Moscow’s Triumph Square. Photo: argenberg

November has not been a good month for Russia’s political opposition.

A number of activists have been detained in recent days, including the outspoken writer and activist Eduard Limonov, who was picked up for participating in an “unsanctioned rally” in Moscow on October 31. Limonov is now serving 10 days of administrative arrest.

On Nov. 16, police detained eight other activists who were demonstrating in support of Limonov.

Their arrests may not have been accidental. Activists from the opposition Solidarity movement say they have uncovered a high-level police memo ordering officers to disrupt the protests. The memo, photographed with a cell phone, is posted on the blog of activist Ilya Yashin.

Signed by an officer in the police force, the memo is directed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Center to Prevent Extremism. It informs the Center about plans by Solidarity activists to carry out a series of individual pickets near the detention facility where Limonov is being held, and the police force’s intent to take measures against the “unsanctioned” meetings.

At the center of the controversy: the right to freedom of assembly, as provided by article 31 of the Russian Federation’s Constitution, which states “Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, and to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.”

In practice, however, the right to freedom of assembly in Russia has been severely curtailed in recent years. To reassert the public’s right to gather freely, Limonov and his followers have been organizing protests on the 31^st of every month at 6 pm in front of Moscow’s Triumph Square.

What’s interesting about the protests against Limonov’s detention on the 16th is that they were planned as individual actions – pickets by one person alone do not need official approval to proceed.

However, when Boris Nemtsov, former Deputy Prime Minister turned opposition figure, went out on the street to picket, he reportedly was joined by two men in hooded jackets – which brought the number of protesters to three, making it an “unsanctioned” protest. Nemtsov was subsequently detained by police.

But the same two men reportedly then joined activist Vladimir Milov, whom police also detained. The hooded men walked away free, and went on to disrupt two other protesters, Aleksandr Ryklin and Sergei Zhavoronkov. RFERL has posted a slide show of the pickets and arrests.

Meanwhile, the Communist party has taken up Limonov’s cause in Parliament and 34 Russian writers and publicists have published an open letter on his behalf, arguing that “Eduard Limonov…should not have to undergo arrest in order to realize his constitutional right to the freedom of assembly.”

If the police are in fact fabricating protests in order to have a pretext to arrest activists, it’s a sorry state of affairs indeed.

- Christine Kiernan

On the sidelines, anti-government protesters have clashed with security forces, resulting in widespread chaos throughout the Iranian capital city.

Geneive Abdo, who runs the insideIRAN project for The Century Foundation, discusses the day’s events in Tehran with Daljit Dhaliwal.

Al Jazeera English reports on the protests from Tehran.

Ben Piven describes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech on Wednesday, and the atmosphere at the U.N.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks before the United Nations General Assembly.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a wide-ranging speech to the U.N.’s General Assembly on Wednesday, emphasizing the ideological contrast between his Islamic values and Western materialism, which he blamed for the global economic downturn.

He strongly condemned Israel’s invasion of Gaza and also derided Jewish global influence. “The international community is calling the occupiers ‘peace-lovers’ and the victims ‘terrorists,’” said Ahmadinejad. But he didn’t repeat inflammatory comments about wiping Israel off the map or denying the Holocaust. Some commentators took this as a sign of Ahmadinejad’s newfound conciliatory attitude.

Even though the Iranian leader expressed some openness to American diplomatic gestures, his speech received mixed reactions from the audience at the U.N. Most Western delegations walked out of the General Assembly chamber after Ahmadinejad took the podium, but there was no heckling by visitors.

“Our nation has successfully gone through a glorious and fully-democratic election,” said Ahmadinejad, who also called for the “elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.” Positioning himself as a third world populist, Ahmadinejad declared, “The hegemony and domination of a few governments is over.”

Throngs of pro-democracy protesters clamored for attention outside the world body’s New York headquarters. Many wore green, the color adopted by supporters of reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in June’s disputed elections.

Watch: Protesters outside United Nations headquarters.

Mohammad Al-Kassim describes how Ahmadinejad’s speech was portrayed in the Iranian press:

It’s true that he who has control of the flow of information has power over people.

For this reason alone, during the general assembly meetings each year, many governments dispatch an army of journalists to accompany their official delegates. It’s extremely important for high-ranking officials to be viewed in a certain way — to appear respected, intelligent and important in their countries.

That was evident during this year’s meeting, where presidents, prime ministers and high-ranking officials were surrounded by official media from their countries, who were carefully filming, writing and selectively editing their packages.

As part of my job at Worldfocus, every morning, I closely follow many news media outlets from the Middle East. What caught my eyes while scanning Iranian news outlets was how Ahmadinejad’s speech was covered by the Iranian media.

For example, Press TV — which is a government-funded English news channel — aired this broadcast report:

The package included footage of the Iranian president delivering his speech, and the camera cut to footage of an almost-full General Assembly hall — though from where I was seated, the hall looked mostly empty.

None of the Iranian media outlets that I checked mentioned any of the large number of vocal Iranian protesters outside the U.N. building. An article on the speech appeared on the Iranian government-funded Alalam news Web site, but it didn’t mention the walk outs or the demonstrations.

Protesters at the Brazilian embassy in Honduras.

Peter Eisner describes the political climate in Honduras and shares the observations of a Worldfocus contributing blogger.

There was word of negotiations on Wednesday, but no sign of a quick resolution in the standoff between the de facto Honduran government and the deposed Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya. Zelaya remained holed up in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa for a second day in a stalemate with Roberto Micheletti, the man who took office after Zelaya’s ouster on June 28.

Zelaya seeks a return to power. Micheletti says that is out of the question.

News reports from Honduras and Brazil said that a curfew was imposed in the Honduran capital, with soldiers on rooftops and helicopters hovering around at times.

On Tuesday, the reports said police used truncheons and tear gas to disperse crowds surrounding the embassy. AP reported 18 people were treated for injuries and that authorities had denied local reports that three people had died.

For a time, Honduran officials cut off power and access to the embassy. Finally, United Nations workers were allowed to deliver food to Zelaya, his family and as many as 85 people inside the compound.

There were several interviews with Zelaya and Micheletti published in newspapers and on international news wires. The Washington Post characterized the situation as “a battle of wills,” and and said that representatives of the two men had opened contacts to seek a resolution. The Post also said that U.S. diplomats and others were trying to negotiate an end to the impasse.

Why the Brazilian embassy? Zelaya told the Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo that Brazilian officials had no advance word that he would seek refuge there when he snuck back into Honduras over the weekend.

He told the newspaper that he valued Brazil’s stature in international affairs, but did not consult with its Foreign Ministry before going to the embassy. In fact, the Brazilian newspaper said, there was only one Brazilian diplomat in Tegucigalpa at the time, and that person ranked as minister-counselor, not ambassador.

“Brazil didn’t know about my plans. I took the decision to come directly to the embassy as a matter of strategy, a reserve position, so that the plan would not run a risk.”

Meanwhile, the people of Honduras wait. You can get a glimpse of the tension in the country from one of Worldfocus’ contributing bloggers, a religious volunteer in Santa Rosa de Copán. He wrote last night:

I spent most of today in the house – washing clothes, cleaning the house, reading, checking out the internet, because there has been a curfew. If you are out you could be arrested. But this is very much like a house arrest of about seven million people here in Honduras.

But I went out and talked with some neighbors and went to the pulpería (corner store) up the street. It appears that the police are not overly strict here. A neighbor who went out beyond the neighborhood was turned back gently by the police.

But in the main cities people are not permitted to go out, even to buy basic foodstuffs. This hasn’t stopped hundreds of demonstrators from going out on the streets, especially in Tegucigalpa. But think of the old woman who needs food or the mother of five kids who has no tortillas.

About 6 pm I went across the street (it’s a dirt road) to talk with my neighbors who were outside eating oranges. I guess we were violating the curfew. We talked and then amused ourselves with the silly dog tricks of their dog, Dinky. We laughed heartily - our way of snubbing the fear, insecurity, and sense of isolation that the curfew is supposed to instill in our hearts.

Final note: I hear kids shouting in the street “El pueblo unido jamás será vencido.” - “The people united will not be defeated.”

- Peter Eisner

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

Worldfocus partner Deutsche Welle reports on the standoff from the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa.

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.

Shah Rukh Khan’s name came up on a computer alert list and he was then questioned at length. Khan, a Muslim, was in the U.S. to promote a film, “My Name is Khan,” that explores the racial profiling of Indian Muslims living in the U.S. after 9/11.

Following the incident — which was widely reported in the Indian media — several of Khan’s supporters gathered in India to protest, and some burned an American flag. View a video of protests in New Delhi courtesy of YouTube user midday:

Was Khan’s detainment the result of insensitive racial profiling, or was the actor simply accustomed to India’s VIP culture?

Worldfocus asked Nitin Govil — an assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego and the co-author of “Global Hollywood” — for his thoughts on how the incident has been perceived in India:

For much of his career, Shah Rukh has rather carefully avoided putting his Muslim identity at the forefront. This is why his forthcoming film “My Name is Khan” is so interesting given the context of his stardom in India.

Responses in India have varied from protests to the burnings of U.S. flags, condemnations by high-ranking Indian politicians, celebrities, cricketers and other public figures, to a kind of “what else can one expect in America” kind of attitude that confirms what most around the world think about the U.S. policy on travel and detention.

Given that all Indians have a deep familiarity with bureaucracy in their everyday lives, there has been a general sense that a short questioning period for Khan might have been alright, but that U.S. authorities clearly took things too far. Although Khan has called for folks back home not to, in his words, “take things too far,” at the same time, many think that he has quite smartly used the incident as a way to promote the new film as well as the issues it addresses.

NDTV, a leading English-language news channel in India, covered the incident — calling it “a huge, huge embarrassment” — and spoke with Khan:

Comments on an Indian social networking site, iTimes, reflected the smattering of opinion in India:

Gayatri Goswami writes:
This is no joke people. Shah Rukh Khan is the biggest movie star in India, a country of 1.3 billion people, thereby making him the biggest movie star in the world. I’m struggling to find a comparable here in the US. No offense to Will Smith or Matt Damon or Pitt, Cruise, Clooney, Angelina or whomever else you can think of, but they all pale in comparison.The detention was shameful and U.S should apologize, they better

Dilnaz Seth writes:
i think U.S should apologize, but why r we making so much of noise abt it, because it is SRK, there are so many innocent muslims with surname Khan who go through this everyday, what about them, do we care for all or just the celebs

Kaushik Sanyal writes:
Hey guys, I think India should learn that, “VIP treatments” which are part of everyday life in India, does not happen in other parts of the world. Even, ex-president of USA Al Gore has to go through security checks in US airports ! I don’t know why SRK is making such a big issue out of it or so called patriotic Indians are raising such a noise ! Everyday in our lives, we see or meet people who takes advantage of their VIP status in India and resent that - why should it be different in this case. I am no USA lover but I recognize the fact that a small time Immigration official can insist to follow the rule book. I hope it also happens in India.

Rragijav Achar writes:
I feel appreciating the US for talking this step. They have given the highest level of interest to their countrymen, unlike India. Wake up India, the US doing the right stuff so only they could stop the terror in their country. Imagine India how many times this happened with us and what actions we have taken against it. They have full rights to do so, as they consider their countrymen as their biggest asset. Count how many times the underworld dons escaped from the hands of Indian government and image what would have US done if the same thing had happened. Think out of the box. Wake up India wake up… it’s time for tight security… I would appreciate if India takes similar actions against each and every person enters and exits India.

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.

President Jacob Zuma warned protesters to respect the law. But across that country, an estimated one million families live in shacks without power and very limited plumbing.

Many blame immigrants for taking jobs that might lead to a better life. For more, watch the Worldfocus signature story “Immigrants in South Africa deal with hostility, xenophobia.”

Yaw Nyarko, a professor of economics and the head of Africa House at New York University, joins Martin Savidge to discuss South African attitudes towards immigrants and the government, as well as economic conditions.

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.

The protests against Amazon development turned violent earlier this month when demonstrators clashed with police, leaving 50 dead, including 23 police officers. Peruvian President Alan Garcia has come under fire for his handling of the violence, and his approval rating has plummeted.

Reuters reporter Terry Wade joined Worldfocus from Lima to discuss the social unrest in Peru and its lasting implications for the country’s economy and political landscape.

Worldfocus: Can you describe how the protests originated?

Protests in Peru.

Terry Wade: Protests organized by a number of different indigenous groups started in Peru’s Amazon basin in April, and they were held to try to persuade the government to strike down a series of laws that President Alan García passed last year to help attract foreign investment in the mining, agricultural and petroleum industries.

Basically, the tribes feel that these laws will end up turning their ancestral lands over to foreign companies. For a long time, the tribes were telling the government they didn’t like the laws, and then the government didn’t do anything, so they started to protest. And the protests dragged on for weeks. The government didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to them. The government tried to set up a series of meetings where they could negotiate a solution or settlement; those failed. The government grew increasingly frustrated because roadblocks in the Amazon were preventing basic supplies from moving between cities in the jungle to cities on the coast. So they sent in the police, and that provoked a whole bunch of violence and bloodshed.

At least 34 people died — about 24 are police, according to the government, and 10 were protesters. Tribal groups say that many more protesters died, anywhere from 30 to 40, or even higher. So far, the bodies of people who are presumed missing or people who are allegedly killed — those bodies haven’t been located. So it’s very hard for anyone to know with absolute certainty how many people actually died.

A series of investigations are being conducted by human rights groups and also by the government to find out definitively how many people died in the clashes. Part of the problem is that some of the claims that people make about the disappeared bodies — there’s no way to verify it. I mean, even my colleague, who was in the jungle, you know, they called people to some supposed execution ground or mass grave, and then they went there and there were no signs of any kind of death or conflict. So it’s very difficult to know, or to verify, that missing people actually ended up dying. That kind of thing may take several more weeks to find out for sure, because a lot of these people live in places where there’s not much in the way of telecommunications or infrastructure. Some people may not have basic documents saying who they are, or where they live, and so on and so forth. It’s very rural, and the presence of the state is almost nil.

Worldfocus: Why did the government decide to rescind some of the more controversial laws, and how will this impact foreign investment in Peru?

Peruvian police observe protests.

Terry Wade: The government, for months, had said that these laws couldn’t be rescinded; there were about nine of them that were passed last year. The Congress originally had given President Alan García special powers to sign, essentially, decrees to put these laws into effect. He was given those special powers to help bring Peru’s regulatory framework into compliance with the free trade deal that Peru was signing with the United States at the time. And the government’s position was that these laws could not be rescinded, and they said that doing so could hurt the trade agreement with the U.S., or would cause an increase in illegal logging in the Amazon, and so forth.

But at the end of the day, the government backtracked and struck down two of the laws, two of the most controversial ones. So far, the government has said that it might need to review certain clauses in the trade agreement with the United States, but that it wouldn’t necessarily put it in jeopardy. So, the government ended up backtracking, and essentially doing something that it initially said was impossible.

Peru has been able to successfully attract a lot of foreign investment, for the past decade and certainly over the past five years. The last five years, that was related to a rise in commodities prices. That investment was coming into Peru before these laws were passed, and a lot of investment will probably still continue to come into Peru. A whole other series of laws on the books make it quite attractive for foreign companies to invest here. Depending on where foreign companies are operating in Peru, there’s always kind of a risk, just below the surface, that people in local towns or in small towns up in the Andes, where there’s a lot of poverty, will start demanding more and more things of foreign companies — in terms of building schools or hospitals or creating jobs.

Worldfocus: How does the Peruvian public as a whole feel about the protests and will there be any political fallout?

A protest in Cusco, Peru.

Terry Wade: This case is quite interesting. Historically, there’s been a big divide between voters in Lima and voters in the countryside, but an opinion poll done after the bloodshed by the leading survey firm here said that more than 90 percent of voters nationwide thought that President García committed a series of errors, and that he should have consulted with the tribes before signing them into law. I think something like 80 percent of voters think the government may be understating the number of people who died in the conflict. So, public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of the indigenous groups.

A lot of people, especially people outside of Lima, or people who don’t necessarily work in the mining industry, are very frustrated that they didn’t see their salaries increase or that their income didn’t increase during the boom years. Periodically, over the last couple of years, there have been protests demanding that President García do more to spread the wealth. Now that the economy is slowing, those protests might be picking up steam.

The indigenous groups in the Amazon don’t have their own political party. Some of the members of the indigenous groups are aligned with the Nationalist party, which is left-of-center. Other protesters in other regions of the country could belong to smaller parties. But in general, Peru’s opposition, at least in terms of left-wing parties, is fairly fractured. I think what’s most interesting to me is that, politically, the indigenous leaders are very well organized and very savvy, and have fairly clear demands about what they want. So far, they have been able to generate a lot of public support. I spoke with an indigenous leader — there’s a bunch of different indigenous leaders, but I spoke with one last week who said that they’re currently debating whether they should form their own political party or ally themselves with an existing political party.

Photo courtesy of Flickr users Winklitz, wanderinghome and illuminaut under a Creative Commons license.

At a news conference, the president said what has happened in Iran is “profound,” and he was more critical than he has been of the election and the violence against demonstrators that followed.

Iran’s security forces have been intensifying their crackdown in recent days, sometimes brutally.

Richard Bulliet, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Columbia University, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what the future holds for Iran’s protesters and what role the U.S. will play.

When several hundred protesters gathered in a Tehran square on Monday, riot police moved in, attacking the crowd with tear gas and firing live bullets in the air.

Ten days after Iran’s disputed presidential election, the Guardian Council — the country’s highest authority — acknowledged that there were voting problems in 50 election districts. However, it said these problems will not affect the outcome of the election.

Below, view a slideshow of recent events in Iran from an anonymous journalist with Tehran Bureau:

One Twitter user listed as living in Iran describes his/her hope for the future:

when you stand on the roof and hear allahu akbar for hours and hours its so crazy..i hear old man..so many years he wants to yell that. my country needs no more killing…no more violence ..no more fighting ..just living in peace and freedom forever. in many years people will forget about this time about me and neda they will be free to forget. free to do anything

“Neda” was a young girl who was shot during a protest. The video of her death has captured the world’s attention and is said to be circulating widely in Iran. Many Web sites have already labeled her a martyr.

Another Twitter user wrote of the girl:

If regime topples in Iran, new govt should build a statue to #Neda. Her death has galvanized everyone.

Watch the video of “Neda” below. WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES. Viewer discretion is advised.

The description accompanying the video (unverified):

Place: Karekar Ave., at the corner crossing Khosravi St. and Salehi st. A young woman who was standing aside with her father watching the protests was shot by a basij member hiding on the rooftop of a civilian house. He had clear shot at the girl and could not miss her. However, he aimed straight her heart. I am a doctor, so I rushed to try to save her. But the impact of the gunshot was so fierce that the bullet had blasted inside the victim’s chest, and she died in less than 2 minutes. The protests were going on about 1 kilometers away in the main street and some of the protesting crowd were running from tear gass used among them, towards Salehi St. The film is shot by my friend who was standing beside me. Please let the world know.

Another Twitter user asks Iranians to help out:

Ppl - stop to pay all electricity, gas, water, telephone bills from today - this will starve the Gov. Tehran is burning with the blood of our Martyrs - The streets are full of dead. if u wantto help but are frightened of the streets - give blood - that is big help.

An Iranian-American college student currently in northern Iran describes her emotions:

Everyone seems to think that blood has to be spilled in order to change anything. Although the protests are properly peaceful, the Basij police are not.

Blood has been spilled, and I am sure more will be spilled today. The question is how big a change it will make.

[...]The thing I most want to do is go home. I came to Iran to see its beautiful side, but the country and even my family have shown their ugliest faces. Their ugliest faces.

Iran’s media said that several people were killed in Monday’s protests, held by supporters of the opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. The demonstrations represented one of the greatest challenges to Iran’s Islamic government since it came to power three decades ago.

Mousavi’s supporters held another peaceful rally on Tuesday, as did thousands backing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Geneive Abdo, a fellow in foreign policy at The Century Foundation, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the recount, how the protests will play out and the long-term impact on the Iranian political landscape and Iranian-American relations.

The demonstrations by supporters of pro-reform leader Mir Hossein Mousavi were described as the largest since the results were announced, and they were largely peaceful. The election dispute gained another dimension after Iran’s supreme leader ordered an investigation of Mousavi’s claims that the election had been stolen.

Ervand Abrahamian, a distinguished professor of history at the City University of New York, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the election results, allegations of fraud and how this complicates U.S. President Barack Obama’s desire to start a dialogue with Iran.

Iranian police have cracked down on foreign media covering the protests,and some protesters even shooed away secret police from foreign reporters. But as governments try to curtail the flow of information, citizen journalists have used new Internet technology to bypass restrictions.

Blogger Sanaz Arjomand observes the situation from northern Iran:

The rest of my family lament the “democracy” in Iran and get angry about the obvious taqqalob, or cheating. What I’ve heard most often is that the Rahbar (Supreme Leader) hand-picked Ahmadinejad anyway, that it was obvious that they would cheat and that they themselves would have to suffer for four more years.

In the teeny little town of Maragheh, in northeastern Iran, Ahmadinejad supporters are out in the street. But in Tehran and other bigger towns, it’s chaos. BBC Persia was showing beatings in the street and huge protests (like a river, my cousin said, they kept flowing). What I found interesting is that unlike the campaigning I wanted to post about earlier, these protests are taking place on foot. People are not hiding behind their steering wheels or zooming around on motorcycles. Instead of the “Ahmadi bye-bye!” chants (and many, many more clever ones that I’ll remember to post soon), the young crowd was shouting: Moussavi, Moussavi, ray-e ma ra pass bedee! (Moussavi, Moussavi, return our votes!)

Mousavi postponed rally plans, and the government continues its crackdown. A young Iranian student reports:

A friend of mine emailed me these lines from the University of Tehran campus where there have been wide protests: “We are in the campus my friend, tear gas is being thrown at us like a heavy snow fall, the entire building I am in right now is filled with gas. Two of my friends were wounded thirty minutes ago. There is fire everywhere. I thought I came here to study but there is nothing here but war. I can only tell you this so you’d share it on Facebook. I tried using a proxy to access Facebook but its still not possible. Thanks so much. And by the way, please don’t mention my name because there have been wide arrests everywhere.

[...] I have been numb, speechless and in tears for the past few days. These kids are Iran’s brightest students. I went to school with them. We ate lunch together and shared our sandwiches. What is happening to them?

Gary Sick, a former member of the National Security Council, writes on his Tumblr blog:

If the reports coming out of Tehran about an electoral coup are sustained, then Iran has entered an entirely new phase of its post-revolution history. One characteristic that has always distinguished Iran from the crude dictators in much of the rest of the Middle East was its respect for the voice of the people, even when that voice was saying things that much of the leadership did not want to hear…The current election appears to repudiate both of those rules. The authorities were faced with a credible challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who had the potential to challenge the existing power structure on certain key issues. He ran a surprisingly effective campaign, and his “green wave” began to be seen as more than a wave. In fact, many began calling it a Green Revolution. For a regime that has been terrified about the possibility of a “velvet revolution,” this may have been too much.

Allahpundit wonders if Obama’s administration might just “accept” the Iranian election results:

What if Obama did walk away, though? There’s actually another possibility here: Western leaders protest the result by ending negotiations and refusing to recognize Ahmadinejad as president, which in turn encourages protesters to keep up their agitation for several more months. Paralyzed and afraid of being overthrown, the regime becomes so desperate that it agrees to give up the nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of all sanctions and renewed diplomatic ties with the U.S. in hopes that the economic turnaround produced by the influx of foreign capital will placate the people. The dilemma for The One here is that he campaigned on the moronic assumption that Iran might conceivably be willing to make a deal on nukes if we just talked nice to them or sweetened our offer a bit. Now comes the moment of truth: Does he really believe that? Does he honestly believe, after years of stonewalling, with the country maybe a year away from being able to build a bomb, that they’re going to throw in the towel now? If not, then walk away. There’s no downside and potentially a tremendous upside if the regime falls or a grateful Mousavi ends up being installed as president. And needless to say, from a moral standpoint, he’d be on the side of the angels. Conflict with the regime is inevitable; if the Iranian public’s willing to fight our battle for us, let’s support them with all we’ve got.