demonstrations in Iran and the ongoing political turmoil.

Religious minorities in Iran, including Christians, have been targeted.

For the past 15 years, Dwight Bashir has worked on international conflict, human rights and religious freedom issues. He is a senior advisor for an independent U.S. commission focusing on international religious freedom. The views expressed here are his own personal views.

The good news is that since the June 12 elections in Iran, much of the world has been exposed to the egregious human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The bad news is that we are witnessing the kinds of practices that have been carried out since the inception of the Islamic Republic some 30 years ago.

Yesterday, the Iranian government announced that it was releasing 140 detainees associated with the post-election protests only after reports surfaced that several prisoners had been beaten and tortured resulting in some deaths. Today, the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) announced that trials would begin next week for approximately 20 post-election protesters. Their crime? “Planning and carrying out sabotage.”

This kind of contrived charge exemplifies the fact that the Iranian government will crack down on any individual who does not fully espouse the repressive ideals of the Islamic Revolution or any individual or group who is a perceived threat to the legitimacy or continued existence of the regime.  This includes political dissidents, reformers, women’s rights activists, religious and ethnic minorities, to name only a few.

While it is vital that there continue to be a spotlight on the treatment of the post-election protesters and dissidents targeted by the regime, it is just as important that the same level of attention be given to those who have suffered a similar fate long before the elections took place.

Disfavored Muslims and non-Muslim religious minorities surely fit into this category.  Dissident Shiite clerics who seek reform or advocate a separation of religion and state have been targeted and imprisoned for years. Several members of the minority Sufi Nematollah Gonabadi Order have been in prison since last year without charge.

The largest and most persecuted non-Muslim minority in Iran are the Baha’is. At least 30 Baha’is are in prison solely because of their religious identity.  Seven Baha’i leaders have been held in the notorious Evin prison for more than a year now on unsubstantiated and baseless charges, two of which carry the death penalty.  Their trial could take place at any time, and if the past is any indication, they could be tried, convicted and sentenced on the same day.

Since March, two Iranian converts to Christianity have been held in Evin prison without charge.  The concern is that they will be charged with apostasy, a crime which can carry a death sentence in Iran. The list goes on and on.

On July 25, in more than 100 cities worldwide, thousands came together in a Global Day of Action to highlight and condemn the range of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Iranian government.  One of the objectives of the campaign is to encourage UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to send an official delegation to Iran to investigate postelection human rights violations in Iran. While dispatching an envoy is no doubt warranted, the Secretary General should ensure that any envoy’s mandate includes looking into violations committed against those targeted by the regime long before the June 12 elections.

In addition, the international community must step up its collective efforts to demonstrate that it will not tolerate such systematic human rights abuses by the Islamic Republic without repercussions, similar to the way it has taken a strong stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

- Dwight Bashir

For more, view our Voices of Iran extended coverage page and listen to our online radio show on Baha’i faith and modern Iran.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user N_Creatures under a Creative Commons license.

The political turmoil in Iran continues to unfold. Hundreds of demonstrators were imprisoned following the street protests last month, and their treatment in the weeks since the disputed presidential election is now the subject of intense international scrutiny.

Iran’s official media reported on Wednesday that 20 of those detained will be put on trial as early as this weekend.

Though the protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, in some cases even silent, the demonstrators are accused by the Iranian authorities of carrying out bombings, and of attacking Basiji paramilitary forces — the very forces who repeatedly attacked them.

Ervand Abrahamian, a distinguished professor of history at City University of New York, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the fate of political prisoners.

Last Friday, thousands of protesters gathered outside Tehran University.

In Iran, tens of thousands of anti-government protesters took to the streets of Tehran once again last Friday. They called on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to resign and were met by police and militiamen who fired tear gas.

At Friday prayers, one of the country’s top religious leaders — Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, himself a former president — voiced new doubts about the results of the recent presidential election, which returned Ahmadinejad to power. He said those doubts “are now consuming us.”

Watch the interview: Protesters return to Iran’s streets following Friday prayers

Worldfocus contributing blogger Juan Cole shares comments from an associate who witnessed last Friday’s prayers.

The past couple of days everyone I met debated back and forth whether to attend Friday Prayers today or not. Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president and one of the “founding fathers” of the Islamic Republic, was to give the sermon this week. This was the first time he would speak out since the elections.

Around 11:00am I left the house with my companions and we headed to Valiasr Street. The streets were packed, both with pedestrians and cars. We hailed down a taxi and asked the driver to get us as close to Enghelab (Revolution Square) as she could. Every road she took was blocked off by the police. We finally made it to the intersection of Hafez and Taleqani and decided to walk the rest of the way to the University of Tehran. All along Enghelab Street special forces lined the streets as people calmly walked towards the university. As we approached the main gates of the university, Ansari’s voice (who was giving the first talk of the Friday Prayers) was heard throughout the area from the loudspeakers positioned in Enghelab (there were also loudspeakers lining the east, west, and north of the campus virtually all the way towards Valiasr Square). It was impossible to get to the main gates of the university as the crowd was already too large and the Basij and special forces directed people into side streets. We turned into Qods Street. By this time it was already 12:30 and the crowd kept growing.

Everytime Ansari mentioned the Supreme Leader, the crowd booed. Everytime he referred to the opposition as traitors, chants of “liar, liar” started. When he mentioned that everyone should listen to the advice and dictates of the Supreme Leader, chants of “Death to the dictator” were loudly shouted. When he derailed America and Britian for muddling in Iran’s affairs, the crowd erupted in chants of “Down with Russia” (because Russia immediately recognized the re-election of Ahmadinejad and congratulated him). As he spoke of the recent killings of Muslims in China, the crowd chided him and the system for its hyprocrisy. Though there was a visible show of force by the Basij and supporters of Ahmadinejad, almost all the women were decked in green ribbons or scarfs, and many men had on green shirts or hats. The women had all gathered on one side of Qods and wouldn’t let the crowd remain silent during Ansari’s speech. Many had climbed onto large trash bins or light posts and led the entire streets in chants–all were decked in green and in the face of the Basij, people put their arms in the air, with the peace/victory sign.

The crowd was composed of people of all ages and backgrounds. Women brought their children with them, many of whom they had dressed from head to toe in green. A few middle-aged women entered the street carrying a framed photo with a black ribbon of Sohrab Aarabi, the 19 year-old boy who was killed during the demonstrations last month and who’s body was only released earlier this week. Women gathered around and started chanting: “My martyred brother, I will reclaim your vote” (baradar-e shahidam, rayet ra pas migiram). Shouts of Allah-u Akbar were routinely started and as Ansari finished his speech, the crowd erupted in “Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein.”

Shortly after Rafsanjani began his sermon and the crowd grew into a silence. The first part of his sermon was dedicated to the leadership of the Prophet, while the second and third parts were directed to the post-election situation in Iran. As he started his second part, he called for the release of all those imprisoned during this past month (the crowd erupted into appaulse); he spoke of how the people had broke the back of the Shah’s regime and that one should never forget the power of the people (chants of “Allah-u Akbar” rang loud from all streets surrounding the university); he talked of the need to keep the “Republic” part of the Islamic Republic in place by respecting people’s vote; he berated Seda-va-Sima (the state media) for its coverage (elated, everyone again broke out in applause). In short, he spoke out against the election results and the subsequent crack-down of the past month, indirectly criticising Khameini. As he wound down his speech and made his recommendations (essentially, to regain the confidence of the people), people shouted their support for him.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user .faramarz under a Creative Commons license.

At Friday prayers, one of the country’s top religious leaders – Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, himself a former president — voiced new doubts about the results of the recent presidential election, which returned Ahmadinejad to power. He said those doubts “are now consuming us.”

Ervand Abrahamian, a distinguished professor of history at the City University of New York, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the current situation in Iran and a shakeup in the country’s nuclear program.

It has been almost three weeks since the disputed presidential election in Iran.

It’s been almost three weeks since the disputed presidential election in Iran. On Thursday, the government announced that seven more people had been arrested for provoking violence during the protests that followed.

While the demonstrations have ended, the voices of protest have not been silenced. In a statement, opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi said again that he considers the government illegitimate.

Sanaz Arjomand is an Iranian-American college student who has spent the summer in Iran with family. In the recent election, she voted for Mousavi. Some of her family members, though, are ardent Ahmadinejad supporters — leading to heated debates in this Iranian home.

What the other side sees

My cousin and my mom warned me before I came to this house. “They’re very religious…their father is very much a part of the regime…are you sure you’ll be comfortable?” With my American bravado, I promised to grin and bear it. They’re family, after all.

When asked who I voted for, I answered honestly that I voted for Moussavi, and did my best not to answer when asked why I didn’t (and don’t) like Ahmadinejad. Things started heating up when, in response to my hesitation, the oldest daughter answered for me that I didn’t like him because others told me not to. I listened to her mother tell me that there was no cheating in the election, that because Ahmadinejad really reached out to the poorer areas (i.e. handed out chickens and potatoes, I thought) he had legitimately won. I didn’t bring up the findings of the Guardian Council, that in their partial review 50 cities had more than 100 percent of the population vote.

The real blow came after a little discussion of my disapproval of Ahmadinejad’s foreign actions. I was absolutely floored when the lady of the house started badmouthing President Obama. I value his idealistic and innovative leadership, and I told her so. Although I could understand her suspiscion towards politicians, I tried to tell her that corruption here doesn’t necessarily mean that every politician in the world is corrupt. I was annoyed by her warnings that after 10 years word would come out about all of Obama’s shady dealings. What sent me over the edge, and unfortunatly and embarassingly made me raise my voice, was her accusation that Zionist lobbyists brought Obama to power!

I was furious. What made her think that? Did she read it somewhere? Was there a study published? No. She got her information from none other than the Iranian state media. This is where my volume went up. The state controls your media, I told her. They’re creating a common enemy so that you’re too scared to confront their dictatorial control.

I shouldn’t have said it. She knew to let matters cool down after that, saying that my view was one way to look at it, sure. I listened politely as her older daughter then calmly told me of Moussavi’s frailities, of his political spin and his revolution-era Islamic zeal. That’s fine, and I don’t doubt for a moment that Moussavi and even his wife got caught up as was explained. What I cared about when I voted was a new face for Iran, the hope that brought young people out into the streets because they thought their vote could make a difference, could change their country into something livable, something at least a tiny bit better than it is now.

- Sanaz Arjomand

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Poseyal Knight of the DESPOSYNI under a Creative Commons license.

Arang Keshavarzian, an associate professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at New York University and an editor of the Middle East Report Journal, joins Martin Savidge to discuss news coverage of Iran and what other forms of protests might emerge.