Iran clamps censorship on foreign journalists

Press, 28 August 1979, Page 16

Iran clamps censorship on foreign journalists

From the “Economist,” London

You may think the situation in Iran is pretty obscure, but just wait a bit. It will soon be much more so. This month new rules were imposed on all the foreign correspondents in Teheran. In addition to direct restrictions on their work, it is now laid down that they will be heM personally responsible for anything “tendonrious” about Iran published bv the organisations thev represent. So nowsnaners and broadcasting know that f the’- ->nv comment or renort that di—Tran’s Islamic rulers their correspondents in Tran may be arrested or denorted. The new rules «eem hound to ma'-e Pan ever obscurer. The Tmnian nre" itself is also in ieona-dv. On Aumist 7 the premises of “Avandenan ” the most widelv read independent daifv in Teheran, were seized by revolutionary guards and 12 of 'ts jo"-nalists "’ere arrested. Two afternoon papers which had been using “Avandeo»n’s” "resses had to cease publication: a satirical weeklv was suppressed under a separate order; and the onlv remaining Teheran daily that had criticised ’he new reoime failed to appear. On Aueust 12 the suppression of two prominent liberal weeklies was announced at the same time as a tight new press code which, among other things, provides for the suspension of anv nape' that is deemed to have insulted a sen’or clergyman. These measures have brought a storm of protest from the Marxist left and from liberal centrist quarters, where the'e was already much ind’enation about the conduct and result of the election held on August 3 for a 73-memher assembly to revise ”'e draft constitution. A two-thirds majoritv in this assembly will be needed to make any amendment to the draft published in June. Since Ayatollah Khomeiny’s Islamic Republican party got four-fifths of the seats, it will be in a position not only to block anv liberalising moves.

but also to force through amendments giving the new constitution an even less democratic character. Allegations of vote-rigging and other electoral abuses by the Khomeiny party have been made by some of the more liberal Moslem clergy as well as by virtually all the other political parties — includ’n" the one linked with Avatollah Shariatmadari, which bad called for a boycott of the election but won a f ow seats all the same. The suppression of "Awndegan” was seen as a reprisal for its criticism of the conduct of the election. So far, the authorities have not found any effective answer to such criticism other than silencing the critics. But the new onslaught on the freedom of the press has produced an even stronger reaction than the election did. Two days after the suppression of “Ayandegan,” about 30 members of its staff were arrested for taking part in . .otest demonstrations which ended in clashes with counter-demonstrators and revolutionary guards. On August 12 about 160 people were taken to hospital after the most violent scenes Teheran had witnessed since February’s overthrow of the Shah. The Left-wing National Democratic Front had organised a march in support of press freedom which was joined both by Fedayin (Marxist) guerrillas and by thousands of middle-class Iranians. Pro-Khomeiny gangs attacked the marchers, and the resulting clashes lasted for two hours. The next day pro-Khomeiny groups staged a much bigger counter-march during which the Fedayin headquarters and the university law school were sacked. The helplessness of Mr Mehdi Bazargan’s team of Ministers (it is difficult to describe it as the Government) was illustrated by the broadcast made during this mayhem by the Minister of the Interior, Mr Hashem Sabaghian. He deplored the many casualties on August 12 and

ventured to suggest that the march on the 13th “had best be avoided”; but no ban on demonstrations was announced until, after the Khomeiny supporters had had their fling, the left-wingers turned out again on Tuesday. The only commanding voice heard in a turbulent week was, of course, that of Ayatollah Khomeiny himself. The statement he issued was taken as an implicit endorsement of the suppression of critical newspapers and the beating up of protest marchers. By relentlessly pursuing his hard line, Ayatollah Khomeiny will endanger his rule. Moderate mullahs and anticlerical democrats have found themselves lined up together with Marxist Leftists in condemning the handling of the constituent assembly election and the new attack oh press freedom, and even in some of the recent street clashes. The armed forces — demoralised and still subject to vindictive purges — show signs of wearying of the task of trying to impose on Iran’s restive minorities the rigid centralism which is part of the Khomeiny doctrine. More and more people are painfully affected by the disruption of the economy. In the last two weeks, for the first time, the streets of Teheran heard a few cries of “Down with Khomeiny.” The question may no longer be whether the Khomeiny regime will endure as successor to the Shah’s. It is which force is likelier to replace ayatollahdom: the authoritarian Left, still wielding some armed power but divided and bruised; or a middle-of-the-way alternative based upon Iran’s large middle class, its disgruntled army and the less obscurantist parts of its Muslim clergy. Mr Shahpur Bakhtiar, the man who bridged the last days of the Shah’s rule and the beginning of the ayatollah’s, said in Paris last week that a. civilised third way could open up within the next half-year. It would be nice if he were right.