Monday, June 21, 2010

Neda and the Nameless


The videotaped death of twenty-seven year-old Neda Agha Soltan at the hands of Iranian security forces last June has come to symbolize the Islamic Republic's repressive nature.
"One moment, a young woman is standing on the sidewalk, watching the Iranian people stand up . . .A second later, she crumbles. . .blood pumping uselessly out of the gunshot wound in her chest. A faceless police sniper has. . .made her immortal," solemnly editorializes an indignant Washington Times. The entire western world joined the Iranian opposition in condemning her death. "No iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness," pined President Obama's speechwriters.

Neda. The word itself, which means voice in Farsi, has given a voice to opponents of Iran's government. The anniversary of her death occasioned a barrage of somber reflections from western observers. Neda is a worthy victim. She was killed without provocation by the security forces of a hostile state, and she was killed before a camera. That last part isn't entirely unusual, every few months peaceful protesters are shot dead in the villages of Bil'in and Nil'in while activists are filming. However, they are killed by the security forces of an ally, and are of little note. While anyone even loosely following the western media can recall the images of Neda's death, the name and images of Bassem Abu Rahem, and others like him, don't even merit passing mention.

No iron fist is strong enough to stop solemn western observers from bearing witness to the brutality of their enemies and no brutality is extreme enough to merit condemnation, when done in the service of national interests. Hence, there will be no reflections on the "heartbreaking" policy of U.S drone strikes on Pakistan, which killed sixty people three days after Neda's death. The same day Neda died the BBC reported that U.S officials conceded troops broke internal guidelines in a series of airstrikes which killed scores of Afghan civilians the month before, but major newspapers will feature no remembrances or calls for accountability.

Watching nothing but the Western media's Iranian coverage, one might be justified in assuming little more than outrage at injustice and a desire to see democracy prevail motivates U.S and European policy towards the Islamic republic. Iran might be a vibrant democracy compared to regional U.S allies, such as Saudi Arabia, but it does have serious issues. Democracy and human rights, however, have never been relevant in western policy towards Iran.

Iran had a liberal, democratic government once, in the 1950s. It was overthrown when the U.S and Britain installed a repressive, pro-American dictator who ruled with U.S backing until 1979. There were scant tears for the victims of the Shah's police state or calls for the restoration of democracy. The Shah was a useful dictator. The Ayatollahs who overthrew him were not, and with their rise to power came a renewed concern for human rights in Iran.

Sort of, at least. The new government was condemned for its repressive policies, but when Iraq invaded Iran, starting a war that killed millions of people, the U.S was supportive, and when Iraq deployed poison gas against civilians it took an approach of statutory neglect. Likewise, when the Jundallah, a Sunni terrorist organization suspected of being backed by the U.S, carries out attacks on Iranian targets, there is no concern among western commentators.

Even as U.S officials hail the "Green Revolution", they are embracing a man, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who was one of Iran's chief thugs as Prime Minister for eight years. But though he "has not always moved in liberal circles," as the BBC describes, Mousavi's aspirations suddenly coincide with western interests, and past infractions can be forgotten. Mousavi is thus transformed from fanatical thug to crusading reformer.

Though the goal of a democratic Iran that respects human rights is something that all people should aspire towards it has never been a major goal of the United States, nor is it something the U.S can help along, except perhaps by declining to subvert progress when it does occur. For those Americans seriously interested in promoting the values so frequently, and self-righteously, extolled in the press, the first place to start is with the flaws they can actually address, those in their own society.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Thugs and Hypocrites

Boaz Toporovsky, chairman of Israel's National Student Union, has a question he wants to ask activists attempting to bring humanitarian aid to the residents of the Gaza Strip, who according to the United Nations, are receiving only a fourth of the goods they need due to an Israeli-Egyptian siege. "Why [are] they. . .not talking about the Kurdish minority or the Armenians that were murdered [in Turkey] or many other problems? We want to expose the truth, this hypocrisy and the absurdity," he explains. The death of nine Turkish nationals in an Israeli terrorist attack last week elicited a harsh rhetorical response from Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, which gave many Israelis new appreciation for the suffering of the victims of human rights violations. Or at least of Turkish ones, Israeli crimes remain laudable acts of self-defense against terrorists plotting to throw Israelis into the sea. Even the rock band The Pixies have become "cultural terrorists".

Suddenly Turkey's human rights issues have become a serious issue for Israelis. Denying the Armenian genocide might have been fashionable when Israeli President Shimon Peres did it, but now that Turkish politicians are denouncing an Israeli atrocity that trend is out of vogue. And though the close connections the Israeli military has maintained with its Turkish counterpart is not a legitimate target for popular anger, the same cannot be said of the plight of Turkey's minorities at the hands of its security apparatus. The sincerity of this outrage can be tested by asking how these Israelis might behave if their true concern was human rights. It would be a remarkable coincidence for this new wave of concern for Turkey's oppressed to just happen to suddenly emerge at the same time as a serious diplomatic spat with the nation which has been Israel's second closest ally since 1956.

The same question, however, needs to be leveled at Prime Minister Erdogan, who has been trumpeting himself as the indefatigable champion of the downtrodden whilst presiding over one of the world's most repressive states and quietly maintaining military ties with Israel. Just because Turkey's human rights record has been the subject of a wave of self-righteous indignation does not mean there are not serious issues. During World War II, NAZI propagandists tirelessly crusaded against the crimes of the partisans. That criticism was illegitimate, but the crimes were still real.

In this latest crisis anyone genuinely concerned with human rights would be justified in asking the same question of Prime Minister Erdogan they put to the assembly of hypocrites in Israel. How might Erdogan behave if his true concern was human rights. Starting with the latest crisis, and assuming he has control over the armed forces, he might sever military ties with Israel. Then he would proceed to recognize the Armenian Genocide and make reparations to Turkey's disenfranchised minorities. He would offer equal rights and a referendum on meaningful autonomy to the Kurds. Thus begins a long list of reforms that will never be undertaken by the present AK government. Erdogan wants to reposition himself as a leader of the Muslim world, hence his tough rhetoric, while continuing to pursue his nation's cynical realpolitik objectives, hence his refusal to change policies. The spat between Turkey and Israel is a contest among thugs and hypocrites.