I recently finished Christiane Bird's Neither East Nor West, a story of her travels in Iran. Her book reminds me of one of my favorite blogs, Seeing Red in China, by an American named Tom about his view of China on a daily basis. What these two things have in common is a desire to look beyond the very narrow, news-oriented point of view of daily life in Iran and China respectively and offer their readers the opportunity to see life in places they may otherwise never have the opportunity to see. Frankly, it is people like this that help to bring the world closer together and make it, hopefully, a better place for everyone.
And while my commentary may be directed more at Westerners (and Americans in particular), it is by no means limited only to them. Misconceptions and generalizations about others has no limits nor boundaries and they are rarely positive. The only way to overcome those misconceptions is to truly live some place else and recognize that life in the US is really not that significantly different than it is in China or Iran or anyplace else. This is not to suggest that there are no differences but to point out that we tend to have a very limited perspective when we think of others. For example, we tend to view Iran as a misogynistic, radically religious, fundamentalist nation that is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and imposing a radical view of Islam upon the rest of the world. Yet few Westerners realize that there is a great deal of diversity within Iran, that they actually do have elections (perhaps not to the standard that we have in the West but certainly better than any in the Middle East) and that there is a long line of Persian history, art and culture to which they are the inheritors. The same goes for China. To hear China in the news, it is often in regard to their rising economic status, their belligerent behavior in the South China Seas toward their neighbors, the rising number of protests in the countryside or their human rights violations (see Liu Xiaobo, among others). Yet very little street-level discussion is provided to offer the full context of life in China - much of which revolves outside of the limited political view with which it is held in nations outside of China. Indeed, I have always found it interesting that Chinese often knew more about US politics (although often negative or bad things) than most US citizens. In reality, it could be argued that the majority of people in both Iran and China like the US, if not necessarily its government or policy decisions. But then again, there is a sizable portion of US citizens who have problems with its government and policy decisions, so there may be some validation to that particular argument.
Perhaps not everyone has the opportunity to travel to these places and see things for themselves but they should, at the very least, avail themselves of the opportunity to read about them beyond the limited scope of what they see/hear in the news. Expanding one's horizons and perspectives can only be to the benefit of not only the individual but potentially even rising to higher levels of policy making that can allow nations to work together to solve problems for the mutual benefit of more than a select few. Perhaps this is a simplistic and naive point of view but everyone should dream about making the world a little better else nothing will change. As the saying goes, think globally - act locally.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Uprisings in the US?
According to the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, yes, they will occur. Of course, he also believes in UFO's and claims to be Muslim so hopefully I will be forgiven if I have a difficult time taking his words at face value. This is, after, the same man who admitted that his incendiary rhetoric "may" have led to the assassination of his former mentor, Malcolm X - though he has been often accused of a far more complicit role in the murder. And this does not even mention his relationship to currently embattled Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi. Yes, it would seem that Brother Minister Loius Farrakhan has a slightly twisted relationship with reality so, while I will not argue that an uprising similar to what is currently engulfing many states in the Middle East is impossible in the United States, I will certainly have a difficult time believing that Mr. Farrakhan has any prescient (and unbiased) views on the issue.
But can uprisings like those in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and others occur in the US (or even in Western Europe)? Absolutely they can! Note that I said they can occur, not that they *will* occur. The reality, as difficult as it may be to admit, is that no nation is impervious to the types of internal strife and difficulties that are now striking the Middle East. They can, however, be sublimated or hidden from general view until they explode into the open. Much as western analysts failed to predict the actual failure of the Soviet Union (though they had predicted ad nauseum that it would fail eventually?!), so, too, did they fail to understand and predict the massive changes now occurring in the Middle East. What had been a relatively stable, if autocratic social and political structure has begun to show just how fragile it truly was. Tunisia and Egypt fell without the sort of repressive crackdown that had been expected. Iran, Libya and Syria have all felt the tremors and moved to crack down either before it could begin in earnest (Iran and Syria) or in a massacre of protesters whose crime was to speak out against the ruling tyranny. Similar protests have occurred in Jordan, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, among others and the response has been varied between seeking to placate the protesters and simply killing them in armed responses.
Some of these nations were stable and educated while others were poor and not as educated. But the one thing that they all hold in common is the lack of accountability on the part of the government. All operate under a form of dictatorship - whether by a singular, titular leader (Qadhafi, Mubarak, Assad), a group (Bahraini Sunnis) or even faux electoral processes (Iran). None operated under the idea of Western electoral democratic ideals where leaders are held accountable to the people under whose name and authority they allegedly rule. Yet, in spite of the many variations that existed within each nation, all now experience the tidal wave of frustration that has risen up in the form of revolutions that seek to improve the lives of the protesters.
It is also worth noting that more than a few countries and organizations throughout the world are also taking note of these protests and their successes and failures. China is very worried about protests there and is clamping down hard on noted activists at the hint of any sign of discontent - even though it seems that they are not leading any charge in that direction. And it seems likely that nations in Central Asia (including Pakistan and other former Soviet republics) are very wary of such a tidal wave of revolution spreading to them.
And this leads us back to the question of whether a similar uprising can occur in the US. While there is certainly a possibility of such a level of discontent that could threaten to erupt into a revolution, it does not yet seem to exist in the US. This does not mean to imply that it could not change but there is not the same level of discontent within a majority of the population that would stimulate such a revolution - however much Mr. Farrakhan may hope to proclaim or incite one. This does not mean there are not problems that cause anger, angst, frustration or other responses as there most certainly are. However, there are other recourses available to the citizens that allow them to vent their feelings without building up to the point of a revolution. In the US, life may not always be perfect or even comfortable all of the time, but pushing down on people until they rise up and explode in anger is not a better solution and that is certainly clear in the Middle East today.
But can uprisings like those in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and others occur in the US (or even in Western Europe)? Absolutely they can! Note that I said they can occur, not that they *will* occur. The reality, as difficult as it may be to admit, is that no nation is impervious to the types of internal strife and difficulties that are now striking the Middle East. They can, however, be sublimated or hidden from general view until they explode into the open. Much as western analysts failed to predict the actual failure of the Soviet Union (though they had predicted ad nauseum that it would fail eventually?!), so, too, did they fail to understand and predict the massive changes now occurring in the Middle East. What had been a relatively stable, if autocratic social and political structure has begun to show just how fragile it truly was. Tunisia and Egypt fell without the sort of repressive crackdown that had been expected. Iran, Libya and Syria have all felt the tremors and moved to crack down either before it could begin in earnest (Iran and Syria) or in a massacre of protesters whose crime was to speak out against the ruling tyranny. Similar protests have occurred in Jordan, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, among others and the response has been varied between seeking to placate the protesters and simply killing them in armed responses.
Some of these nations were stable and educated while others were poor and not as educated. But the one thing that they all hold in common is the lack of accountability on the part of the government. All operate under a form of dictatorship - whether by a singular, titular leader (Qadhafi, Mubarak, Assad), a group (Bahraini Sunnis) or even faux electoral processes (Iran). None operated under the idea of Western electoral democratic ideals where leaders are held accountable to the people under whose name and authority they allegedly rule. Yet, in spite of the many variations that existed within each nation, all now experience the tidal wave of frustration that has risen up in the form of revolutions that seek to improve the lives of the protesters.
It is also worth noting that more than a few countries and organizations throughout the world are also taking note of these protests and their successes and failures. China is very worried about protests there and is clamping down hard on noted activists at the hint of any sign of discontent - even though it seems that they are not leading any charge in that direction. And it seems likely that nations in Central Asia (including Pakistan and other former Soviet republics) are very wary of such a tidal wave of revolution spreading to them.
And this leads us back to the question of whether a similar uprising can occur in the US. While there is certainly a possibility of such a level of discontent that could threaten to erupt into a revolution, it does not yet seem to exist in the US. This does not mean to imply that it could not change but there is not the same level of discontent within a majority of the population that would stimulate such a revolution - however much Mr. Farrakhan may hope to proclaim or incite one. This does not mean there are not problems that cause anger, angst, frustration or other responses as there most certainly are. However, there are other recourses available to the citizens that allow them to vent their feelings without building up to the point of a revolution. In the US, life may not always be perfect or even comfortable all of the time, but pushing down on people until they rise up and explode in anger is not a better solution and that is certainly clear in the Middle East today.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Excuses
(I'm not sure if writing in the early morning is such a good idea but the idea was in my head and woke me up with the need to write it down. Hopefully this is more cogent than I feel at the moment.)
In the last two months, there has been a tidal wave of change in the Middle East. It began with Tunisia, quickly followed by Egypt and now threatens countries all over the Middle East and North Africa (though it is worth pondering if it will stop there). Bahrain, Libya, Iran, Jordan and Yemen (among others) are all threatened with the possibility of regime change. The leadership of those countries are all deeply concerned about the possibility of being toppled and are working to determine strategies that will enable them to stay in power. Those strategies seem to vary from the pragmatic to the "we really do think you're stupid" approach.
Iran, for example, is actually boasting that Tunisia and Egypt's revolutions are based on their own "Islamic Revolution" from 1979 - despite any evidence that they were led by any Islamic organizations (if anything, the Muslim Brotherhood in both nations tagged along once the revolutions were well on their way). Egypt, from the other side of that argument, claimed that its regime was preventing an Islamist takeover. Libya has today claimed that the protests are being staged by hooligans and illegal immigrants! (It's very hard to resist a jab at the "nativist" argument that is so prevalent on one side of the US political spectrum today.) Indeed, each of the leaders, in essence, argues that they must stay in power in order to prevent calamity and disaster should the unwashed masses succeed in overthrowing them.
While it is still very early in both Tunisia and Egypt, there has been no marked change that would propel either nation toward a French Revolution scenario of chaos and anarchy - though it is worth pointing out that there is obvious concern both internal and external to both nations in that regard. If anything, there has been a general happiness at the removal of a tyrannical dictatorship that will hopefully evolve toward a more democratic form in the future. There is no way to know if the same should continue in all cases - statistics alone would indicate that is not likely to be so. Indeed, the violence that has erupted in Libya as Qadhafi struggles to maintain his power seems to point toward a struggle that could explode when/if he does fall. The Bahraini leadership is similarly struggling to maintain its hold on power and has not refrained from violence, either. And the violence used by the regime in Iran actually dates back to the last (disputed) elections and is clearly a sign of the concern that government has over its own internal dissent against otherwise peaceful protesters. But it is easy to argue that the violent upheaval that has begun in those two nations was brought on by a leadership desperate to stay in power and is therefore the chaos they warn against is of the government's own doing and not that of the revolution nor its adherents.
What does seem clear, however, is that the excuses each country's leadership makes for staying in power seem to no longer be working with their respective citizens. And, if history is any indication (and it should be), a government cannot continue when the people have either lost faith in it or lost fear of it. It seems that the "change" that was such a mantra in the 2008 US presidential elections has moved around the world and is more of a force elsewhere than with the man who claimed it as his mantle.
In the last two months, there has been a tidal wave of change in the Middle East. It began with Tunisia, quickly followed by Egypt and now threatens countries all over the Middle East and North Africa (though it is worth pondering if it will stop there). Bahrain, Libya, Iran, Jordan and Yemen (among others) are all threatened with the possibility of regime change. The leadership of those countries are all deeply concerned about the possibility of being toppled and are working to determine strategies that will enable them to stay in power. Those strategies seem to vary from the pragmatic to the "we really do think you're stupid" approach.
Iran, for example, is actually boasting that Tunisia and Egypt's revolutions are based on their own "Islamic Revolution" from 1979 - despite any evidence that they were led by any Islamic organizations (if anything, the Muslim Brotherhood in both nations tagged along once the revolutions were well on their way). Egypt, from the other side of that argument, claimed that its regime was preventing an Islamist takeover. Libya has today claimed that the protests are being staged by hooligans and illegal immigrants! (It's very hard to resist a jab at the "nativist" argument that is so prevalent on one side of the US political spectrum today.) Indeed, each of the leaders, in essence, argues that they must stay in power in order to prevent calamity and disaster should the unwashed masses succeed in overthrowing them.
While it is still very early in both Tunisia and Egypt, there has been no marked change that would propel either nation toward a French Revolution scenario of chaos and anarchy - though it is worth pointing out that there is obvious concern both internal and external to both nations in that regard. If anything, there has been a general happiness at the removal of a tyrannical dictatorship that will hopefully evolve toward a more democratic form in the future. There is no way to know if the same should continue in all cases - statistics alone would indicate that is not likely to be so. Indeed, the violence that has erupted in Libya as Qadhafi struggles to maintain his power seems to point toward a struggle that could explode when/if he does fall. The Bahraini leadership is similarly struggling to maintain its hold on power and has not refrained from violence, either. And the violence used by the regime in Iran actually dates back to the last (disputed) elections and is clearly a sign of the concern that government has over its own internal dissent against otherwise peaceful protesters. But it is easy to argue that the violent upheaval that has begun in those two nations was brought on by a leadership desperate to stay in power and is therefore the chaos they warn against is of the government's own doing and not that of the revolution nor its adherents.
What does seem clear, however, is that the excuses each country's leadership makes for staying in power seem to no longer be working with their respective citizens. And, if history is any indication (and it should be), a government cannot continue when the people have either lost faith in it or lost fear of it. It seems that the "change" that was such a mantra in the 2008 US presidential elections has moved around the world and is more of a force elsewhere than with the man who claimed it as his mantle.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A turning point in Iran?
To this point, I have not posted links to other sites here on this blog nor am I certain if I will in the future. But I am sorely tempted to post what has become perhaps the signature moment of the recent turmoil in Iran - a video of a young woman who was allegedly shot by the Iranian security forces dying. I have seen the video and it is very disturbing, to put it mildly. Even in the generation of the gratuitous violence freely available through our many media outlets, this video is chilling. In the video, you can see the woman falling down and others rushing to her side (including, allegedly, her father). There is blood on the ground surrounding her and it continues to pool around her chest area - she was apparently shot in the heart. Then, blood starts pouring out of her facial orifices, until her young face is changed into a grotesquely bloody visage reminiscent of a horrifying Halloween mask. Men surround her in a futile attempt to save her.
Her death is clearly haunting the Iranian leadership. Her family was allowed to bury her quietly and have been told that there are to be no public remembrances. The implication is clear - her death can all too easily become a rallying cry. Despite government attempts to prevent it, the video is available in Iran and protesters who have spent the last week demonstrating for what they feel was a rigged election will soon demand justice from their government for the unnecessary murder of one of their countrymen/women. What has been a series of protests focused on the election results that were worrying for the leadership but perhaps not truly threatening could become the death knell for the Islamic Revolution. The government may well survive, but it is unlikely that it will enjoy the same legitimacy that it has since its inception under Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago. If it does not, then the cause will be one of its own making.
Her death is clearly haunting the Iranian leadership. Her family was allowed to bury her quietly and have been told that there are to be no public remembrances. The implication is clear - her death can all too easily become a rallying cry. Despite government attempts to prevent it, the video is available in Iran and protesters who have spent the last week demonstrating for what they feel was a rigged election will soon demand justice from their government for the unnecessary murder of one of their countrymen/women. What has been a series of protests focused on the election results that were worrying for the leadership but perhaps not truly threatening could become the death knell for the Islamic Revolution. The government may well survive, but it is unlikely that it will enjoy the same legitimacy that it has since its inception under Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago. If it does not, then the cause will be one of its own making.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Another revolution?
Like many others, I am sure, I have been thinking about the recent presidential election in Iran. More precisely, and unlike many others, I have been comparing it to elections in the US. Most precisely, to the 2000 election as well as to the 1876 election.
In the 2000 election, there were disputes as to the votes that were tallied and the battle went to the (relatively) impartial US Supreme Court - where the end result was the elevation of George W. Bush to the presidency. There is no independent judiciary in Iran that can be used to resolve this issue - the closest is the Guardian Council which will have to confirm the election results (normally a pro forma process). The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, after initially accepting that Ahmadinejad, has now ordered an investigation by the Guardian Council into possible (and that term is used somewhat loosely at this point) election fraud. While many think it is simply a delaying ploy to temper down the protests by Mousavi supporters, it is possible that they will invalidate the results and... do what? Have a new election? Declare Mousavi the winner? Declare that Ahmadinejad won but by a closer margin? Or simply validate the results? In the end, it seems like very little will be gained by whatever the Guardian Council decides. In truth, it seems that the protests will likely continue (until what?) or they will be brutally put down by supporters of the current administration (the military and para-military forces).
However, an option that seems more likely in Iran can be pulled from the 1876 election. In that election, Rutherford B. Hayes is commonly thought to have worked out an agreement with some Democrats that would allow him to be elected in return for removing Republican troops (and thus control) over several southern states - a move that, in reality, stopped the progress of blacks that had been instituted after the Civil War. This would probably be the most face-saving move that would work in Iran, as well. Mousavi, for all of the moderate tendencies he has attributed to him (rightly or wrongly), is still a member of the conservative elite in the country and may well concede the election if granted certain wishes. He could then move to calm down his supporters which would allow for the leadership to continue as is. The only question is, if such a deal is struck, would the supporters who have protested in his name for the past several days return to their previous lives or consider it another betrayal and continue with the mass demonstrations that have rocked the nation? Just because the system worked in the US (ignoring the long-term effects, the nation stayed together and there was no systemic failure) does not ensure that it would work in Iran. But it could potentially be the lesser of several evils in the eyes of the Iranian leadership.
In the 2000 election, there were disputes as to the votes that were tallied and the battle went to the (relatively) impartial US Supreme Court - where the end result was the elevation of George W. Bush to the presidency. There is no independent judiciary in Iran that can be used to resolve this issue - the closest is the Guardian Council which will have to confirm the election results (normally a pro forma process). The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, after initially accepting that Ahmadinejad, has now ordered an investigation by the Guardian Council into possible (and that term is used somewhat loosely at this point) election fraud. While many think it is simply a delaying ploy to temper down the protests by Mousavi supporters, it is possible that they will invalidate the results and... do what? Have a new election? Declare Mousavi the winner? Declare that Ahmadinejad won but by a closer margin? Or simply validate the results? In the end, it seems like very little will be gained by whatever the Guardian Council decides. In truth, it seems that the protests will likely continue (until what?) or they will be brutally put down by supporters of the current administration (the military and para-military forces).
However, an option that seems more likely in Iran can be pulled from the 1876 election. In that election, Rutherford B. Hayes is commonly thought to have worked out an agreement with some Democrats that would allow him to be elected in return for removing Republican troops (and thus control) over several southern states - a move that, in reality, stopped the progress of blacks that had been instituted after the Civil War. This would probably be the most face-saving move that would work in Iran, as well. Mousavi, for all of the moderate tendencies he has attributed to him (rightly or wrongly), is still a member of the conservative elite in the country and may well concede the election if granted certain wishes. He could then move to calm down his supporters which would allow for the leadership to continue as is. The only question is, if such a deal is struck, would the supporters who have protested in his name for the past several days return to their previous lives or consider it another betrayal and continue with the mass demonstrations that have rocked the nation? Just because the system worked in the US (ignoring the long-term effects, the nation stayed together and there was no systemic failure) does not ensure that it would work in Iran. But it could potentially be the lesser of several evils in the eyes of the Iranian leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)