"Basiji in the Islamic Republic" - auf Deutsch

Übersetzung aus dem Englischen: Julia
Quelle: "Devouring their own - Basiji in the Islamic Republic"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/narges-bajoghli/devouring-their-own-the-b_b_264939.html

Sie verschlingen ihresgleichen: Basiji in der Islamischen Republik

von Narges Bajoghli

Amir Hosseini* folgte dem Aufruf Ayatollah Khomeinis zur Verteidigung der Nation und der Revolution, als Irak am 22. September 1980 in den Iran einmarschierte. Er fand sich im benachbarten Hauptquartier der Basij ein und meldete sich mit 17 Jahren freiwillig an die Front. Die Basij entstanden kurz nach der iranischen Revolution von 1979 als "große Volksmiliz", in den Worten Ayatollah Khomeinis, der der Höchste Führer der neu gegründeten Islamischen Republik wurde. Diese paramilitärische Gruppe stand unter der Federführung der Revolutionsgarden, und beide spielten im Iran-Irak-Krieg von 1980 bis 1988 eine große Rolle. Amir Hosseini schloss sich 1980 ihren Truppen an und ging kurz darauf an die Front.

Er kämpfte fünf Jahre lang sowohl an den blutigen Fronten in Khorramshahr - wo zum ersten Mal seit dem 1. Weltkrieg Schützengrabenkrieg praktiziert wurde - und später in den gebirgigen Grenzstädten des iranischen Kurdistan. Nur einmal fuhr er in dieser Zeit nach Hause: als sein Körper innerlich zu verätzen begann, nachdem er den Nerven- und chemischen Wirkstoffen ausgesetzt war, die die Iraker von ihren Kriegsflugzeugen aus auf iranische Soldaten und Zivilisten warfen.

Als hingebungsvoller Basiji, der zu einem versierten Kämpfer geworden war, kehrte Amir jedoch schon 1986 auf das Schlachtfeld zurück. Ein Jahr später, in einem Minenfeld im Süden des Landes, verlor er beide Beine und musste für den Rest seines Lebens im Rollstuhl sitzen, während die Chemikalien allmählich seine Lungen verätzen.

Amir ist einer dieser Männer, die mit grimmigem Stolz zu ihren Jahren an der Front stehen. Seine Jugend verbrachte er in den Schützengräben im Kampf gegen die Iraker (die von Europa und Amerika mit ausgeklügelten Waffen ausgestattet waren), während dieser ersten grausigen Schlachten mit nichts anderem als Maschinengewehren und Molotovcocktails, um die Iraker von iranischem Terrain zu vertreiben. Er ist ein Veteran des längsten Krieges des 20. Jahrhunderts, der mehr als 1 Millionen Menschenleben sowohl in Iran als auch in Irak forderte.

Zu Beginn der auf den Krieg folgenden Wiederaufbauphase im Iran wurde Amir jedoch zunehmend desillusioniert über die Mächtigen. Er erkannte, dass das, wofür er gekämpft hatte, nichts mit dem zu tun hatte, was die politische Elite im Namen des Krieges tat. Er sah, wie "Kriegsveteranen", die ihren gesamten Dienst in Büros weitab der Front verbracht hatten, lukrative Geschäfte zugeschanzt bekamen, er war Zeuge, wie die Wandbilder seiner toten Freunde allmählich als Werbung die Anschlagtafeln in ganz Teheran zu zieren begannen: ihr gerechter Kampf wurde wie ein Wunder-Reinigungsmittel verkauft, mit dem alle Flecken und Makel, die ganze Korruptheit der Regierung beseitigt werden sollten.

Der Krieg war vorbei, die Anstrengungen zum Wiederaufbau des Landes waren im Gange, und die Revolutionsgarden waren nicht mehr länger eine Institution zum Schutz der Nation und der Revolution - sie wurden zum größten unabhängigen Wirtschaftsimperium innerhalb des Regimes. Durch die Kombination der Wirtschaftspolitik unter Präsident Rafsanjani (1989 - 1997) mit den politischen Manövern des neuen Höchsten Führers, Ali Khamenei, ist die Islamische Republik trotz der Warnungen Ayatollah Khomeinis zu einem militarisierten Staat geworden. Tatsächlich hatte Khomeini in den 1980er Jahren erklärt, dass das Militär und die Revolutionsgarden sich aus der Politik heraushalten müssten. In seinem Testament, das ein Manifest für die Islamische Republik in der Ära nach Khomeini ist, schrieb Khomeini:

"Mein ausdrücklicher Rat an die Streitkräfte ist, sich an die Regel der Nichteinmischung des Militärs in die Angelegenheiten der politischen Parteien zu halten. Die Streitkräfte einschließlich der Armee, der Polizei der [Revolutions]Garden, der Basij und anderer dürfen keiner politischen Partei beitreten und müssen sich von politischen Manövern fernhalten. Die Revolution gehört dem Volk, und ihr Schutz ist die Pflicht aller, es ist die patriotische und islamische Verpflichtung der Regierung, des Volkes, des Verteidigungsrats und des Majlis [Parlament, d. Übers.], sich den Streitkräften sofort entgegenzustellen, wenn sie - seien es die Befehlshaber und die oberen Ränge oder die niederen Ränge - gegen das Interesse des Islam und des Landes handeln oder wenn sie politischen Parteien beitreten oder sich an politischen Manövern beteiligen wollen, was sie ohne Zweifel ruinieren wird. Es ist die Pflicht des Führers und der Revolutionsgarde, derartige Aktoinen mit Gewalt zu verhindern, um Schaden vom Land abzuwenden." (1989: 45).

Nichtsdestotrotz hat Rafsanjanis Wirtschaftspolitik zum Wiederaufbau des Landes ihn dazu gebracht, die Erhöhung der Einkünfte zur Priorität für alle Regierungsbehörden zu machen. Während des Krieges selbst hatten die Revolutionsgarden ihre wirtschaftliche Macht über die iranische Gesellschaft vergrößert. Ihr riesiges Budget war im Majles (Parlament) nicht rechenschaftspflichtig, und ihre Partnerschaften mit der einflussreichen und mächtigen Märtyrer-Stiftung (Bonyad-e Shaheed) und der Stiftung der Unterdrückten (Bonyad-e Mustazafen), beide direkt nach der Revolution gegründet, unterlagen keiner Aufsicht. Diese Stiftungen gehören zu den am großzügigsten ausgestatteten Organisationen im Staat.

Seit dem Ende des Krieges haben die Revolutionsgarden ihr wirtschaftliches Imperium immer weiter ausgedehnt, indem sie unzählige Firmen gründeten und lukrative Regierungsaufträge erhielten. Anders als andere Unternehmen erklären die Revolutionsgarden ihre Einkünfte nicht bei der Zentralbank, so dass deren Nettowert unbekannt ist. Diese Unternehmen, die den Revolutionsgarden gehören und von ihnen geführt werden, sind u. a. in den Sektoren Öl, Landwirtschaft, Straßen- und Dammbau, Autoindustrie aktiv.

Im Juli 2007 erklärte das Energieministerium, dass die Auftragnehmer der Revolutionsgarden alle öffentlichen Infrastrukturprojekte einschließlich Wasser, Elektrizität und Brücken zunächst in Westiran leiten würden. Viele dieser Verträge wurden (und werden immer noch) ohne Ausschreibung vergeben, was gegen das iranische Gesetz ist, das offene Ausschreibungen vorschreibt. Zusätzlich zu ihren Verträgen betreiben die Revolutionsgarden auch ihre eigenen "Freihandelshäfen", in denen der durchschnittliche iranische Geschäftsmann, der Waren importieren oder exportieren möchte, hohe Zölle zahlen muss.

Mit einer Mischung von Wirtschaftspolitik und politischen Manövern haben die Revolutionsgarden und die Basij alle Bereiche des öffentlichen Lebens im Nachkriegsiran betreten.

Doch nicht alle ihrer Mitglieder hängen den ultrakonservativen Elementen der Islamischen Republik an, die während der vergangenen zwei Monate die Aufmerksamkeit der Welt auf sich gezogen haben. Viele, wie Amir, unterstützen nachdrücklich die Reformer, die allmählich von den Hardliner-Fraktionen in ihren Reihen beiseite gedrängt wurden. 1997 entwickelte Amir, so wie viele andere seiner Kollegen, die noch immer an die Ideale der Revolution glaubten, eine Faszination für Mohammad Khatami, der als Präsidentschaftskandidat eine Reform innerhalb des Systems forderte. Amir arbeitete in jenem Jahr mit Begeisterung für Khatamis Präsidentschaftskampagne und seine Wiederwahl in 2001. Trotz der breiten Unterstützung für Khatami in der Bevölkerung begannen die konservativen Fraktionen innerhalb des Regimes unter der Führung des Höchsten Führers Ali Khamenei sehr bald, hart gegen die Reformer vorzugehen. Um der Reformbewegung in dieser Zeit vollständig entgegenzuwirken, ernannte der Höchste Führer mehr konservative Mitglieder der Revolutionsgarden und Basiji in politische Positionen, und diese wandten sich sehr bald gegen die Reformer.

Nach den Studentenprotesten von 1999 in Teheran erklärten 24 führende Offiziere der Revolutionsgarden in einem an Khatami adressierten Brief in der konservativen Zeitung Jomhuri-e Eslami, die Revolutionsgarden könnten "diese Situation nicht länger tolerieren" und würden handeln, sollte Khatami seine Politik nicht ändern. Als Khatamis Präsidentschaft zu Ende ging, wurden die reformorientierten Mitglieder der Revolutionsgarden in den Hintergrund gedrängt, während ihre konservativen Kollegen innerhalb der politischen und wirtschaftlichen Gefilde gut positioniert wurden, um ihre Macht zu vergrößern.

In den Präsidentschaftswahlen von 2005 waren fünf der sieben Bewerber für das Amt entweder Mitglieder der Revolutionsgarden oder hatten irgendwann die Revolutionsgarden befehligt. Die Wahl von 2005 war der Wendepunkt, an dem die konservativen Mitglieder der Revolutions-garden und Basij die wichtigsten politischen Ämter im Land beanspruchten. Nachdem Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (selbst ein ehemaliges Mitglied der Revolutionsgarden) die Wahl von 2005 gewonnen hatte, waren viele seiner Kabinettsmitglieder und fast 80 Parlamentsmitglieder formal Mitglieder der Revolutionsgarden.

Als die diesjährigen Wahlen näherrückten, wusste Amir daher genau, für wen er und seine Familie am 12. Juni 2009 stimmen würden. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad und sein Umfeld standen genau für jene Leute, die Amir zu meiden versucht hatte: Leute, die ihre Verbindungen zum Krieg als Front für Geld, Macht und Kontrolle benutzt hatten.

Am 13. Juni, nach der Verkündung der Wiederwahl Ahmadinejads zum Präsidenten mit einer großen Stimmenmehrheit, gingen Amir, seine Frau und ihr 25-jähriger Sohn auf die Straße und schlossen sich Millionen von Iranern an, die gegen das Wahlergebnis protestierten.

Auch am zweiten Tag gingen sie mit Millionen friedlicher Demonstranten, in einem Schweigemarsch, um ihre Stimmen hörbar zu machen. Angespornt von der unglaublichen Energie der Straße verließen Amir und seine Familie auch am dritten Nachmittag ihre Wohnung. Sein Sohn schob Amirs Rollstuhl, und sie schlossen sich der Menschenmenge an. Es war der Tag, an dem die Basij (dieselbe Gruppe, der Amir einst voller Stolz beigetreten war) seinen Sohn mit ihren Schlagstöcken und Gift attackierten. Amir schrie sie von seinem Rollstuhl aus an, appellierte an ihr Erbarmen. Um ihn zum Schweigen zu bringen, wandten sie sich ihm zu, schlugen ihn, um dessen Handgelenke die grünen Bänder von Mir Hossein Moussavi gewickelt waren, bis er aus seinem Rollstuhl fiel. Blutig und zerschrammt wurde er von seinen Nachbarn nach Hause gebracht. Obwohl das im Vergleich zu seinen Kriegswunden nichts war, weinte Amir in dieser Nacht unkontrolliert. Er war nicht imstande zu glauben, dass das System, für das er während seiner ganzen Jugend gekämpft hatte, das System, für das er stolz und ohne sich zu beklagen seine beiden Beine verlor, sich gegen ihn gewendet hatte. Er hatte 20 Jahre ohne seine Beine gelebt und seine Abende am Beatmungsgerät verbringen müssen, weil seine Lungen nicht mehr selbstständig atmen konnten. Und jetzt hatten sie ihn geschlagen.
Am nächsten Tag erlitt Amir einen Herzinfarkt.

Er liegt noch immer auf der Intensivstation in einem Krankenhaus in Teheran, seine Familie und seine Freunde aus Kriegszeiten sind bei ihm. "Dafür haben wir nicht gekämpft", sagen sie zu mir, und Ärger klingt in ihren Stimmen mit. "Diese Kinder da draußen mit den Schlagstöcken, die sind wie ein Krebsgeschwür für unsere Gesellschaft", sagt einer, mit Augen, die rot sind vor Ungläubigkeit und Empörung.

* Der Name wurde zum Schutz seiner Identität geändert

Narges Bajoghli, Doktorandin der soziokulturellen Anthropologie an der Universität New York, Wissenschaftlerin am MacCracken-Institut, beschäftigt sich mit der Produktion von Medien in revolutionären Gesellschaften, insbesondere mit der Rolle der Basij in der Medienproduktion im Iran.

My pride and my fear in the Green Movement

I remember when the night before the presidental election I suddenly felt a spark inside me. There was hope, confidence, relief in advance to the event that - as we believed - would finally bring change to the Iranians living in- and outside of Iran. A small change, maybe just a faint difference, but a step towards a more bearable perspective. It seemed set.

I also remember another spark, following the first one. This spark sent three almost unconscious fragments of thoughts through my brain: "electoral fraud" - "protest, blood" - "revolution". I told myself not to be stupid - I knew almost nothing about this country, and my ideas certainly lacked any reasonable foundation.

I remember Saturday, June 13. I was getting myself some coffee in a coffee shop, when I saw it on the news screen: Ahmadinejad had gained 62,3%.
Tears of rage came into my eyes, I could hardly prevent myself from cursing aloud in the middle of the street.

Part one of the sparks had come true. From that moment on, my heart was with Iran.

The following days allowed me to witness something incredible:
Masses of people coming to the streets in unity, in peaceful manner, in great strength and justice, in modesty, but with unyielding comittment. I saw them being beaten, killed, arrested, I saw them dying in the streets, I saw them protecting security forces from the rage of other protesters. I saw them moving forward in incredible strength, focus, and sincerity. What I witnessed was the essence of being human.

I could feel that this would not stop soon. Those people were driven forward by something I believed I had in me as well. I could suddenly feel Iran. At some point during those days, I became Iranian.
I suddenly was proud of my Iranian passport, that until then had just been a formality to me due to marriage. I started dreaming of a time when I would go to Iran, take out that passport and say "I am proud of this".

From that time on I have been looking for ways to support the movement. I posted articles on Facebook like crazy, translated newspaper articles for noone ever to read, just to have them ready when needed, I went to protests for about the fist time in my life, I hustled about like crazy to do, do, do... just because I had to. Most of it hasn't been of much use, as a matter of fact, but I just had to keep digging.

And all of a sudden, I realized something, and with the realization came my fear.

I had never before experienced big crowds of people, highly emotionalized, being able to stay focused and unified for longer than, let's say, one month. The time span does not matter. What I am saying is, I never before saw such a unity, such an integrity, such an imperturbably focused common mind in crowds driven by pure emotion.
Daily I expected this monolithic (in a positive sense) creature to fall apart into factions and groups arguing and weakening themselves and each other, I expected self-elected "leaders" (no, I am NOT referring to Ahmadinejad here) appearing out of nowhere, using the opportunity to seize some power, influence, importance, or what else entraps people who need attention, and distract the focus of the movement, mislead the people into violence, revengeful thinking and aggression.

Nothing of that kind happened.

The people of Iran have shown me something I did not believe it existed. And it made it very, very easy, almost enjoyable, to take sides with them, identify myself with them to the bone. People all over the world must have felt the same way, since an unseen wave of international solidarity was born and is alive until now (at this point, I inevitably remember the contribution of Ougadougou/Burkina Faso to the internation day of solidarity on July 25).
This is nothing the Iranian people should feel grateful for, because they alone invoked this feeling in the people around the world. We, the others, should be grateful to the Iranians for inspiring us.

Yet, the fear has not quite left me, and it keeps coming back. I, as a German, have a very ambiguous notion of mass movements. A mass movement, on the background of recent German history, to me is a brainless object that can be brainwashed, manipulated, moved around and utilized - especially when emotionalized and being presented with a collective enemy through which it can reach a treacherous sense of identity and integrity. To me, emotionalized mass movements are always highly vulnerable to manipulation and destructive influence from individuals who act on their own behalf rather than on behalf of the people they claim to be leading. But this brainless object, of course, has not always been there. It has formed, and been formed, from former individuals, human beings with a brain, a conscience, and a moral concept. The transformation of individuals into a brainless object is a very slow, subtle process, usually we only realize it when it is almost too late.

Will this happen to the Green Movement?

What will the movement do when all options of peaceful protest are exhausted, when the leading figures, who at the moment are still able to serve as focal points (such as Mousavi, Karroubi, even, to some extent, Rafsanjani) will no longer have the capacity to be respected authorities to the people? I believe this moment will come, since the people in their concerns and goals seem to have already moved beyond what Mousavi and other parts of the political establishment are able to offer them.

What will happen if the movement starts fighting back not just with reason and common sense, but with weapons?
Is there a possibility that hatred will take over and turn the peaceful attitude of the protesters into a violent one?

Which are the political options for the movement? Do the existing reformist factions offer sufficient possibilities for reforms, and will the people be satisfied with reforms within the existing system?

And if not, are there any persons other than the leading figures like Khatami, Moussavi, Karroubi who could take over and bring fundamental reforms to the country?

Which status will religion have in the political system of a reformed Iran?

---

Strange as it is - but the question that used to worry me most some weeks ago (will there still be unity among the people once the movement has succeed in achieving an overthrow of the regime?) is not worrying me so much anymore. My trust has gained ground.

But it's still a long way to go, and I am still afraid of the movement falling apart and/or changing into something I could not side with any longer - something brutal, revengeful, "brainless" - which would be a human thing to happen - but no longer humane.

It would force me to sadly and disappointedly turn my back on it. It would deprive the whole world of an example for what culture and humanity is capable of.

There still is a long way to go, and the options seem to become more restricted. Soon it will be time to chose a direction for the movement to proceed.

I pray that you will stay as dignified, compassionate, focused and wise as you have started. A part of me knows that you will. Another part is afraid you might not - and noone could blame you for that. But if you do, you will make the world proud.

I am interested in your views. Comments are welcome.

****

Ougadougou, Burkina Faso, July 25 2009:

Links related to the issue
http://www.iranian.com/main/node/76035 (by Omid Habibinia)
http://www.hetvrijevolk.com/index.php?pagina=8948 (Quo vadis, Iran?)
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jul/1226.html (Need for Discipline and Self-restraint in the Green Movement)

Revolution from within - a side glance at Eastern Germany of 1989

(Translation by Julia – source: “DIE ZEIT # 29, July 9 2009)

“Time is Ripe”

September 9, 1989: 30 courageous citizens of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) establish the “New Forum” (“Neues Forum”). They have no idea that this will kick off a landslide. By Jens Reich

“Make a revolution with Germans? That will never lead anywhere. Before storming a train station they will make sure they have a ticket…” Lenin is said to have mockingly remarked once. Why this should be a crucial obstacle for Germans to take part in a revolution, I never quite understood. Indeed we did not buy tickets, we virtually filed a revolutionary organisation like you do when founding a fishing club. The organisation did not pass, but nevertheless the revolution happened. We were not the only catalysts, there were many movements other than us. But nevertheless, we managed to activate the biggest amount of people. And without the orderly rebellion of an entire population the end of the dictatorship would have been impossible.

We – that was a group of thirty very ordinary citizens of the GDR. Each and every one of the participants of course has their own memories about how it happened that this group on the weekend of the 9^th of September 1981 gathered in the house of Robert Havemann, a dissident who had died in 1981 after long house arrest, and composed the appeal “Aufbruch 89 – Neues Forum” (“New Dawn 89 – New Forum”). What I write down here is my own memory of the antecedent.

It was a hot summer, a languid holiday mood. A kind of ceasefire had settled down between the government and the dissatisfied population. The protesting civil rights activists who had debunked the fraud of the communal elections of early May had been temporarily silenced with various kinds of harassment. The politically active were in a state of shock after the bloody abatement of the students’ protests on the Square of Celestial Peace in Beijing.

For months now, civil groups had been forming, debating over reforms. Many were frustrated because the spectacular clashes often were dominated by those who wanted to leave the country and accomplished their wish by means of public protest and the occupation of embassies, whilst those who stayed inside the country and wishing to achieve changes grew demoralized by constant grueling cat-and-mouse-games with the authorities of the Department of Inner Affairs, and received protection and encouragement merely in some churches, but not from the population in general.

Attorney Rolf Henrich from Eisenhüttenstadt in those weeks traveled from place to place to hold speeches in churches and even in students’ clubs about his book “The Custodial State”, which he wrote in 1987 and on conspirative paths smuggled into the West in 1988 where it was lateron published. The response of the powers was adroit; Henrich was excluded from the SED (only significant political party in the GDR, Julia) and replaced as the chairperson of the bar association in the district of Frankfurt (Oder).

In his book, which secretly circulated in the GDR, as well as in his speeches, Henrich produced a biting criticism of the state of things. He stressed that protests would have to remain within the country, however, had to free itself from the protection of the church in order to take effect. This was not new. Members of the “Initiative for Peace and Human Rights” had been demanding this for quite a while.

What was new was that Henrich adressed “normal citizens in their middle ages and with renowned professions”. He opposed to any of the ostentatively alternative, protest-cultural, anarchic, subversive appearance of the hitherto existing civil movement, against the conspirative production of copied political flyers such as the famous “Grenzfall”. It would be more adequate to found a political movement within the framework of the legislation of the GDR, register it according to the rules and demand participation in the political decisions pursuant to the constitution of the GDR. However, the design of this constitution did not allow the foundation of political parties, so any political party would immediately be declared illegal. However, it was legally allowed to register an association within the framework of the association law, the purpose of which, of course, was the regulation of non-political unions like, for example, a chess club. The foundation of this association could be declared to be a constructive contribution to the beginning party congress discussions; even the law-abiding citizen could refer to the legal procedure, and the powers would be in a dilemma not being able to prohibit their own laws.

Foreigners ask for advice: “what shall we do now?”

In July the physician Erika Drees from Stendal visited me at our weekend home. I knew her from the Organisation of Medics against Nuclear War (IPPNW). She invited me to a meeting at the place of Rolf Henrich to discuss political issues. After a conspirative journey with observer-confusing roundabout ways, my wife Eva and I arrived at the place and found, apart from Rolf Henrich, his wife and Erika Drees, also Bärbel Bohley and Katja Havemann, which I had met at protests of the previous years, although I did not know them personally. They asked me if I was willing to participate in the foundation of a legal “Jacobin Club”. We agreed to meet at the weekend of September 9 at the house of Katja Havemann in Grünheide. Just by word of mouth each of us was supposed to invite some trustable acquaintances, if possible, not too many pastors, not only people from Berlin, not just members of the intelligenzia, not only men, not only left-wings – so to say, a cross section of the society’s mainstream.

So we gathered on Saturday, 9 September, at the house of the Havemann family. We were about 40 people, some knowing each other, some not. All of them were having the same uneasy feeling, since the Stasi was there somewhere for sure. After some mistrustful eyeing we decided to just go for it. Today we know that one whistle-blower had been among us. In 1993, we also found some snapshots in some of our Stasi-files, taken in front of the house entrance: the neighbors of the Havemann family were constant spies, having taken pictures of every visitor for years.

During the weekend we phrased the appeal of foundation. Rolf Henrich and I contributed a draft. I later destroyed mine (unfortunately) because I did not want to have it on me as an evidence to the Stasi in case of my arrest. There was a vivid discussion about both our drafts which finally were merged. I contributed more of a general part, while Henrich provided practical strategies of registering the association. We carefully avoided any political jargon, but described the social stagnation and resignation without referring to a specific political program. After some dispute we decided to not make an explicit statement in favor of the GDR and of socialism; we wanted to let the people decide about the future of the GDR and its social system, the people who we called to join in. We called the thing “New Dawn 89 – New Forum” and finished with the words “time is ripe”. 30 persons (10 women, only 3 pastors, and again 13 from Berlin) signed with their names, address and profession.

Bärbel Bohley and Katja Havemann copied the paper and sent it to newspapers and agencies of the GDR, and also leaked it to some familiar western journalist. The first group forwarded it unanswered to the Secret Police, whereas the second group published it in their newspapers in the west.

The echo from the media was overwhelming. Bärbel Bohley, who was well-known in the west due to her forced exile in the west two years ago, had to give up to 30 interviews per day. And we also were affected , since we had a telephone, and our number was in the telephone directory. In the evenings after returning from work we did not have even one quiet moment since the telephone was ringing constantly.

Lateron I listened again to those interviews or read copies of transcripts in western newspapers. I don’t like them. They sound so tame, so cautious. Due to an indiscretion we knew that our telephone calls were intercepted and recorded. Thus, despite our decision to rise above the parapet, we still were cautious to not provide strong evidence to the Stasi that could be used against us in a possible trial.

The real surprise, however, was not the echo from the west, but the one we received in the east. We were downright buried in affirmation. We received numerous calls, many frome phone booths, courageous ones with names asking for an entry form; also some anxious ones yet without names: “We would be willing to work with you after legalisation”. An anonymous person sent us an encryption technique for producing secret messages: “You are going to need it”.

Like all the others whose addresses were easy to track, we received hundreds of postcards and letters every day – not only reluctant ones, no, some sounded relieved and determined: “We can not bear it any longer, everybody just talking of leaving the country - we have to do something right here!” Our doorbell was ringing constantly. Strangers demanded to be asked inside, wishing a short talk for advice: “What shall we do now?”

Every day a post van leaves baskets full of letters at Bärbel Bohley’s house

The authorities tried to quell the flow of support for the New Forum. News agencies and TV reported that an application, signed by two people, was handed in, considered, and defeated. Aims and concerns of the association applied for contradicted the constitution and formed a subversive platform. According to our experience, this was the first step towards arresting and charging the “ringleaders”.

Being exposed, though, to problems assailing the government from all sides, the powers could not decide to take action. In Prague, thousands of people had occupied the embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany (BRD) and demanded to be allowed to leave to the west. Inside the GDR, the movement grew into an avalanche. The leadership attempted to bolster the protests by giving in step-by-step.

We had decided to collect lists of signatures from all over the GDR with names and addresses of supporters at Bärbel Bohley’s place in order to apply the necessary legitimation to the registration of our association at the Ministry of Interior. Within a short period of time this had lead to baskets full of letters being delivered to Bärbel Bohley’s house by a post van every day. On September 20 we already had 2500 signatures, and by late October it should be 200 000 declarations of accession including names and addresses – by far outnumbering the growing quantity of requests for departure.

At the same time, more and more people were taking courage and attended the first larger demonstrations in Leipzig. The crowd was no longer chanting “We want to leave” but “We are staying”, “admit the New Forum” and “We are the people”. When finally the powers decided to apply force, which in the beginning of October lead to orgies of clubbing and arrests in Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin, it was already too late. A non-violent movement of the people step by step dismantled the formerly concrete-solid system, enforcing a democratic reshaping and the opening of the Wall.

In all places groups of the New Forum were forming. The founders were known throughout the country due to their signatures on the countrywide circulating appeal, and they participated in uncounted organized discussions; however, they had become a rather small, if active part of the movement.

The time between autumn of 1989 and the beginning of 1990 was marked by an anarchic rebellion. History today focuses on some big events and key dates, losing sight of the rebellion being partly unorganized, in parts loosely coordinated by groups of the New Forum and other civil movements and spreading across the country like a large fire, entirely paralyzing the ruling class which was dependant on centralized orders.

The 30 founding members of September 9 did not have any premonition of the avalanche they would kick off. We had acted without any heroic emotions, driven by our feeling that it was high time to act against the gradual decay. The peoples’ rebellion accidentally put us on the stage of historical change.

Today it seems to become a fact-like conviction that the autumn civil movement served as an ignition and then became useless, lost support and was overrun by the ongoings because they representet utopistic goals. This judgement is not correct. The peoples’ rebellion generated the first victorious and peaceful revolution in German history, has established political freedom and democratic civil and human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, free movement, destruction of the whistle-blower system and free elections.

It was a strategic necessity not to put the reunion of Germany on top of the agenda. Everyone who did not forget 17. June 1953, the Hungarian October of 1956, the end of the Prague Spring of 1968 and the civil war against Solidarnosc of Poland in the eighties clearly knew this. We by no means wanted to provide a pretext for pushing the button of the ejection seat Mr Gorbachev in Moscow was sitting on. Two years after that, the mossbacks in Moscow attempted overturn him and turn back the wheel. But with us in Germany it was already too late for that.