task force have recommended. these are iranians are both in the united states and europe, and some who are in iran. they are participating in the task force. they really believe that if these initiatives don't come from the u.s. government, that to have a dialogue that the only way that's really possible, given the current climate, is really to the internet as the panel exhaustively discussed this a few minutes ago. and they have also pointed out something that i think is really important that wasn't touched upon the first panel, which is not only is the internet important for this narrowly blind opposition movement, but it's important also information -- or communication technology inside the country is important also for this population that he mentioned that is not necessarily identified as part of the opposition, the vast public opinion in iran, the

actually access to information is a state run media. and so one of the most glaring examples that has been given to me in terms of the cutoff of information inside the country was last summer when this young woman was killed on the street. some people in iran did not learn of this death until two or three weeks later. so if you're in a society where information is so limited, the only way you can really engage with the outside world is if you have independent sources of information. so this is another aspect of this, that it's important in order to sort of change public opinion in iran within those millions of supporters, among those millions of supporters, within the regime is also through the internet and access to information. so some of the iranians on the task force that i am running with another think tank have

specifically identified a few measures that could be taken. one is to provide -- to somehow make skype more available to iranians. and this is -- skype is now used as fairly reliable as a source of communication that the regime has great difficulty intercepting. that's one of the recommendations. another recommendation is to encourage companies to support persian lime which online advertising. they believe that this would give iranians abroad another private sector tool to target those inside the country, to identify them and allow websites promoting human rights or other important issues, and to help distribute information to make advertising money available in order for iran's to be able to pay their costs? so in other words, generate revenue so that people can sort of have access, more access to the internet. another suggestion has been to

permit persian web developers to partner with people on the outside to build websites for civil society. so this is another recommendation they have that would allow those groups within civil society actually have their own websites in order to commit get their ideas, not only inside the country, but outside with people outside. and another, of course, this was discussed earlier, but another specific recommendations that they are making is to find a way to make high speed internet available to iranians. because again this could address sort of the fast technologies that the regime has to slow the internet and to make it almost unusable as it was, particularly before the february 11 demonstrations. i don't know if you read about this in the newspapers, but as was mentioned earlier, google, traffic to google was a significantly slowed. the internet was so slow that it was basically impossible to use it.

so these are some of the specific recommendations that iranians that are part of this very broad movement have. whether they should be initiated by the u.s. government or by the private sector, but they really believe that the battleground going forward is communication technology. thanks. >> thank you. sonya, i wonder if you could talk about maybe step back from the way that i think the west, and especially in america, we typically, at least in the last year, since last june, have been talking about this issue which is an important area of conversation, the opposition and the internet and all of that. but talk about the importance of person-to-person exchange as a concept, historically but specifically within the iranian context. what works, what doesn't work. you laid out some of the conditions, but maybe if you could give summit examples, that

you've done or your organization has done. and then drawing on what geneive was saying, the ways in which the internet can be a tool in some ways for person-to-person contact with people who, particularly in a climate where been discussing, where it's difficult sometimes to get these programs, difficult to get over there, difficult to do academic exchanges, et cetera. >> i just want to be clear, the kind of exchanges search for common ground has put together, carried out, artichoke with others was really before the time of all this discussions. i want to take us back to that time because this is very complicated to have a discussion with a context right now. given that engagement for us is not about legitimizing one government or the other or about rewarding behavior in some way or another. i think the internet is an amazing to let can be utilized. but it doesn't replace face-to-face contact it doesn't

replace being there in person. the times that i've brought people to iranians has changed everything that the ever -- every stereotype that the ever could've imagined they could of had. i was taking a group of medical doctors from the boston area to visit rural health programs, and we had a long day, and one walk in from everybody. and we got to a small village and we were about to eat a big bowl of auction that the people have made for us and it was lovely, and a girl came out and she must've been about 16 or 17 and she said i'm so sorry for what happened. and i said, i don't know what you mean. i'm so sorry for what happened at virginia tech university. and that was really striking to me, that obviously there's a satellite televisions everywhere, but can we imagine

that in this country? can we imagine someone in a small town in america knowing something that happened in iran? hopefully with the internet and with blogs and with that new media, blossoming as it is, we will. but that's the kind of thing face-to-face contact really does, and it's great as we've had and why we continue to promote it. i had other people tell me how much they loved dr. phil and desperate housewives. and a lot of terrible -- >> these are good things? positive sign? >> but the fact that i would argue many iranians know so much more about the united states then we know about iran. and i want to emphasize that this exchange and dialogue is really in both directions. and we talk about a level playing field. it's not about bringing iranians here to be taught about america and our values. it's really a shared and common dialog. so that some of the expenses

that we've had. >> mohammad? >> an example, someone who came here to visit her daughter, religiously was here during the month of romme done when you're supposed to fast after a few months, after a how it worked come her expense to be here in america and fasting. and she said should the best time of her entire life. she enjoyed meeting different people here in than going to muslim communities or meeting non-muslim groups. and i think it does make a big difference when you come here, because, partly because of the propaganda in the country, that this country is very immoral. people come here and realized it's not that it does make a huge difference. >> you have written some of your work and research about, you've analyzed particularly media

coverage, our perceptions of america in media in iran, and how it differs something from meyer, differs by what we recall partisanship, partisan media. but on a broader level sort of that way in which media in both countries it seems to me from your work manifests some of the misunderstanding that are addressed through person-to-person contact. >> definitely to me in iran, both the conservative media and the less conservative, they have to be very careful the way they portray the u.s. of course, those who were on the right side have a very clear to mostly black picture of this country as a wicked, moral society, which is about to collapse. the constant theme we hear from a number of officials, as well

as journalists. when you go to the left side, there's a different picture. they have to be very, very careful not to portray necessary positive image of the u.s. because the government is very sensitive. very prominent journalist a couple years ago, he received a phone call from the office of a top official, the store yet published about the u.s. had angered this official because it was too positive. and he was asked to compensate them for publishing something negative. so he had to go find something, i don't know, crime rate or something that was going up in the u.s. to compensate that, to balance it out. so there's very sensitive and fine line that they have to be following. the other thing is, depends on where you are, on the political

spectrum. how far you're from the center of power, you have a different position, vis-à-vis, the united states. the farther you are from the center, centers of power, the more likely you as a journalist try to say that the u.s. is threatened a series, economic military or diplomatic, threat is serious. and the way to do with it is to open up the political system and include more reformists, factions into the political process. where you go to the more, the right side, people who are in charge, they have a different view and different image of the u.s. and that is it is mostly paper tiger, and they think that by pursuing a more confrontational approach they can both maintain

power domestically and become more powerful regional he. >> i wonder if you can introduce a video? >> we have a video from a graphic novels is now working on her second movie. her books, you know, have been translated in 20 languages and are in schools in many countries that in this video she sent us, she talks out what it means to be an engaged artist. >> i don't know if i am politically engaged. to tell you the truth i have some problem understanding the definition of engagement. this notion of engagement becomes extremely tricky. engaged artist would never talk about literature but the talk

about, no longer talk about painting, they talk about propaganda. we no longer talk about cinema. they talk about movie propaganda. so it is kind of tricky for me to get this notion. but the fact that in my life i have seen people, you know, that they were extremely engaged for democracy, behave like the worst dictators in their own household. i've seen people be extremely engaged role environment, and fly in private jets all around the world, journalists calling them engaged journalists, being more cynical than engaged. on the other hand, i know there are social being, not tos soal e have to live together. and in a way, to be able to live life, even from, the society,

has to go well. so i guess the most important point, if i could make a point, i think the most important point of all to be engaged to ourselves, to our humanity, to our sense of justice, and to the role that we can play first but also for all the people around us. and probably this is the real engagement. into very much. >> geneive, so he talked about the various forms of cultural policies, person-to-person contact. obviously, the arts are one of those areas, but also plays into another sort of something here which is misunderstanding, particularly from the west about

iran. one of them is that i think there's a perception in the west, certainly in america, that americans would be very surprised to find that iran has an extremely vibrant, diverse arts community. and one of the real strong sense of some of these exchange programs has been around the arts and photography, film, et cetera. and it plays into something that another area which is that religious exchanges or person-to-person contact in in those areas, and i know you have some expense writing about it and working in those areas. i wonder if you could speak to the religious aspect, and in particular because you talk of civil society as something as a broader issue. >> that's an interesting question, and, you know, i think again because iran is such a difficult country to understand, that's what it so interesting,

that's why so dynamic, i think americans tend to either view iran as a really religious traditional society or as a secular one. and that somehow they don't mention that it is much more complicated than that. but i think that, you know, as part of that it's -- years ago for example, even as recent as three or four years ago, clerics actually used to come to the united states from iran. when i was there 10 years ago, a delegation was actually supposed to come to georgetown university, and there were always visa problems. they were sent back to iran. but even as recent as three of four years ago clinics you to come to, and and i think that a small sort of delegation like that could go a long way in trying to even explain to people in this country how diverse the clerical establishment is because in fact it is a very diverse. you know, we hear for example, and put her in the earlier panel

about the religion playing and ideological role in iran, which of course is very much the case, at least that's what the regime has intended. but, in fact, when you meet some of the clerics themselves as i did when i was working as a journalist in iran, and a lot of them don't support the views of the regime. and a lot of them are far more progressive than we sort of have any idea about sitting in the united states. these just are some of the sort of dissident clerics we read about in the newspapers, but these are intellectuals, religious scholars who have have very, very complex educated use the role of islamists in a moderate islamist society. and i think, for example, if were ever had exposure to some of these religious scholars we would find that there are as many sort of hard-liners and ideologues influencing the iranian population and locals

aside as there are a lot of progressive clerics who are also influencing iranian society. and that's very important to keep in mind. >> can i add to that? on all of the different areas of exchanges, i think the one that's been the most steady and i had so many of them down has been religion. and interfaith exchanges. and a lot of people are skeptical right now, whether exchanges and engagement can lead to anything. and it's clear that we should be looking for critical mass. we should be looking for a very long term approach. but through the discussions of religion, many other things are discussed that are of great importance to both of our countries. issues of common humanity, of justice, of compassion, of human rights. and so i would say that's something that can be continued, and it isn't just about interfaith discussions that don't laid into the rest of the arenas of society and politics.

they very much do. and we should do everything we can to support those. >> can i add something to that? it is very ironic that some of the most challenging influential dissidents in iran are coming from circles. and they're the most powerful advocates of secular, particular the non-european sends more than american sense. not from religion but freedom of religion. this is something very, very interesting that's been going on for almost 25 years. and again, it's ironic that many of those people find it very hard to get a visa. >> and just sorry to step back, before they come in they don't have an intersection or anything in iran so they have to go to dubai or they have to go to turkey. and that in and of itself is costly and has consequences. and sometimes they even have to

go twice, once you apply. and especially now with internet restrictions people are having difficulty a blog on line for visas. so they're having to go to dubai, fill it out, go back, go back to divide and fly out from there. makes it very difficult. >> also a more content requested. it's come up a couple times already, that the current climate, particularly i guess since june, makes it extra difficult to do some of this work. you prefaced one of your edges by saying well, i have to go back ways because, you know, this is really difficult to do not. but this is where we are. and efforts are continuing, and not all of the efforts by various organizations and others that do this type of work are even visible. but how do we do exchanges? what needs to change, other than the obvious, but what kind of things can be done given this climate? because none of you, all of you work in the areas in the areas

we don't believe in giving up on it. so what can we do now and what needs to happen or how do we make that progress? >> well, i think, i mean, one thing is to keep in mind that sort of the traditional types of exchanges are more difficult now, as you mentioned that it's not only the visa problem, but if you take, for example, there were groups of iranians who came out of iran and went to germany this past summer for a surge of conferences that were held, and these are active is, still cited people. and they couldn't return to the country. so we have to keep in mind that as part of these exchanges were also putting them at risk, because even if they are given visas, they are risking the fact -- these are people who are politically sort of on the radar screen of the government. these were just young people who came out of the country to attend a conference, and now even today they are still stuck in berlin and some of them in

bonn. so it's i think that the approach now is to try, if the want of exchanges of people, trying to choose those people who are less prominent, who are not in any way, you become a sort of drawn the attention of the government. and then have some sort of plan b so if they cannot return to the country, if the idea is to bring them out and have exchanges, that there are provisions for them to be able to sort of, you know, exist in some sort of temporary existence, should that happen. because that's a real possibility now it's people who come out cannot return. >> there are still organizations that even since the june elections have been able to carry out exchanges, and i think they've done it in a way in which there is -- is a very, very clear what they're doing. science for example, and they have certainly kept it out of

the political minefield that we're in now, but i think that we, a lot people are talking about engagement, very broadly as we saw in the video down to what we're talking about here now. engagement with whom? because there is this new movement inside of iran that a lot of people are wanting to find ways to support, but we need to re-examine the purpose of the exchange. there are a lot of different organizations that do this for different purposes, and to really clarify the intent, i think that depends on what kind of things you're doing. i think that some kind of joint consulted his permission, perhaps to the united nations with the u.s. and iran or at least passing some kind of messages, to me kidding about what it is that we're trying to do. would prevent some of the things that have happened. we can't -- it so difficult as a. some people will be allowed, be allowed to go in and something

might happen to them afterwards. it's difficult to say, but i think if there's a way we can sit down talk about what we would jointly like to do, that that would be one way of moving forward. but it's encouraging, as discouraging as we are in this, it's encouraging to say that people are still able to carry on exchanges that. >> wonder if this is a place to bring it in a little bit based on your experts as a journalist and someone who monitors the iranian blogosphere. one of the points that's been raised earlier, especially by mohammad is the way in which conversations that happened through the media can be distorted or manifest or reinforce. i wonder if you can talk about sort of what the conversation in the iranian blogosphere, which of course is already oversimplified by me, look like? what are the diversity of those conversations look like, what are the things that people talk

about when they are talking amongst themselves about these issues? and maybe even as compared to a year ago when there was so much attention to it. >> i think compared to a year ago, people are blogging more about politics about the green movement, about little prisoners, about people who have been raped. so the discourse has changed a bit since last year. nowadays can these topics are mentioned here, engagement has been discussed, and many bloggers see that maybe this is not the right time to engage with the iranian government. there was a good cartoon about obama wants to engage with ahmadinejad's government. he has to close his eyes in order human rights abuses that so this is one of the topics that has been discussed but nowadays what's very interesting, i see this debate going on about what happened in turkestan. a lot of bloggers are discussing

that and they are drawing parallels with what happened in iran, even though the situations are very different from very different countries. and we have, let me go to one blogger who has fled iran. we have his picture. this is his blog. and if we can also go to his picture can we have a big picture of him. he fled iran to the mountains. is a very popular blogger, and he has been blogging about the green movement. and he was taking part in many of the postelection protest. and in his latest blogs he writes about the situation in turkestan and white in turkestan change the government and white didn't happen in iran. and briefly, he says that physical -- this is a very funny person, that's like a soap opera that he's as turkestan is such a small country that the opposition could come from all the other cities, get there

within two hours. while, within iran it's not possible. and also uses he brings up the issue of internet saying since iranians are very fond of internet and a lot of discussions about how to demonstrate, a special on anniversary of the revolution, was going on on the internet so people were discussing all night. and the next day they were so tired that they could wake up on time to go to protest. [laughter] >> and that's why they didn't make it happen on the anniversary of the revolution. >> i want to go to questions in a minute, but i want to ask him i want to step back and ask a broader question, a couple of broader question. one is coming seems like the more you read up on exchanges with iran, the less -- the more obvious it becomes, particularly in the west and especially in america people don't realize we do all this work. we have been doing it for some time. and i want to ask first and is

that a problem? and if so, how do we remedy that? we have a political debate in this country, certainly within the last year in which some argue that an engagement is not just at the diplomatic level, but at this level, is bad and wrong and validates the regime and all this war thing. yet we have been doing this for some time. does it matter that people don't seem to understand this is happening? but if it does matter, how do we do a better job of that people know what's going on? >> one problem is that the other side is paranoid. the moment you tie certain action to certain outcome, or political faction, you say we use engagement because it will be strengthened, you automatically make the conservative establishment more

concerned and they will do anything they could to stop it. on the other hand, it is very difficult not to do because a lot of people will be saying that you are legitimizing the government. so it is very complicated, and difficult balance. but again, many people who are in iran, talk to, they say there are enough of steps that have been taken regardless of who's going to gain the benefit. because ultimately those steps will affect people's daily lives in iran. and it will make the government less paranoid if they just don't talk about it, you know, how it will affect the green movement or how it will not affect the green movement. this is one issue. >> aside from the time when the search for common ground work to bring the