US HEGEMON IS OUTLIER

State Dept: US not going back to viewing settlements as illegal

The Biden administration has been highly critical of Israeli settlements but is not returning to Hansell’s view of their illegality.

By LAHAV HARKOV
Published: JUNE 26, 2023

JPOST

Israeli soldiers stand guard during a Palestinian protest near the Jewish settlement of Elon Moreh,east of Nablus, in the West Bank, November 25, 2022
(photo credit: NASSER ISHTAYEH/FLASH90)

The US is not reverting to its policy of viewing Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria as necessarily illegal, despite opposing settlement activity, the State Department said Monday.

The US was not reverting back to the Hansell Memo, which said settlements violate international law, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said.

During the Trump administration’s final days, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo said Washington had “disavow[ed] the deeply flawed” 1978 memo by then-State Department legal adviser Herbert Hansell that called all Israeli settlements beyond the 1949 armistice lines illegal.

The Biden administration's perception of settlements

The Biden administration has been highly critical of Israeli settlements but said it was not returning to Hansell’s view of their illegality.

View of the Jewish settlement of Eli, in the West Bank on January 17, 2021.

 (credit: SRAYA DIAMANT/FLASH90)

“We are reverting to US policy to longstanding pre-2020 geographic limitations on US support for activities in those areas, a policy that goes back decades,” Miller said.

In line with that policy, the State Department decided last week to stop joint scientific research with Israel in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, reversing another decision by Pompeo in 2020 to remove territorial limitations in the Binational Science Foundation, Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation and Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund agreements with Israel.

All three had large endowments that provided grants to American and Israeli academics and companies for research and technology. The US and Israel also signed a new science and technology agreement at the time.

However, a US diplomatic source on Monday said since the geographic limitations were removed, no grant money had actually been given to Israeli institutions in areas that came under Israeli control during the 1967 Six Day War.

The source also denied that the timing had to do with last week’s decision to advance more than 4,500 new homes in settlements, saying the decision had been in the works for months.

Foreign Minister Eli Cohen on Sunday said he “opposes the decision and thinks that it is mistaken.” In similar situations in the past, Israel increased funding for research in Judea and Samaria so that those institutions would not lose out, he said.

Tovah Lazaroff contributed to this report.

NATO NATION BUILDING
Libya’s ongoing debate over the role of political parties

June 26, 2023
Mary Fitzgerald



Libya’s political players have grappled with how to build a political party culture since the country held its first post-Gadhafi elections in 2012. Under Moammar Gadhafi, political organizing was banned. Decades of regime propaganda against outlawed opposition movements made Libyans suspicious of political groups and parties.

When the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) drafted a constitutional declaration during the 2011 uprising against Gadhafi, it stipulated the establishment of a democratic system based on “political and party plurality” and guaranteed the freedom to form political parties. The NTC declaration was only ever meant to be temporary, but in the absence of a proper constitution, it remains the legal underpinning of Libya’s troubled transition.

Libya’s first experience of political parties came with the vote for the General National Congress (GNC) in 2012. During the drafting of the electoral law that year, some argued that an individual-based system would exacerbate tribalism and regionalism while others claimed that a party-based system would favor already established groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The GNC was eventually elected under a hybrid system that included both individual and party lists, with non-Islamist parties ultimately faring better in the party list.

Two years later, the House of Representatives (HoR) was elected to replace the GNC. That ballot had one key difference: All candidates were required to run as independents. This was partly due to growing animosity toward political parties. Popular frustration with the GNC meant political parties were often blamed for its shortcomings. Party headquarters were frequently attacked during the GNC’s lifetime. Almost a decade on, however, many critics of the HoR — which remains in place as no elections have been held since 2014 — insist much of its dysfunction stems from the absence of political parties.

Over the past nine years, Libya’s parties have operated as shadow players in the country’s fractious politics. During the 2014-20 civil conflict, there were frequent calls to ban political parties outright as polarization deepened and people sought scapegoats for the country’s derailed transition.

Libya’s political landscape now looks very different. Several of the main formations that emerged in 2012 have since either been riven by infighting or have faded away. Most notably, the two dominant groups in that year’s election — the Brotherhood-affiliated Justice and Construction Party (JCP) and its main rival, the National Forces Alliance (NFA) — have experienced splits. Those new to the scene include parties associated with the so-called “Greens,” or former regime figures and sympathizers, plus more tribal or regionally oriented parties.

As part of efforts to get Libya’s democratic transition back on track, a more stringent political party registration system was introduced in early 2021, ahead of elections that were due to take place that December but were postponed. Robust vetting is considered crucial to prevent electoral fraud. More than 70 parties have since been approved for licenses, according to the body overseeing the process. The number of parties not yet registered is estimated at over 100. Some parties, particularly those that trace their roots to the 2012 elections, such as the JCP plus NFA offshoots, have started to organize together and form networks and umbrella groups over the past two years. This may result in parties merging ahead of a future national ballot.

Three main currents are emerging: the Greens, the Islamists, and the nationalists. Libya does not have a defined secular/Islamist political cleavage, so anti/non-Islamist groupings are often described or self-describe as nationalist, a catch-all term that can include more liberal-leaning elements as well as social conservatives who do not identify as Islamist. In the 2012 election, there was little difference between nationalist party platforms and those of mainstream Islamist parties. All the leading parties supported the idea of sharia law being a basis for legislation. This is unlikely to change as parties prepare for future parliamentary elections. Detailed party manifestos were rare in 2012 and few have issued any since.

The Green current is believed to already comprise more than a dozen parties, with the most prominent being the National Movement party, led by former Gadhafi government minister Mustafa al-Zaidi. “That’s ironic when you consider the Gadhafi regime’s ideological opposition to the very idea of political parties,” says one party leader from the nationalist camp. Some observers believe the nationalist current stands to lose most if Green political parties gain momentum.

Since 2020, the development of youth-driven protest movements against the status quo raises the question of whether new political parties might yet emerge from a younger generation shaped by very different experiences in post-Gadhafi Libya. While these youth movements have yet to coalesce into a unified force, what they share is a frustration with an older political elite considered corrupt and out of touch. In recent years, the more established parties have sought to engage more with youth and women. Given the broad social conservatism of Libyan society, few believe the country’s political scene might include an openly secular or avowedly liberal party anytime soon.

Party leaders from across Libya’s political spectrum lament that they have too often been overlooked in diplomatic efforts to resolve the current impasse and nudge the country toward fresh elections. Indeed, some diplomats have considered them largely irrelevant to the power struggles that drove the 2014-20 civil conflict and still linger today. In early March, 52 political parties signed a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres complaining that U.N. Envoy Abdoulaye Bathily’s new roadmap did not include them. “By virtue of the constitutional and legal framework, [parties] are a cornerstone and have a vital role in the political process,” the letter stated. “Democratic systems are based on political and party plurality.” Later that month, Bathily met with representatives from 21 political parties and his team has continued to engage since. Unsurprisingly, political parties are pushing for future electoral laws to include a large party list. “Without parties, it’s like trying to have a Champions League without any [soccer] clubs,” one party leader told me. “You cannot stabilize Libya’s politics without parties.”

The 6+6 Joint Committee, comprised of six representatives from the HoR and six from the High State Council (which is itself composed of former GNC members), has been tasked with drafting laws to organize elections Bathily wants to see happen later this year. They have decided to allocate just over 50% of seats in the next parliament to a party list. Libyans who believe parties are key to embedding a less dysfunctional and more sustainable political culture say internationals should do more to support the idea of party lists. But Libya’s political parties themselves need to mature and reflect on whether they represent the longer-term interests of broad swathes of the population or narrower interests. “There’s not much vision beyond the here and now,” says one international.

Despite Bathily’s entreaties, few Libyans believe elections will take place this year, or even next year. In the meantime, Libya’s political parties will continue to press their case. There are indications, including observations from party activists as well as public polling, that attitudes toward parties are shifting and that most Libyans accept they have a role to play in the country’s political life. Which parties might be up to the challenge is another question. Libya’s still-young experiment with democracy remains fragile and its political parties have a long way to go.


Mary Fitzgerald is a researcher and consultant specializing in the Euro-Mediterranean region with a particular focus on Libya. She is a non-resident scholar with MEI’s North Africa and the Sahel Program.

Photo by Hazem Turkia/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images


The Middle East Institute (MEI) is an independent, non-partisan, non-for-profit, educational organization. It does not engage in advocacy and its scholars’ opinions are their own. MEI welcomes financial donations, but retains sole editorial control over its work and its publications reflect only the authors’ views. For a listing of MEI donors, please click here.

MONTANA

Young Grizzly bear found shot along road west of Conrad

David Murray, Great Falls Tribune
Sat, June 24, 2023

Federal and state investigators are asking the public to provide any information they might have on the deadly shooting of Grizzly bear cub west of Conrad two weeks ago.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) game wardens and are seeking information on a grizzly bear cub that was shot and killed along East Lake Road near New Miami Colony west of Conrad, in Pondera County," a joint news release states.

The red pin marks the approximate location where the corpse of a Grizzly bear cub was found shot to death on June 7; along East Lake Road west of Conrad, south of Valier along the East Lake Road. Federal and state wildlife investigators are asking the public to help in the investigation

The body of the immature bear was first discovered on June 7 near East Lake Road; however it could have been shot as much as three days earlier. Federal wildlife officials investigated the scene with the assistance of MFWP game wardens and determined the bear was killed sometime after June 4.

Current Montana law states that it’s legal to kill or attempt to kill a grizzly bear in self-defense, or if the bear is “in the act of attacking or killing” or “threatening to kill” people or livestock. Biologists estimate there are approximately 1,100 Grizzly bears currently living in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem along both sides of Montana's Rocky Mountain Front.

Both state and federal wildlife enforcement officials declined to provide any additional information regarding the shooting, but are asking anyone with knowledge of the shooting to contact

"Wildlife crimes like this one are often solved because of information and leads provided by the public," a MFWP news release states. "Anyone with possible information about this bear is encouraged to visit https://myfwp.mt.gov/fwpPub/tipmont or call the MFWP violation reporting hot line at 1-800-TIP-MONT (847-6668). Callers can remain anonymous and may be eligible for a cash reward for information leading to a conviction."

This article originally appeared on Great Falls Tribune: Wildlife officials seek public help in Grizzly cub shooting.

Biden promises broadband for every US household by 2030

White House says it will spend more than $40 billion on programme


President Joe Biden has pledged nearly $42.5 billion to build high-speed internet networks. Bloomberg


The National
Jun 26, 2023


US President Joe Biden on Monday announced that his administration would spend more than $40 billion to build high-speed internet networks to provide broadband access for households in poorly serviced areas.

Claiming that broadband access is no longer a luxury, Mr Biden pledged he would spend $42.45 billion to ensure that places across the US with either poor service or no service at all have reliable internet access.

More than 8.5 million households and small business are in areas without broadband infrastructure, the White House said.

“These investments will help all Americans,” he said.

“We’re not going to leave anyone behind.”

Monday's announcement commences the three-week “Investing in America” tour, during which Mr Biden and members of his administration will travel across the country to highlight the administration's achievements as he continues his 2024 presidential campaign.

“Connecting everyone in America to affordable, reliable high-speed internet is a bold goal for a great nation, especially one as vast and geographically diverse as ours,” Mr Biden said.

“We are all well on our way. We are just going to have to keep it going.”

The announcement will grant all 50 states, as well as Washington and Puerto Rico, no fewer than $107 million to connect residents to high-speed internet.

The funding will also support manufacturing jobs by using American materials, the White House said.

Agencies contributed to this report

Q&A: Book describes how British adapted Mughal systems of justice to establish rule in India

by Kate Blackwood, Cornell University

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

The British Empire was not created through military might alone, historian Robert Travers points out in a new book; subsuming existing bureaucracy was another way the East India Company consolidated power in India starting in the 1770s.

In "Empires of Complaints: Mughal Law and the Making of British India, 1765-1793," Travers, professor of history in the Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences, shows how British conquerors colonized and adapted systems of territorial governance created by the Mughal empire—the preceding power in parts of India—including Persian-language forms of bureaucratic record-keeping and Mughal practices of adjudicating local disputes.

"The book emphasizes the durability of Mughal, Persianate ideas of imperial justice in early colonial India, revealing how Indian subjects invoked the memory of Mughal justice in making claims on British rulers," Travers said.

Travers researched "Empires of Complaints" as a Faculty Fellow with Cornell's Society for the Humanities. The Law and Society Association awarded the book honorable mention for the James Willard Hurst Book Prize.

"This very ambitious work demanded Travers move beyond the British-centric frame to go deep into Mughal archives," noted the award citation. "In doing so, he identified more push-back against British colonizing law than had been understood."

Cornell's College of Arts and Sciences spoke with Travers about the book.

How did the British Empire use judicial incursions to take power in India?

My book focuses on judicial mechanisms of state-formation, showing how British conquerors used their military power to expropriate Mughal venues for adjudicating local disputes. By receiving Persian petitions from tax-paying subjects and issuing decrees in relation to disputes over hereditary land rights, the British used judicial processes to establish their own authority as arbiter of local claims, drawing selectively on earlier Mughal precedents. In this way, the British gradually established a new colonial system of land and tax law by adapting and transforming Mughal protocols for doing justice to petitioning subjects.

What individual English and Persian documents did you draw from for this study, and what larger story do they tell?

Though many tax and judicial records were kept in Persian, a major language of administration in Mughal India, relatively few of these documents survive compared with the voluminous English-language records of the East India Company. I was able to read a few Persian petitions, as well as several Persian treatises in which Indian officials tried to explain Mughal practices of governance to British rulers. These helped me to see how many of the Company's English-language records were actually translations from Persian originals, and how Indian litigants used Persian official documents to justify for their claims.

The question of the changing nature of law in early colonial India is very complex and much debated among historians. My book suggests how Mughal tax administration had created a system of hereditary legal entitlements over land rights, and an extensive legal public of petitioners and agents accustomed to appealing to imperial authorities to reinforce local claims.

In creating a new system of colonial law, the British made selective translations from Mughal administrative norms, as well as from "religious" forms of Muslim and Hindu law. But they also introduced important changes, including new codes of written law. It may be that the British desire for codified written laws clashed with earlier systems marked by locally variable forms of unwritten custom. The British also used new written regulations to reinforce the salability of hereditary land rights. Encouraging wealthy Indian merchants to buy up land rights of defaulting taxpayers, the British deployed forced sales of local fiscal entitlements to enforce higher taxes. This seems to have clashed with earlier Mughal understandings of the need to protect vulnerable peasants from excessive tax demands.

How did administrative practice become racialized in this setting?

British attempts to adapt Indian forms of law contributed to racialized practices of colonial governance. Company officials were constantly suspicious of Indian petitioners and their agents, who often made allegations of corrupt practices against British officials. Even as the British adapted Mughal legal forms to their own uses, they also drew on established European stereotypes about Islamic "despotism" to accuse Indian officials and petitioners of pervasive venality. British officials used this racialized language to justify their own supreme authority as the most trustworthy arbiters of Indian law, even as they continued to rely in practice on Indian experts and Persianate forms of law.

Provided by Cornell University Study: General practitioner role important in supporting people who self-harm

Thailand’s Landmark Election: Who Will Ultimately Prevail?

Thailand's pro-democracy opposition parties claim to possess enough political support to form a governing coalition, but hurdles still remain.

Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat holds hands with coalition party leaders following a meeting with coalition partners in Bangkok, Thailand, on May 18, 2023. 

Athit Perawongmetha/Reuters

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick
June 26, 2023
from Asia Unbound, Asia Program, and Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy

After the top two pro-democracy parties gained a massive victory in Thailand’s national elections in May, the momentum seemed on their side to form a coalition. The pro-democracy parties needed to gain the support of a few extra MPs and convince some of the appointed upper house senators to achieve a majority (376) of both the upper and lower house to install the leader of Move Forward—the party with the most seats—as prime minister. In the highest turnout in Thai history according to the electoral commission (with more than 70 parties competing), voters clearly made their preference known. Move Forward and Pheu Thai, the two top pro-democracy parties, won almost 60 percent of the lower house seats.

But this pro-democracy coalition, with Move Forward leader Pita Limjaroenrat at its head, is hardly a done deal. Move Forward is a highly progressive party backed by young voters pushing for real institutional change, unlike any prior major Thai party. Despite the conservative nature of the 250-seat upper house of senators, who were essentially picked by the military, Move Forward and its allies claim that its pro-democracy coalition is slowly persuading senators to side with them. They claim that Move Forward and its allies, including Pheu Thai, will be able to win the support of enough senators to bring the coalition’s numbers to 376 (upper and lower house combined) when parliament meets on July 3 and picks a new lower house speaker and new prime minister.

In May, Chaithawat Tulathong, Move Forward’s party secretary-general, told ThaiPBS that he had “held discussions with a group of senators, a number of whom have expressed concerns over the Move Forward party’s policies and hope that the new government will not cause any more political conflict [but that] after the discussions, the senators have a better understanding and are positive about the Move Forward party.” Then, just a few days ago, Pita and his allies claimed they were very close to getting enough support from senators to put them over the top.

However, obstacles remain. Pita and Move Forward have not locked down all these senatorial votes, and the party’s desire to make major reforms in how the military and the lese-majeste laws are handled will alienate many senators. Already, too, the establishment is using typical tactics to try to push Move Forward aside and essentially nullify its votes. A case has been lodged against Pita that could potentially ban him from politics and even put him in jail, and it is not out of the question that the Move Forward party, given Thailand’s compliant judiciary, could be banned.

Punchada Sirivunnabood notes in The Diplomat that if Move Forward and its allies attempt to obtain the support of 376 legislators but fail to do so, parliament will be left open to all sorts of horse-trading of the type common in Thai coalition-building after elections. As Punchanda also comments, one real possibility stemming from such a failure is a coalition then built in a "second round [of parliamentary voting]...[around] a Pheu Thai candidate or one of the other conservative parties, likely General Prawit Wongsuwan, the leader of the PPRP, proposed for prime minister. This would potentially force Move Forward into the opposition” and, almost surely, infuriate millions of Thai voters, a dangerous situation.

Defiant Yevgeny Prigozhin breaks silence, says Wagner mercenaries to operate from Belarus

Robyn Dixon and Mary Ilyushina

 Jun 27 2023

Wagner mercenary chief Yevgeniy Prigozhin has resurfaced for the first time since his mutiny, and declared that his motive was to save the private militia from being subsumed into the Russian military – not to topple President Vladimir Putin.

Prigozhin, who did not disclose his whereabouts, said he ordered the rebellion after Russia's military killed 30 Wagner fighters in a missile strike on one of the militia's camps, and he said he accepted a deal to avoid prosecution and move to Belarus because it would allow Wagner to continue its operations there.

Whatever his intentions, however, Prigozhin's brazen revolt confronted Putin with the fiercest challenge he has faced in more than 23 years as Russia's supreme leader, and it laid bare bitter divisions over the handling of the war in Ukraine that could have serious repercussions on the battlefield.

Ukrainians remain staunchly unified in the defence of their sovereign territory, and the Ukrainian military on Monday claimed further progress in its counteroffensive to drive out occupying Russian forces, by taking control of Rivnopil, the ninth village it has recaptured this month.

Speaking in an 11-minute audio address posted on Telegram on Monday, Prigozhin said Wagner fighters were strongly opposed to signing contracts with the Russian Defence Ministry – as they had been ordered to do by July 1 – because it would have effectively dismantled the group. Wagner had decided to hand back its equipment to the Defence Ministry when the missile strike occurred, he claimed.

Prigozhin expressed regret about Russian aircrews killed by Wagner during Saturday's rebellion, "but these assets were dropping bombs and delivering missile strikes," he said.


AP
Yevgeny Prigozhin, the owner of the Wagner Group military company, looks out from a military vehicle on a street in Rostov-on-Don, Russia, Saturday, June 24, 2023, leaving an area of the headquarters of the Southern Military District.

He boasted that Wagner was perhaps the "most experienced and combat-ready unit in Russia, and possibly in the world" and had performed a huge number of tasks in the interests of the Russian state, in Africa, the Middle East "and around the world".

"Recently, this unit has achieved good results in Ukraine," he said, adding that Wagner had received an outpouring of support from Russians in Saturday's revolt, which he called a "march for justice".

While Prigozhin issued his defiant statement, Russia's embattled leadership tried to demonstrate control on Monday after the bruising, chaotic mutiny by airing a video of Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu visiting a command post. The Kremlin released video of a recorded address by President Vladimir Putin to young engineers.

It was not clear when the video address by Putin was recorded, leaving questions about his whereabouts still swirling as Russians grappled with the aftermath of the crisis. Other key figures in the crisis remained out of sight.

Shoigu's exact whereabouts and the timing of the video released by the Defence Ministry also were not clear. Russian media reported that it was prerecorded, probably on Friday, before the Wagner rebellion.

By contrast, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited his troops near the front lines in eastern Ukraine on Monday and his office quickly released video of him greeting soldiers.

VADIM SAVITSKY
In this handout photo released by Russian Defence Ministry, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu attends a session of the Council of Defence Ministers of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation in Minsk, Belarus, in May 2023.

As a state of emergency in the Russian capital was lifted, Russians were left trying to make sense of Putin's reversal from his threat of tough action against what he called "treason," and what it could mean in the near term, especially for the ongoing war in Ukraine, and in the longer term for stability in the country and for Putin's political future.

State-owned media, meanwhile, reported Monday that the insurrection charges against Prigozhin had not yet been rescinded. The Kremlin on Saturday had announced that the charges would be dropped as part of the deal in which Prigozhin agreed to halt his military advance on Moscow and leave Russia for Belarus.

Key questions about the deal remained unanswered, and messaging from Russian officials about Wagner's future appeared confused, amid signs that the militia would be allowed to continue to function, despite calls for it to be curbed.

Until his Telegram post, Prigozhin had not been heard from since leaving the southern city of Rostov-on-Don on Saturday to cheers and shouts of support.

Russian news outlet Verstka reported that a Wagner base for 8000 soldiers was being constructed in Belarus, in the Mogilev region southeast of Minsk. The report could not be confirmed.

Putin was seen during his emergency address to the nation on Saturday amid the crisis, but there was speculation that he might have left Moscow for one of his residences northwest of the capital, after two planes from Russia's special fleet used by Putin departed the city that day.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the president was "working in the Kremlin" and that the two planes returned to Moscow on Sunday evening, Russian news outlet Agentstvo reported.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin called for moves to strengthen Russian unity in the wake of the crisis, but he insisted that the Russian government worked "smoothly and clearly" during the crisis.

"It is important to ensure the sovereignty of the Russian Federation and the security of citizens, taking into account recent events," Mishustin said at a meeting of deputy prime ministers Monday. "It is necessary to consolidate society against the backdrop of an attempted armed rebellion."

In this handout photo released by Russian Foreign Ministry Press Service, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaks during his meeting with Li Hui, China's special envoy for Eurasian affairs, in Moscow, Russia, in May 2023.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wagner would continue operating in Mali and the Central African Republic, calling Wagner operatives there "instructors". Wagner has political advisers and influence operations in many African countries and provides security in Mali and the Central African Republic.

Lavrov said the US ambassador to Russia, Lynne Tracy, had spoken with Russian government representatives Sunday and conveyed Washington's view that the events were Russia's internal affair and its hope that Russian nuclear weapons remained secure.

"It was especially emphasised: The United States proceeds from the fact that everything that happens is an internal affair of the Russian Federation," Lavrov said in an interview with the state-controlled television network RT.

Lavrov added that Putin received "numerous calls" on Saturday from representatives of other countries who "expressed solidarity" and "confidence that we will not allow attempts to undermine the unity of our state and the success of the special military operation." He did not specify which countries, he said, because "they asked not to talk about their calls publicly."

Ukrainian Deputy Defence Minister Hanna Maliar said Ukraine had regained roughly 80 square kilometres in the country's south.

News coverage by Russian media displayed how deeply the events have rattled Putin's authoritarian state, which is built on his power as supreme leader, with the rule of law readily dispensable and competing fiefs – including oligarchs and officials - jostling constantly for presidential favour, state benefits and influence.

UNCREDITED/AP
Members of the Wagner Group military company load their tank onto a truck on a street in Rostov-on-Don, Russia, Saturday, June 24, 2023, prior to leaving an area at the headquarters of the Southern Military District.

An opinion column in the Russian newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets said that the "most terrifying scenario" – of fighting in the streets of Moscow and elsewhere and a split in Russia's military and security forces – had been averted.

"Russia displayed its vulnerability to the whole world and to itself. Russia dashed to the abyss at full speed and with the same speed stepped back from it," the columnist, Mikhail Rostovsky, wrote under the headline: "Prigozhin Leaves, Problems Remain: Deep Political Consequences of a Failed Coup."

But there were signs of a potential crackdown on Russian private military companies, with widespread calls to bring them to heel, even though they are already technically illegal in Russia. One key reason for Wagner's mutiny was Prigozhin's refusal to sign Defence Ministry contracts that would have sidelined the militia and submitted it to Shoigu's authority.

Russia's Federal Security Service, or FSB, carried out raids Saturday at the addresses of current and former Wagner mercenaries, Russian media outlet Important Stories reported.

Andrei Kartapolov, chairman of the defence committee in the State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, told the Vedomosti newspaper there was no need to ban Wagner, calling it the most combat-ready unit in Russia. Kartapolov said Wagner fighters could continue to serve in the war in Ukraine if they signed contracts with the military. Such a path may be unpalatable to many Wagner fighters, who are intensely loyal to Prigozhin.

UNCREDITED/AP
Membes of the Wagner Group military company sit atop of a tank on a street in Rostov-on-Don, Russia, Saturday, June 24, 2023, prior to leaving an area at the headquarters of the Southern Military District.

The state-controlled Tass news agency reported Monday that Wagner's recruiting offices in Novosibirsk and Tyumen had reopened, after they closed during the mutiny, and that the group's office in St. Petersburg was open and working. Wagner is seen by many in Russia as a more prestigious, elite and effective force than regular Russian military units.

Another newspaper, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, called for all armed formations not officially part of the security structures to be disarmed given "today's political reality," in an article published Sunday.

"The events of June 24 will undoubtedly have long-term consequences for the country. It became clear that a man with a gun, if he is not a state official, is a real threat to the state and statehood," the newspaper's editor, Konstantin Remchukov, wrote in an opinion column.

"In Russia there should not be armed people who are loyal first to their commanders and only secondarily to someone else."

Social media pages connected to Prigozhin, Wagner and key figures associated with him were blocked on Saturday. By Sunday, many pro-Kremlin Telegram channels were rushing to discredit the Wagner leader.

In St. Petersburg, local media published photographs of gold bars, fake passports, millions in cash and "white powder" reportedly seized from his properties by the authorities.

Alexander Khodakovsky, head of the pro-Moscow Vostok Battalion, which is fighting in eastern Ukraine, published a story that Prigozhin had one of his underlings beaten "half to death," after the subordinate told the mercenary leader that it would not be possible to recruit 1000 Russian prisoners, but only 300.

"This incident told me everything: I made an approximate psycho-portrait of Prigozhin, and I began to warn everyone of the growing threat," Khodakovsky wrote.

"It was clear to me that a person with such manners serves only his own interests," he added.

"I always cringed when I saw how the figure of Prigozhin was erected on a pedestal."

Full speech: Putin defiant in address to nation after attempted armed rebellion

In his first remarks since the Wagner Group’s attempted rebellion, Russian President Vladimir Putin thanked Wagner mercenary fighters and commanders who had stood down “to avoid bloodshed.” He also said he would honor his promise to allow fighters to relocate to Belarus.

June 26, 2023

 

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu Makes 1st Appearance Since Wagner Group's Revolt

Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin had mounted a revolt against the Russian government to topple Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and General Staff chief Gen. Valery Gerasimov. The revolt ended when Prigozhin struck a deal with Kremlin.

Rusian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, the target of Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin 

Getty Images


UPDATED: 26 JUN 2023 

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu has made his first public appearance since the Wagner Group revolted and sought his ouster.

The Yevgeny Prigozhin-led Wagner Group, a private military earlier often referred to as Kremlin's sword-arm, had revolted on Friday against the Russian defence establishment and had sought the sacking of Shoigu and General Staff chief Gen. Valery Gerasimov. The rebellion finally ended on Saturday night when Prigozhin announced that he is halting his military's march to Moscow. It was followed by an announcement of a deal between him and Kremlin.

Though Russian President Vladimir Putin made a statement after Prigozhin revolted and captured a Russian military headquarters, swearing to "punish" those "on path of treason" who had dealt a "stab in the back", no comment or public appearance has since come from Putin, Prigozhin, or Gerasimov.

The purported public appearance of Shoigu in a video released through official channels is the first public apperance by a senior figure. Sky News noted that it's not yet confirmed when or where the video was taken. The Associated Press (AP) said that the "Defence Ministry released a video showing Shoigu flying in a helicopter and then attending a meeting with military officers at a military headquarters in Ukraine".

It was unclear what would ultimately happen to Prigozhin and his forces. Few details of the deal were released either by the Kremlin or Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko who brokered it. Prigozhin's whereabouts have been unclear since he drove out of Rostov-on-Don in an SUV Saturday. He and his forced had captured the city and the Russian military headquarters there that oversees the Ukraine war efforts.

Before starting the revolt, Prigozhin had blasted Shoigu and Gerasimov with expletive-ridden insults for months, attacking them for failing to provide his troops with enough ammunition during the battle for Bakhmut, the war's longest and bloodiest battle.

Putin stood back from the rift, and Shoigu and Gerasimov remained mum, possibly reflecting uncertainty about Putin's support. Observers said that by failing to end the feud Putin had encouraged Prigozhin to dramatically up the stakes.

Asked by reporters Saturday whether Putin still trusts Shoigu, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded he wasn't aware of any changes in the president's attitude. Commenting on whether any changes in military leadership were discussed during negotiations with Prigozhin, Peskov responded that personnel changes were the exclusive prerogative of Putin as the commander-in-chief and so it wasn't a subject for discussion.

Russian media and commentators speculated that Putin could replace Shoigu with Alexei Dyumin, the governor of the Tula region who had previously served as a a Putin bodyguard and then a deputy defence minister. They noted that Putin, who avoids making decisions under pressure, would likely wait before announcing a shakeup.

The US had intelligence that Prigozhin had been building up his forces near the border with Russia for some time. That conflicts with Prigozhin's claim that his rebellion was a response to an attack on his field camps in Ukraine on Friday by the Russian military, which he said killed a large number of his men. The Defence Ministry denied attacking the camps.

US Rep. Mike Turner, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, said Prigozhin's march on Moscow appeared to have been planned in advance.

He told CBS Face The Nation, "This is something that would have had to have been planned for a significant amount of time to be executed in the manner in which it was."

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken described the weekend's events as "extraordinary", recalling that 16 months ago Putin appeared poised to seize the capital of Ukraine and now he has had to defend Moscow from forces led by his onetime protege.

He told NBC's Meet The Press, "I think we've seen more cracks emerge in the Russian façade. It is too soon to tell exactly where they go and when they get there, but certainly we have all sorts of new questions that Putin is going to have to address in the weeks and months ahead."

It was not yet clear what the fissures opened by the 24-hour rebellion would mean for the war in Ukraine. But it resulted in some of the best forces fighting for Russia being pulled from the battlefield: the Wagner troops, who had shown their effectiveness in scoring the Kremlin's only land victory in months, in Bakhmut, and Chechen soldiers sent to stop them on the approach to Moscow.

The Wagner forces' largely unopposed, rapid advance also exposed vulnerabilities in Russia's security and military forces. The mercenary soldiers were reported to have downed several helicopters and a military communications plane. The Defence Ministry has not commented.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, speaking to reporters before chairing a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, where they will discuss more support for Ukraine, said that the revolt showed that the war is "cracking Russia's political system".

Borrell said, "The monster that Putin created with Wagner, the monster is biting him now. The monster is acting against his creator. The political system is showing fragilities, and the military power is cracking."

(With AP inputs)

Wagner Will Continue Mali, C.Africa Operations: Lavrov

A private security guard from the Russian group Wagner stands next to a Central African Republic soldier during a rally. Photo Barbara Debout/AFP via Getty Images

JUNE 26, 2023

The Wagner mercenary group will continue operations in Mali and the Central African Republic despite its leader’s aborted insurrection over the weekend, Russia’s foreign minister said on Monday.

Wagner members “are working there as instructors. This work, of course, will continue,” Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with the RT outlet.

Lavrov said Europe and France in particular had “abandoned” the two African countries, which had, in turn, asked Russia and Wagner to provide military instructors and “to ensure the security of their leaders.”

Western powers believe the Wagner group is used to promote Russia’s influence abroad and have accused the group of torturing and exploiting natural resources.

In the RT interview, Lavrov also said the rebellion by Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin would not change anything in Russia’s ties with its allies.

“There have been many calls (from foreign partners) to President (Vladimir) Putin… to express their support,” he said.

Asked if there could be any changes to Russia’s international relations as a result, Lavrov said: “With partners and friends, no. As for the others, frankly, I don’t care. Relations between the collective West and us have been destroyed.”

Wagner rebellion: Why Americans should pay attention

BY JULIA MUELLER

THE HILL

- 06/26/23 

Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin’s short-lived rebellion against Russian military leadership signals strains within Russia and raises concerns about the country’s leadership as Moscow continues its war on Ukraine, officials and analysts say.

Prigozhin on Friday launched fighters in an armed rebellion aimed at ousting Russia’s defense minister, accusing Sergei Shoigu of ordering a strike on the mercenary group’s field camps as they fought for Russia in Ukraine.

Prigozhin’s fighters reached the location of Russia’s southern military headquarters in Rostov-on-Don and began moving toward Moscow, but the Wagner chief Saturday ordered his forces to stop the advance.

He reportedly reached a deal with the Kremlin, with help from Belarus’s leader Alexander Lukashenko, a key Putin ally, and has agreed to move to Belarus.

Here are some of the concerns being raised after the rebellion inside Russia:
The rebellion raises questions about Putin’s power

Putin “put down the rebellion, but at great cost,” former United States Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan said Monday on “CBS Mornings.”

“He labeled Prigozhin a traitor, and Prigozhin was leading a military column to Moscow. And then Putin struck a deal with him and let him go free. That’s extraordinary, to call someone a traitor … because the rationale — why he had to strike the deal, this is according to the Kremlin spokesman — they needed to avoid bloodshed and chaos. What does that say about Putin’s control over the country? It doesn’t speak well,” Sullivan said.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Sunday that the rebellion shows “cracks in the Russian facade” amid Russia’s 16-month war on its neighbor.

“And it was a direct challenge to Putin’s authority. So this raises profound questions. It shows real cracks,” Blinken said on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”

“Sixteen months ago, Russian forces were on the doorstep of Kyiv, in Ukraine, thinking they’d take the city in a matter of days, thinking they would erase Ukraine from the map as an independent country. Now, over this weekend, they’ve had to defend Moscow, Russia’s capital, against mercenaries of Putin’s own making,” Blinken said.

Former CIA Director and retired U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus said Sunday that Prigozhin “lost his nerve” when he called off the rebellion.

“He was … within roughly two hours’ drive of the outskirts of Moscow, where they were starting to prepare defensive positions. This rebellion, although it had some applause along the way, didn’t appear to be generating the kind of support that he had hoped it would. And again, he decided to take the deal. He gave up this effort,” Petraeus said of Prigozhin on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
It could be a ‘distraction’ in Russia’s war on Ukraine

Blinken said the rebellion “presents a real distraction” for Putin that could “create greater openings for the Ukrainians to do well on the ground” as they mount their their counteroffensive efforts.

Prigozhin “has raised profound questions about the very premises for Russian aggression against Ukraine in the first place,” Blinken said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The Wagner chief challenged Putin’s justification for Moscow’s ongoing war on its neighbor that the invasion was necessary to denazify and demilitarize the country.

“The war was needed by oligarchs. It was needed by the clan that is today practically ruling in Russia,” Prigozhin said in a video.

Blinken noted that the Ukrainian counteroffensive is “progressing” against Russian defenses, as Kyiv pushes to take back occupied territory.

“And to the extent that Russia is now distracted, that Putin has to worry about what’s going on inside of Russia as much as he has to worry about what he’s trying to do not successfully in Ukraine, I think that creates an additional advantage for the Ukrainians to take advantage of,” Blinken said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who also spoke with President Biden about the events unfolding over the weekend, said after the rebellion that “Russia’s weakness is obvious.”

“For a long time, Russia used propaganda to mask its weakness and the stupidity of its government. And now there is so much chaos that no lie can hide it,” Zelensky said.
The deal raises questions about Belarus’s role

The Institute for the Study of War said Sunday that Russia is facing a “deeply unstable equilibrium.”

Among other complications, “the optics of Belarusian President Lukashenko playing a direct role in halting a military advance on Moscow are humiliating to Putin and may have secured Lukashenko other benefits,” the group wrote in a new report.

The deal in which Lukashenko was reportedly involved is “a short-term fix, not a long-term solution, and Prigozhin’s rebellion exposed severe weaknesses in the Kremlin and Russian [Ministry of Defense],” the ISW argues.

“Lukashenko was reelected in a sham election in August 2020. Massive protests. Putin helped him put those down and kept him in power. Now, Putin seems to be more dependent on Lukashenko than the other way around,” Sullivan said, arguing that Belarus and its president have been “completely dependent” on Putin and Russia in the past.

“There are many examples of how this — these extraordinary events not only give the appearance of weakness, but actually show real weakness by Putin,” Sullivan said.
Concerns stoked over Russia’s nuclear weapons

“I would think the preeminent concern of American officials today: Who’s in control in Moscow, and in particular, who’s controlling the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world? That affects all Americans. It affects the entire world,” Sullivan said.

The former ambassador noted that Russia is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, tasked with protecting international peace.

“Instead, it’s introduced war and chaos, and Putin controls a massive nuclear arsenal. So that’s a grave concern,” he said. 

Nuclear weapons have long been a concern amid Russia’s war, with Putin’s threats last year prompting White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan to warn against Moscow following through. Fighting has also led to instability around Europe’s largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia, stoking worries of nuclear accident.

Putin sent nuclear weapons to Belarus earlier this month, purportedly part of a plan to raise fears of escalation. Lukashenko said Belarus received the weapons and would not hesitate to use them.

“God forbid I have to make a decision to use those weapons today, but there would be no hesitation if we face an aggression,” Lukashenko said.

Wagner Group's Prigozhin releases 1st message since mutiny

DW  Published 2 hours agoPublished 2 hours ago

In his first remarks since launching — and ending — an insurrection against Russian military leaders over the weekend, Wagner Group head Yevgeny Prigozhin said the aim was to avoid the destruction of the mercenary force

Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin released an audio message on Monday, his first statement since a failed revolt by his mercenary forces in Russia.

He said the goal was not to overthrow Russia's political leadership, but rather to protest Russian military leaders' ineffective conduct during its war in Ukraine.

What did Prigozhin say?

The Wagner Group leader posted an 11-minute-long audio message to Telegram, explaining why he and his forces mutinied against the Russian military and marched towards the Russian capital of Moscow.

"We started our march because of an injustice," Prigozhin said. He reiterated claims that the Russian military had fired on Wagner forces and that the mercenary group set off for Moscow in reaction to being attacked.

Prigozhin emphasized that the goal of the march was not to oust Russian President Vladimir Putin's government.

"We went to demonstrate our protest and not to overthrow power in the country," he added.

He did not provide details about his whereabouts in the message and did not comment about his future plans.

Unveiling Resistance: The Struggle for Women’s Rights in Iran


Published in: Clingendael
Tara Sepehri Far
Iran and Kuwait Senior Researcher, Middle East and North Africa Division@sepehrifar
HRW

An elderly Iranian woman walks along a street-side in Tehran without wearing her headscarf, October 2, 2022. 

 © 2022 Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via AP Photo

The sweeping public protests that erupted across Iran in response to the death of Mahsa (Jina) Amini in custody of Iran’s morality police last September have been characterized by many observers as the first feminist uprising in the region. The visually powerful images of women and girls defying compulsory hijab laws in the streets and the slogan “women, life, freedom” have strengthened this characterization and drawn broad international sympathy. But the sweeping protests and their demands for fundamental change were met with a brutal government crackdown that resulted in hundreds of deaths and tens of thousands of arbitrary arrests. Almost nine months later, women’s right to choose their own way of dressing remains at the center of the protest movement. Understanding why requires a closer look at how the broader struggle of women for equal rights in Iran has evolved over the years.

Charting the course of women's right movement in Iran

Iranian women experience discrimination in law and in practice in ways that deeply impact their lives, particularly with regard to marriage, divorce and custody issues. Post-1979 compulsory hijab laws affect virtually every aspect of women’s public life in Iran. In today’s Iran, a woman’s access to employment, education, social benefits and proper health care — and even her mere public presence in society— depends on complying with compulsory hijab laws, which are routinely enforced through a web of rules and arbitrary interpretation by state agents as well as businesses. However, despite its overarching impact on women’s rights and freedoms, the choice of dress code as a right was not taken up by Iran’s women’s movement as a collective issue until recently. Instead, the battle against enforcement of the compulsory wearing of the hijab was largely fought by the individual acts of millions of women, including activists, across the country - rather than via groups or institutions.

Iran has a decades-long history of movements promoting women’s rights, both before and after the revolution of 1979. Most of them pursued a vision of equality under law and sought to redress the gap regarding legal protection by promoting international human rights instruments. The most notable example after the revolution is the coalition of Islamist and secular feminist activists who came together to establish the “One Million Signature Campaign to Demand the Repeal of Discriminatory Laws” in 2006. Focus issues included age discrimination in establishing criminal responsibility and marriageable age, inequality in inheritance and discrimination of mothers as guardians in case of divorce. The issue of the compulsory hijab was notably absent. While the “One Million Signature Campaign” did not achieve its stated goal of fully repealing the set of relevant laws, it created strong bonds among students and labor activists and trained a generation of activists in legal advocacy. Similar to other movements, this group of activists came under significant state pressure and faced large-scale arrests during the Ahmadinejad presidency.

The pressure on the movement combined with the repression that followed the 2009 presidential election protests increasingly foreclosed avenues for legal reforms and led dozens of human rights defenders and activists to go into exile. It also shifted the focus of women’s rights defenders towards promoting women’s representation, including the presence of women in public life. During the presidency of Hassan Rouhani, Shahindokht Molaverdy, the then-vice president for women and family affairs and a figure close to the women’s rights movement, came under immense pressure from the judiciary to prevent any such change and was only able to take minor steps in advancing women’s rights. During this period, the women’s movement focused most of its activities on achieving more representation in elected positions, greater women’s attendance of sporting events, and better protection against sexual harassment in public as well as work spaces.

Digital dissent: How social media changed the movement

The expansion of internet access in Iran has been integral to the next shift in activism. It has enabled millions to share information outside official channels of communication and also blurred the line between the public and the private as it enables youth and women to blog about their lived experiences and share images of ordinary life on social media. Despite state-imposed internet restrictions, popular social media platforms such as Instagram, are used widely by lifestyle bloggers, women-led businesses, and public figures to promote their activities. Millions of Iranians use VPNs to circumvent internet censorship.

This shift from legal advocacy to digital social protest continues to push the boundaries of the social debate in public life. Since the summer of 2020, dozens of Iranian women from various backgrounds have taken to social media to share their stories of sexual harassment and assault by influential men in various industries. They have formed their own #metoo movement and achieved the arrests of a number of those accused of harassment, community condemnations, and exoneration of two actresses who had faced defamation charges for speaking up.

It was also this shift in women’s rights discourse and the accompanying expansion of online platforms that empowered the exiled activist Masih Alinejad to initiate formal campaigns against the compulsory hijab starting in 2014. The issue was forced to the center of the political debate in December 2017, when 31-year old Vida Movahed stood on a metal utilities box on Enghelab (Revolution) Street in central Tehran without a hijab and silently waved a white scarf from a stick, sparking a series of acts of bold defiance by women who became known as the girls of revolution street.

The compulsory hijab and state-society relations in Iran

Iran’s penal code criminalizes appearance of women in public space without “sharia hijab”. The offense is punishable by a fine, or imprisonment between 10 days to two months. According to a government-linked survey that was conducted in 2014, almost half of the respondents took the view that the government should not intervene on the issue. The corresponding figure in 2005 was 34%. A more recent report published by the parliamentary research center states that 70 percent of Iranian women do not abide by the government’s interpretation of hijab regulations under Islamic law. The report also flags the risk that further criminalization of disobeying sharia hijab legislation can weaken government’s social legitimacy. Despite officials’ admission that Iranians’ views are shifting, enforcement of the hijab remains an article of faith among hardliners in Iran. The government has invested significant resources in promoting and enforcing hijab laws, as well as initiated harsh crackdowns against those who peacefully mobilize against them. Government propaganda equates observance of hijab with the preservation of family values and traditional social structures.

Recently pronounced prolonged sentences against human rights defenders for peacefully opposing the hijab, as well as viral scenes of police violence against women and girls who do not abide by compulsory hijab have contributed to public frustration and stoked political dissent. The 2021 elections, which solidified the control of hardliners, also gave rise to a wave of enforcement of repressive laws against women, including hijab compliance. In July 2022, a video of 28-year old Sepideh Rashno resisting harassment and vigilante enforcement of the compulsory hijab on a bus went viral. Rashno was arrested and, a month later, dragged in front of cameras to apologize. In the footage, Rashno looked pale and had dark circles around her eyes. Instead of instilling fear among Iranian women, social media responses to the incident suggest it rather created widespread indignation.

In many ways, continued enforcement of the compulsory hijab can be viewed as the quintessential symbol of popular disconnect with the Islamic republic: Amid the government’s mounting inability to meet people’s basic needs, an increasingly unpopular and abusive policy remains imposed on people and is enforced with impunity by state agents. In that sense, the fate of Mahsa (Jina), a young woman wearing an outfit considered unremarkable to many, was one that could befall many Iranian women or their loved ones. Protesters saw her death at the hands of morality police not as an accident, but as the result of a systemic pattern of brutal violation of women’s right that is exercised with both callousness and impunity.

Those who took to the street in protest to demand fundamental change included political and social elites that had hesitated to join earlier street protests. Now they showed support by removing their headscarves in public. This established an important thread of continuity between earlier protest movements – as discussed above - and the present defiance of women of compulsory hijab laws. The women and girls on the street view their individual acts of resistance as connected to a broader struggle. Ultimately, the matter of the hijab is not just about women claiming back the right to dress as they wish from the state, or about advocating for the elimination of a set of abusive state enforcement practices. Rather, the real stakes are a multilayered fight for the rewriting of the social laws, codes and practices that determine a women’s life and place in society, including within families. For example, nine months after her release, Rashno wrote on her Instagram page how, during her detention, her conservative brother and father had come closer to supporting her cause. Several other women have written about how the movement has enabled new conversations with their families about their choice of dress, their position at home and their role in society.

Is fundamental change imminent?

It is precisely because the matter is much more fundamental than a choice of clothes that the Iranian government has not shown signs of reversing course. The authorities have responded to the mounting resistance against the compulsory hijab with an array of policies and draft legislation that seek to increase enforcement of the compulsory dress code through facial recognition detection, pressure on businesses to enforce laws, and punishments that include fines and deprivation of social benefits for those who refuse to comply. This vision was clearly outlined in a policy document prepared by the government’s Headquarters for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in 2021, which seeks to reduce public tension while expanding enforcement outside the legal arena. The impact of these new restrictions remains to be seen, but it is likely that they will disproportionally affect economically marginalized women due to the additional financial burdens they will impose.

However, in a context of mass demonstrations, it is difficult to see how the legitimacy of current regulations can be restored, let alone new ones added. The movement of ‘women, life, freedom’ has demonstrated the unifying power and potential of women’s rights as lever for mobilization and demands for change. This has made the quest for such rights an essential part of any pathway towards fundamental change. Over forty years ago, women’s rights defenders failed to gain the support of political parties in their protests against the imposition of the compulsory hijab. Today’s Iranian women that are determined to change the social norms imposed by legislation dating back to 1979 enjoy far broader social support. Recent events show how they have become active agents in pursuit of their rights, and seek to drive change even in the absence of a political transformation.