Insights on Iran.

Oh, I wasnt apologising (this time 'round

Now to come up with a way to phrase that last paragraph in my previous post (the one before "How's it work here?") into a clear subject line for a new Roundtable topic ...

Conservatives often call liberals "naive" for finding all kinds of nice, decent, trustworthy, non-dangerous folks out there in the world. Conservatives are more wary ... thats fair enough, isnt it?

Downside of that is conservatives are also more likely to be disinterested in international co-operation, relying more on "defence and offense" ... but that either belies or results in a world view thats more focused on what there is to "fear or fight" than on what there is to "trust and help".

Thats still not all too rhetorical a grand sketch, is it?

Libruls dress funny, too.

A generalization which is also subject to these contradictions, but which in the current situation appears to be slightly more reliable is the (growing, in my view) divergence between the world views of American and European political classes and elites. My image is one in which Europeans tend to see America as too powerful, too full of itself and its peculiar version of history, inadequately sensitive to the differing perspective and interests of Europeans, and probably a bit dangerous. Similarly Americans see Europe as the spawning ground for the radicalisms that caused so much misery and destruction in the last century, and now bent on imposing its latest solution for the very problems which it created for the world on the rest of us. In particular a Western Europe that generally failed to carry its share of the load during the Cold War, and which, again, now seeks a share of control well beyond the contributions it makes to the solutions.

It is neither fair nor accurate of Nimh to suggest that supporters of Ronald Reagan's vigorous confrontation with the Soviet Empire were either unaware or unappreciative of the crucial contributions of Vaclav Havel (and other Eastern European leaders) to the downfall of that unlamented Empire.

'Khatami, shame on you, resign!'

Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi returned to Iran yesterday - and was welcomed with slogans that would normally end you up in prison in Iran.

By Thomas Erdbrink [my translation, hence any language-mistakes], NRC Handelsblad.

TEHERAN, 15 OCT. An hour before the Iran Air flight from Paris will land on the Teheran airport thousands of people have already gathered in the arrivals hall. Observed by a portrait of the late ayatollah Khomeiny, founder of the almost 25-year old islamic republic, people unfold their banners for Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi. The Iranian, who last Friday heard in Paris that she had won the Nobel Prize for Peace, had been suggested, by the government, an official welcome in the VIP lounge. But Ebadi answered that she was not interested: "I went as an ordinary Iranian and I return as an ordinary Iranian."

There are few Iranians, however, who will return to a celebrating, demonstrating mass of people, where women with white headscarves strew about flowers and elderly men with horn-rimmed glasses pass candy around. The crowd was appealed to come by womens and children rights organisations, which Ebadi has done a lot for. They asked the women to wear white "as colour of peace".

Around nine o'clock, the police by then has already evicted the arrivals hall, students join those waiting, too. With a megaphone they call out slogans for Ebadi and against the regime. Met een megafoon roepen ze leuzen vóór Ebadi en tegen het regime. "Khatami, shame on you!", yells the crowd. The reformist president of Iran, voted in twice by the young and the women, called the Nobel Prize "unimportant" yesterday and asked in annoyance why he "always had to react on every little thing", when he was asked his opinion about the prize for the Iranian.

"Khatami, resign!", the people in front of the airport holler. Police agents look on in glazed-over confusion. A man holds a placard over his head on wich a map of his country is drawn with barbed wire as its borders, and bars across the rest of the country. "Iran is one big prison", it says. "Free the political prisoners!", the waiting crowd yells out again and again. In the midst of all the political violence, boys and girls flirt with each other, children beg for candy and pensioners zoom around on electric scooters, because above all today is a day for celebration.

President Khatami called the Nobel Prize for Peace award a political decision.

The arch conservative newspaper Keihaan went further and described Ebadi's prize as further munition for the "American-zionist" complot against Iran.

The rainbowcoalition of reformers, who have lost the trust of the people because they did not keep their promises about more personal freedom, a better economy and more legal security, has interpreted the prize award as a confirmation that they're on the right way. Deputies of the parliament, which they dominate, are in front of the crowd, to be among the first to greet her and to bask in the light of her victory.

"I don't believe those reformers anymore, they are no different from the conservatives", says a man in the crowd. "We are the people but they are part of the regime." He wraps his arm around his wife, who says she wants to cry out of happiness. "Thanks to Ebadi's prize the world sees what's happening here. Our young people are unemployed and go to Europe, are women are repressed and our life has been kidnapped by the regime", she says. " I hope the assault groups won't come to beat us up".

When the airplane has finally landed, it turns out to have been directed to the arrival hall for domestic flights. The welcomers suspect foul play of the government, but hastily start the walk to the terminal two miles down the road. There another several thousand people join the group, which, unperturbed, continues to call out slogans that would normally end you up in prison in Iran.

Finally there is the relief, when Ebadi eventually climbs onto a small stage and speeches to the crowd with a megaphone. Men cry and applaud, children do little dances, pensioners wave white handkerchiefs in the air. The crowd is shrieking as if the Saviour himself has just walked out of the terminal. "I will go on with my work", the Nobel Prize winner croaks through the megaphone. Cheers. "The political prisoners must be freed". Roars. "This prize is for everyone who believes in peace, democracy and human rights." Shrieks. After that Ebadi retreats from the crowd: "I am so tired", she excuses herself.

On the way back a lost group of Baseej, the conservative assault groups, are standing in a corner. They made a banner, too, with the text: "We don't congratulate Ebadi with the prize that last year went to the American Jimmy Carter."

In the crowd that passes by some people flick a middle finger. Nobody wants to fight with them.

"People walk on!", a girl calls out. "We are going to change Iran peacefully!".

Despite this these same European powers demanded a proportional share in the decision-making.

The relative size of U.S. development aid is often cited in this context, with America's lagging those of the European powers. However if one includes cash transfers of the millions of American immigrants (legal and illegal) to their families back home the figures, as a % of GDP, converge. Certainly the net economic effect is the same.

I'd say there was a logical correlation between "taking all the responsibility", "taking all the decisions" and "bearing all of the costs".

"Prince Bandar - who served as Saudi ambassador to the US - also said Washington's desire to dominate world affairs brought risks of its own. "I personally feel it's not in America's interest to be the only game in town," he said. "It costs money and no one says thank you."

No one has ever totally dominated the world, but many have mostly dominated, and somebody is always going to mostly dominate. When someone tries to totally dominate like Hitler, the world will come together and thwart them, including America.

Leaders of the 'Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy' charged that the administration is moving "in a dangerous direction toward empire", an idea that they said has never been embraced by the U.S. public. [..]

"We are a diverse group of scholars and analysts from across the political spectrum who believe that the move toward empire must be halted immediately," says the coalition's charter statement, signed by 44 foreign-policy specialists. [..]

Among the more prominent right-wing signers are Doug Bandow, a special assistant to former president Ronald Reagan and now a senior officer at the libertarian Cato Institute, Scott McConnell, chief editor of 'The American Conservative' magazine and Alan Tonelson of the U.S. Business & Industrial Council Educational Foundation. [..]

The coalition's purpose appears to be, above all, to publicly take on liberals and conservatives who support the administration's imperial policies, beginning with its 'National Security Strategy'.

That document, issued 13 months ago, calls for Washington to maintain its predominant position in the world at all costs, even to the extent of waging pre-emptive war against would-be rivals, and to reshape regions of the world in ways that are compatible with U.S. interests and values. [..]

[M]embers of the group [share] the basic notion that the pursuit of U.S. military domination will ultimately prove self-defeating.

"We can expect, and are seeing now, multiple balances of power forming against us. People resent and resist domination, no matter how benign," asserts the charter, titled 'The Perils of Empire'.

"Empire is problematic because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of citizens at home, while simultaneously thwarting the will of people abroad," it notes. "An imperial strategy threatens to entangle America in an assortment of unnecessary and unrewarding wars." [..]

"We are more isolated from the general opinions of mankind than at any time in history," said McConnell, adding that he shares the concerns of conservative icon Edmund Burke, who worried in the early 19th century that Britain's very power at the time would result both in opposition around the world and in taking on costs that it could not afford in the long run.

Kupchan said the administration's basic assumptions had already proven deeply flawed. Among those, he said, were its belief that "the stronger America is, the more uncompromising its leadership, the more likely the rest of the world would follow along".

"The United States today is far less safe than it was several years ago, because we have weakened the international architecture which helped protect us."