Who said...?
We are "proud nations on the path to democracy, modernity, and progress. We have vast resources. Significant opportunities are before us."
NB: I translated this from a French paper; the person in question is not French and it is not Bush but the picture is a slight hint.
NB: no more
posted by Germain at 14:58
25 Comments:
You seem to take Ahmadinejad at his word sometimes and not at others. If his remarks that Israel should be destroyed are just rhetoric pandering to an audience, aren't also his words about democracy, progress, and his intentions for nuclear technology? Wouldn't the prudent thing be to examine what facts and reasons apart from his own professions we might have for drawing conclusions about the state of affairs in Iran?
In the 2000 Parliamentary (Majlis) elections in Iran there were 6 800 candidates for 290 seats with an 83% voter turnout. Interesting fact when considering the state of affairs in Iran, no? I cannot think of a Western country that can boast those levels of both candidate and voter participation.
In terms of Ahmadinejad's words...I think the same applies to the Bush Administration, we should look at his actions. No, I do not selectively take him at his word, I simply find the comment interesting, and its lack of coverage in W media even more so...we never hesitate to talk about his remarks on Israel. I think that if we take both the comments on Israel and on democracy and progress as pandering rhetoric then we get a clearer picture of Ahmadinejad's view of the public's psyche.
Another interesting, and rather significant comment made recently is that “the door for dialogue [with the US] is open.” Unfortunately, though the Bush Administration thinks we should try everything before taking military action, they are not willing to try to talk to the Ahmadinejad Administration, which, interestingly, is likely to be the only way to resolve the current issue.
I'm having a bit of trouble following the course what you're asserting here. In one sentence you say pretty much everything Ahmadinejad says has to be discounted as pandering to a psyche, but then take seriously the comment that "door for dialogue" (whatever that is; perhaps it's next to the "window of opportunity") is open.
Then you say the U.S. ought to talk to him, even though you agree he should be judged by his actions. What "nuance" am I missing that would rationally unite otherwise incoherent statements?
An alternative view on Iran.
As with many countries, the rhetoric provides insight into what leaders think their people want to hear. I never said that it had to be discounted because it was pandering but I do think it important to understand why that pandering is taking place.
Somewhere behind the rhetoric there is a degree of truth; the problem and divisive issue is 'how much truth.' The difficulty with this is that the degree of truth is not constant from one statement to the next.
We could say: ‘Ahmadinejad has never threatened the US, no articles have appeared claiming he is preparing a military strike on US soil aiming at regime change; no evidence has even confirmed the West’s presumption that the nuclear programme is military…Bush has violated international law by an invasion of a sovereign state that has caused at least 30,000 civilian deaths in ‘collateral damage’.’ I think you should agree there is room for nuance (and probably disagreement) when interpreting both action and rhetoric.
That the President of Iran writes a letter, breaking 26 years of reciprocal silence, is significant. That he does not lay down the full negotiations and concede to US demands in this letter is not surprising. That the US would not take this as a very symbolic gesture and respond in one way or another is flatly disappointing, especially IF they are serious about resolving the issue diplomatically.
The criticisms I am responding to here are, to me, far more concerned with form than rather than substance.
The article you post is interesting, at least since it argues for a Washington -Tehran communiqué (although the motives behind this are twisted). However, if Ahmadinejad is threatened by rising domestic pressures, he is more likely to radicalize his position on nuclear research rather than to capitulate, especially if international pressure remains strong and almost aggressive. The best way to de-stabilize the government is to offer an open, honest hand. This will eliminate ‘the blame the West’ rhetoric and give the more moderate opposition a stronger voice. Iranians are very politicized, if the West makes generous and candid overtures, and the Iranian government snubs them, it will lose support.
Since you seem to disagree with the position I have been arguing, Kevin what do YOU think we should do about Iran?
Well, the form of your question is correct: I do think we should "do" something, not just write what your own blog discounted as "love letters" (not that Ahmadinejad's letter was either to President Bush or designed to further diplomatic relations). You claim the letter is significant -- what does it signify?
As for what I would do, I think the kinds of things suggested by Bret Stephens have merit. Because all of the rational arrows point in one direction, our assumption must be that the ultimate purpose of nuclear technology in Iran is military and our response should reflect that assumption. We should exhaust the appropriate economic and political measures at our disposal before engaging in military options. Appropriate economic and political measures do not include appeasement. Among many other lessons, we learned that one once already in WWII -- I have no need to learn it again. So I do favor trying what Stephens suggest -- offer a way out that doesn't rely on blind faith in their honesty and hit them where it counts. If there is a continuous decline in investment in Iran, I think that's a lot more likely to have a salutary effect than unassisted rhetoric.
I do not know what you mean by offering "generous and candid overtures." What are you suggesting?
Overall, to be sure, I disagree with what seem to be your fundamental assumptions: 1. that a nuclear Iran is a permissable (if not desirable) state of affairs, 2. that the "Blame the West" rhetoric can be eliminated, 3. that Ahmadinejad is a reliable/realistic partner for diplomatic negotiation.
For the record the 'Love Letters' title had to do with the picture more than the letter itself but I think deep down you knew that I would not be one to mock the letter.
I said in the previous comment why the letter was significant, in diplomacy symbols are crucially important, this symbol should be seen as a UFO landing in Central Park...not responding will only give more fuel to the fire by adding insult to injury. The 'face saving' that will take place will be in the form of 'I was willing to settle the issues between us, he was not and continues to threaten us.'
Sanctions will not work. Seriously, you have to take Iran as a country with as much pride and nationalism as the US and ask yourself, how would America respond to sanctions? That gives a good idea of the likelihood of success of sanctions. Starving the government and its people will only re-enforce the government (as some have argued it did with Saddam).
Ahmadinejad does not hold all of the power in Iran, he is not even the Commander in Chief, there are members of the Iranian government structure who are reliable partners but 'our' policies and rhetoric make it difficult for them to speak out. This is similar to the US Presidential election in 2004, Democrats could not speak out against the war for fear of being called 'soft on terrorism.'
You have to understand that my arguments do not address the enrichment or no enrichment debate. I want a diplomatic solution that all parties can agree on and try to consider the views (and assumptions) of the parties involved. I believe that fundamentally this can only come if the US engages in the talks. I also believe that military engagement will ‘awaken a sleeping giant.’
For the moment I'm not going to get into the full "what we should do about Iran" debate. However I must question Kevin's repeated references to the Second World War and appeasement. I'm sure that if prompted you could reel off a dozen parallels between today's situation and that of the mid to late 1930s, yet I doubt you'll convince me that the two are sufficiently similar for us to conclude that history is repeating. There are a number of big reasons why it's not:
Germany was a genuine world power; Iran is not. Germany could expect success in war, and as we know if things had fallen slightly differently it may have achieved it. Iran cannot hope to win, especially if it instigates a nuclear war (something not even on the table in the 30s).
Germany's political and economic history from 1914, in particular its humiliation in WW1, reparations, the occupation of the Ruhr, hyperinflation. These have not been repeated in Iran; it wasn't defeated in war by the very powers who are ranged against it now, it didn't have to pay for the rebuilding of France or anywhere else, it didn't have its key industrial area occupied, and has not suffered an economic crisis to rival those in Germany in that era. Its oil wealth and healthy growth rate (around 5%) mean that its people are more content than those of Germany in the 30s, and in fact less in tune with the radical leadership.
In a more general sense, trying to treat history as though it were science, and expect the same conditions to produce the same results, is a forlorn project. We ought to learn from history, but its lessons are general rather than specific.
GERMAIN: Though I reject your mixed-metaphorical characterization of the absence of a response in kind as "fuel to the fire" and "insult to injury" (what's the insult? what's the injury?), I already agreed with Mr. Stephens that the U.S. should respond in some way to the letter... but I would be greatly surprised indeed if you liked the only plausible responses the U.S. could offer. My question about the letter wasn't WHY it was significant, but WHAT it signified -- that is, what is it that Ahmadinejad is signaling with the letter? Surely you're not so credulous as to take it at face value, right? Surely you agree insofar as it has any meaning whatsoever it's not a letter to President Bush, but a way of getting TV time he wouldn't have gotten issuing that same rhetoric as the stump speech it is. A second purpose for the letter is that it gives some diplomats just the cudgel they're looking for to beat up the U.S. even while it doesn't change one whit Iran's position on anything. The letter is a well-played political move, but it's not an olive branch and it's certainly not the equivalent of a UFO landing in Central Park. After all, it's not as if Ahmadinejad lacks back channels to the White House. If he wanted to speak with President Bush, he could. The letter isn't diplomacy, it's propaganda.
I didn't suggest we starve the people of Iran -- come now, let's not be hyperbolic. What Mr. Stephens suggested is that we have ways of influencing those who do business in Iran and the various states that facilitate that commerce. We should not neglect using those levers. If anything, I would have guessed you would endorse such measures as constitutive of "soft power." Shows what I know...
On other members of the Iranian government, I reckon the mullahs make it a lot more difficult for dissidents to speak out in Iran than any policy the U.S. or European countries have or even could have.
Your rhetoric evokes the image of a table around which all parties are gathered except the U.S. That would be a gross misunderstanding if, in fact, that's how you see the current state of affairs. Just this week Iran has rejected another, still sweeter, Europe-confected deal that would provide Iran nuclear power while ceasing enrichment. Iran's not willing to join any such talks. In the end, I have to reject as unsubstantiated the premise of your argument that the U.S. is refusing to shake the diplomatic hand extended to her by Iran.
I'm also back to my previous question of, "What do you mean by 'generous and candid overtures'?"
PETER: It was not my intention to lead anyone to think that I was asserting that history repeats itself or that Iran is congruent with Hitlerian Germany. We agree that it doesn't and Iran isn't. Your characterization is a bit of a straw-man representation of what I did say, which was that we have learned the hard lesson of appeasement once in the last 100 years and shouldn't need to learn it again so soon. The specific lesson is that bribing inherently untrustworthy regimes without instituting mechanisms of confirmation and enforcement is a fool's errand. It's probably also the surest guaranty of a nuclear Iran.
Hi everyone!
Good thing we didn't discuss these subjects on the boat last summer, I fear it would have resulted in a mutiny...
I just have one question, what gives us the right to deny Iran the opportunity to develop nuclear technology? In a time when people cannot stop talking about climate change, nuclear energy is frequently metioned as an alternative. Is there anything in the NPT that gives us the right to deny them the technology?
Oh, and even if they did use this technology to develop nuclear weapons, what reason have we to think they would actually use them? I can only think of one country that has been stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against someone.
It's a curiosity of our age that every state of affairs is reflexively conceived within a framework of rights. Iran and nuclear weapons is just the most recent example, and would be risible were it not deadly serious. Which is to say that "rights" simply aren't in question here and I can't, therefore, make sense of your question.
The problem is that rights are like principles, either you have them or you do not. 'Having' them does not entail defending them when it is convenient and ignoring them when it is not. It is in the face of the most difficult situations that we know whether we truly believe in a rights-based system. The rest of the world is not ignorant of the fact that Guantanamo and the CIA relay in Europe contradict the very principles we purport to defend. It is beautiful double-speak to claim that we defend civil and human rights by abrogating them.
In terms of Iran, it is likely that the recent proposal allows for them to exercise their right to enrichment. This is fundamental to regaining confidence in the NPT. As for the right to nuclear weapons, it is based on a historic power structure which has been significantly modified today; we need to do some serious thinking about how to tackle this discrepancy in the future.
I'm not sure if the first part of Germain's comment addresses my last one, but if it does I fail to understand how. Of course we have rights, but not EVERYTHING is a right. And not EVERY political dispute or question involves rights. Our age is obsessed with rights because, inter alia, we get to use the language of morality without having to do the hard thinking.
As for Iran and nuclear weapons, that's one of the aforementioned political situations that has nothing to do with rights. What does it mean to say one has a "right" to nuclear weapons? How can one have a right to something so recently invented and so difficult to acquire?
You are correct, there is no right to nuclear weapons, but there is one to enrichment. For weapons, however, countries without them do not understand why some are allowed to possess and develop nuclear weapons while they are not. I can understand where they are coming from because, unlike some, I do not believe that any country necessarily holds a definite higher moral ground than any other. History and the world today are far too convoluted to make such a blanket statement. While I would rather contain proliferation, I would like it even more if no one had the weapons to begin with. The problem with this is that the countries some people believe to hold a higher moral ground cannot be trusted to disarm fully. So how do we appease those countries aspiring to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent? Mind you the only two countries truly suspected of developing such weapons today are those which (legitimately) feel the most threatened by the US. By which right can 'we' the West tell others that they cannot have nuclear weapons? Surely if nuclear weapons are too recent to have a right to them, they are also too recent to have a right to keep others from having them. Peter was right in another comment when he said we should think about and discuss proliferation as a whole...
In answer to your question, at the risk of repeating myself, rights aren't at issue. The right to prevent a country from acquiring nuclear weapons is just as absurd a phrase as any implication that a country might have a right to such weapons.
Ok, so on which basis do we justify the fact that we have such weapons and others do not? Furthermore, on which basis do we justify keeping others from acquiring such weapons?
Well, I'm not sure the first requires any justification. It seems to be an observable accident of history for most of the powers which have the weapons.
As for keeping them from others, you mean it's not self-evident why more countries with more nuclear weapons, particularly those with collapsed regimes, is a bad thing?
Calling it an 'accident' of history is convenient double-speak but unfortunately it does not get you very far in the diplomatic circles of countries wanting nuclear weapons. They too wish for 'accidents of history' in their favour.
I do not know which countries 'with collapsed regimes' you are referring to because the two states in question, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Islamic Republic of Iran do not seem to be collapsing; one is in fact an Islamic democracy which hold regular elections and has checks and balances.
Like I said before, proliferation is a bad thing, but if we are perceived as a threat to sovereignty ( which the West and particularly the US is seen as today) I can understand the desire for nuclear weapons as a means of defence. Looking at the Security Council, this 'accident of history' makes it appear as though one needs nuclear weapons to be a great power.
Additionally, if one hears about the US research on nuclear bunker blasters all the while it argues for non-proliferation, it is hard to believe that the US has a genuine interest in non-proliferation.
It is rather amusing than when it is to our benefit we call it an accident of history when in fact we are playing a relative power game in which the US (and the West) want(s) to maintain hegemony. Everyone knows it and that is precisely why other countries want nuclear weapons and why we try to stop them. Let’s cut the moralistic rhetoric and simply face up to the US foreign policy calculations as being a function of a realist vision of the world. The question is, are the US masses willing to accept such a brutish argument?
Germain, I hope that what was just on display is the charming French attribute of deriving great pleasure from saying provocative if utterly ridiculous things. In accusing me of "double-speak", you give yourself a nice trap door in the argument to set up a straw man argument. You then go on to do a nice job knocking down and argument no one made.
What you end up saying is that proliferation is a bad thing, and yet we've established in this and other conversations that you have absolutely no basis for claiming anything is "bad". You also make the same tired argument that because the West is perceived as a threat, then anything anyone does in response is justified.
As for Iran, she is not an Islamic democracy with checks and balances. She's an oligarchy of the mullahs and the foremost state sponsor of terrorism today. I'm sure they treat tourists well, but don't fool yourself: Zarqawi was a product of the Iranian terrorism machine.
apropos of, well, it's Saturday morning and I'm drinking coffee, watching the French Open on tape delay, and sipping coffee. Enjoy
Kevin,
I set-up no straw-man, I say things as I see them. In previous conversations you have said that my position makes it impossible for me to claim something is 'good' or 'bad' and yet I have systematically disagreed with you. Thus, 'WE' have never established anything. I have no problem saying what I think is good or bad, I simply find it arrogant to assume that my beliefs hold true for all of humanity in all times and in all places.
Nor have I said that anything anyone does is justified in the face of a threat by the US. What I do try to do, with more or less success, is to attempt to understand where other people are coming from without taking for granted that just because I come from the West I am right.
Its funny that you repeat almost word for word the allegations of your administration in regards to Iran...I think they also said that Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda? You simply do not see that the muse is opening the same play in another theatre...this worries me. As for sponsors of terrorism, I think US policy since 9/11 has done a good marketing job for terrorist organisations and their recruits, it’s the unfortunate backfire of a poorly thought-out strategy which could have benefited from a little more objectivity and a little less messianic ideology.
Precisely what I've been trying to explain is that yours is the position of arrogance. If it's "just" your opinion and not true in any objective sense, then whence the leap that the policy of someone else's government should conform to your opinion?
As for your characterization of my statements about Iran, that's a kind of ad hominem attack. The missing premises are that 1) you don't like the U.S. administration and 2) anything they say must be bad or wrong. Nevermind whether they're true or not. I probably needn't say more about why that's a silly argument.
Actually Kevin, I am (also) a US citizen so it is not someone else's government. But the US does have a considerable impact on the lives of people who are not citizens (ie- 30,000 dead Iraqis) and I do think they have their right to say what they think about it (even if we know the US is deaf to foreign criticism). Also, the US identifies with certain values (some of which I share) but has lately been acting in disregard for those values while claiming to defend them.
Anything the US Administration says must not necessarily be bad or wrong but some things they say are both bad and wrong (especially in terms of foreign policy). The view that Iran is the foremost sponsor of state terror is a replay of the pre-Iraq fear mongering. I suppose that your undying faith and patriotism will not be dented by the words of an atheist Frenchman naturalized as a US citizen even if I tell you that I was saying the same things about Iraq before the invasion. Just remember that the global protests before the 03 invasion were the largest in the history of humanity; in retrospect maybe the world had a point worth considering?
PS- About your link regarding Normandy invasion, I hope that was a joke because it ridicules both history and the present.
I fear this is getting personal and I certainly don't want to offend you. If we were at a pub, I'd make sure it didn't happen by buying the next round just now. In lieu of that (and it's a poor substitute), let me say I certainly don't want to offend you and I know my argument style can (and has!) been described as fastidious and blunt. I have been told more than once that someday I shall be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. That said...
Huge eyeroll at the notion that anyone affected by a decision has some sort of right to input on it. How shall we determine whom the affected include? Will their say be proportional to the effects the policies have on them? How will that be measured? What's the threshold for being affected that one must achieve in order to have this "right" to input?
It's not a "view" that Iran is an oligarchy of mullahs and the foremost state sponsor of terrorism today. Those are brute facts with which we are confronted.
Third, I still can't see why if you think morality is a personal choice simplicitur that any output matters. That is, surely we would all agree that the oft-mentioned choices of personal taste like preference for vanilla or chocolate ice cream don't "matter" in the sense that they don't shift or shape reality, they don't ripple out to guide the rest of our conduct, and they don't impose obligations on other people. So how are you personal moral views any different? And if they're not, why do you get so wound up when the U.S. or UK or any other country does something not endorsed by your personal views? Remembering, of course, that by your own logic your preference for consistency and the repugnance you feel toward hypocrisy are merely your flavors of choice.
Not being a lawyer, I cannot tell you the de-limitation for the embryonic concept of affected rights. Sorry. I can tell you that, in my opinion, people who will die or suffer from your actions have a right to voice their opinion and be heard. Yes, I think the lives of the 30,000 slaughtered Iraqis gives their families the right to speak out, just as the families of the 2,000 WTC victims' families took their (rather disproportional) right of response in a manner which I assume you find legitimate. Why does a double standard seem to appear? Is it the value of an American life or the power of the US government or a moral absolute which escapes me?
As for your view on Iran, yes, it is a view, your official government policy does not even consider them to be an oligarchy of mullahs (Ahmadinejad is not even a mullah) and your closest allies (Canada, EU + its members) do not believe Iran to be the foremost sponsor of state terror today (nor did all said allies believe that Iraq deserved that title before the invasion; in the case of Iraq, history has shown the sceptical to be correct, no ties to Al-Qaeda, no WMD, no nuclear programme).
I think comparing morality to ice-cream deliberately minimizes the significance of what we are discussing. You know, but do not accept, why the US practices contradicting the policies such practices claim to defend bothers me. Taking human lives in order to defend human life, curtailing civil rights in order to defend civil rights, are reprehensible, and manipulative. Such actions soil the values that used to make the US such a wonderful place. I cannot understand why you buy the US Administration's 'victim card' ( people are jealous, they are angry with us because they do not understand us...) while many trusted NGOs, foreign governments and institutions, and actors from Civil Society are sounding the alarm.
But this debate, like the other one (both quite similar), is not advancing. I do not want to offend but you criticize without constructing and so all this starts to seem like a game of attack and defence that contradicts the initial purposes of this blog. By virtue of the coverage the issue is getting the blog is starting to sound flatly anti-American, which it is not (though I am disappointed by a country that educated me thinking it would be so much more).
I acknowledge your undeniable and justifiable right to respond but I will no longer continue this particular debate, leaving it to undoubtedly arise again later as it has done so many times between us.
I want you to know that while you have me cursing as the screen, I do not take any of your comments personally and hope that you can say the same.
I look forward to the day we can again share a fresh pint.
Post a Comment
<< Home