DUCKPOND

AHMADINEJAD AT THE UN September 26, 2010

Back home the Iranian President seems to be involved in a dispute about “the sovereignty of Parliament” but at the UN he was calling for greater powers for the General Assembly.

He raised other issues as well. Megan, at John Quiggin’s blog, linked to the his text. He starts from a general proposition. He says that Capitalism is coming to an end because it has failed to supply the answer to problems of society. After about one hundred years of domination it is coming to an end. “Capitalism” appears to be code for the US and western society generally.

So what is wrong with modernization in its Western realization? According to Ahmadinejad it is atheist and materialistic. The teaching of the religious prophets have been rejected for egotism and greed as the motivations for behavior. The image that comes to my mind is John Calvin’s Geneva. He says that “Mans disconnection from Heaven detached him from his true self.” The departure from religious values, implicitly the teaching of Islam and Christianity are in the essence the same in regard to human values, lead to colonialism and slavery as they did to the wars of domination of the twentieth century.

Here is Ahmadinejad’s historical summary up to the present:

The lust for capital and domination replaced monotheism which is the gate to love and unity. This widespread clash of the egoist with the divine values gave way to slavery and colonialism. A large portion of the world came under the domination of a few western States. Tens of millions of people were taken to slavery and tens of millions of families were shattered as a result. All the resources, the rights and the cultures of the colonized nations were plundered. Lands were occupied and the indigenous people were humiliated and mass- murdered.

Yet, nations rose up, colonialism was alienated and the independence of the nations was recognized. Thus, the hope for respect, prosperity and security was revived amongst nations. In the beginning of the past century nice talks about freedom, human rights and democracy created hopes for healing the deep wounds of the past. Today, however, not only those dreams are not realized, but memories, even at times worse than before, have been recorded.

As a result of the two World Wars, the occupation of Palestine, the Korean and the Vietnam’s Wars, the Iraqi war against Iran, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as many wars in Africa, hundreds of millions of people were killed, wounded or displaced. Terrorism, illicit drugs, poverty and the social gaps increased. The dictatorial and coup d’etat governments in Latin America committed unprecedented crimes with the support of the West.

Instead of disarmament, the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons expanded, putting the world under a bigger threat. As a result, the very same old goals of colonialists and the slave masters were, this time round, pursued with a new facade.

While the observations are accurate, there seems to be a less than comprehensive analysis. There is no mention of social movements within the West, such as the Civil Rights Movement, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ahmadinejad’s reference is to developments in the Third World, specifically Africa and South America. One can easily accept that the West does not understand Iran, but we are amazed that Iran does not understand the West.

He argues that the United Nations, and before it, the League of Nations, was set up for global management by the leading western powers. The clearest evidence is the composition of the Security Council and in particular the exercise of the veto. President Ahmadinejad is not alone in pointing this out. He says we can analyze the governance of global affairs by considering three events.

He sets his case out as follows:

First, the event of the II September 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade.

All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident. Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident. But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan. Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.

Please take note: It was said that some three thousands people were killed on the II September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.

In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.
2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.
The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.
3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.
The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.

There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:

1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?
2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?
3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.

It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden. I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.

Second, is the occupation of the Palestinian territories. The oppressed people of Palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to self-determination, while the occupiers are given recognition. On a daily basis, the houses are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. People are deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland. The Zionists have imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the Palestinian people. The Zionists committed the most horrible crimes against the defenseless people in the wars against Lebanon and Gaza. The Zionist regime attacked a humanitarian flotilla in a blatant defiance of all international norms and kills the civilians.

This regime which enjoys the absolute support of some western countries regularly threatens the countries in the region and continues publicly announced assassination of Palestinian figures and others, while Palestinian defenders and those opposing this regime are pressured, labeled as terrorists and anti Semites. All values, even the freedom of expression, in Europe and in the United States are being sacrificed at the altar of Zionism.

Solutions are doomed to fail because the right of the Palestinian people is not taken into account. Would we have witnessed such horrendous crimes if instead of recognizing the occupation, the sovereign right ofthe Palestinian people had been recognized?
Our unambiguous proposition is the return of the Palestinian refugees to their home land and the reference to the vote of the people of Palestine to exercise their sovereignty and decide on the type of governance.

Third, is the nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is clean and cheap and a heavenly gift which is amongst the most suitable alternatives to cut the pollutions emanating from fossil fuels. The Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows all member States to use nuclear energy without limits and the International Atomic Energy Agency is mandated to provide member States with technical and legal support. The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and which must totally be eliminated. The NPT prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament.

Nonetheless, note what some of the permanent members of the Security Council and nuclear bomb holders have done. They have equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this energy from the reach of most of nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring the IAEA. While at the same time, they have continued to maintain, expand and upgrade their own nuclear arsenals.

This has entailed the following. Not only the nuclear disarmament has not been realized but also nuclear bombs have been proliferated in some regions, including by the occupying and intimidating Zionist regime. I would like here to propose that the year 20II be proclaimed the year of nuclear disarmament and ‘Nuclear Energy for all, Nuclear Weapons for None’.

So what is appearance and what is reality? Ahmadinejad would have us believe that the Iranian Government is a proponent of justice, although he suggested that human rights was merely a facade and his government uses snipers to shot people involved in nonviolent protest. I suppose I might allow by opposing the Theocracy these protesters, consciously or otherwise, were acting as agents of foreign powers.

One might not accept the proposed paradigm, but it has cogency and it is not crazy. I do not have the script of what President Obama said in response. The report in The Sydney Morning Herald by Kate Anderson Bower reports:

US President Barack Obama has slammed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s September 11 conspiracy theory comments at the United Nations as ”offensive” and ”hateful”.

In his first comments on the Iranian leader’s statement that the 2001 terrorist attacks on America may have been orchestrated to bolster the US economy and ”save the Zionist regime”, Mr Obama told BBC Persian that ”for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable”.

. . .The interview with BBC Persian is part of Mr Obama’s attempt to communicate directly with the Iranian people as the US and other nations increase pressure on Mr Ahmadinejad’s government to comply with UN demands that it halt uranium enrichment.

”To have a President who makes outrageous, offensive statements like this does not serve the interests of the Iranian people, does not strengthen Iran’s stature in the world community,” Mr Obama said.

. . . In his speech to the General Assembly on Friday, Mr Obama said while he was willing to negotiate, ”the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment, and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program”.

Mr Obama told BBC Persian that Mr Ahmadinejad’s address ”defies not just common sense but basic sense – basic senses of decency that aren’t unique to any particular country – they’re common to the entire world”. He drew a distinction between the Iranian people and their government, saying that when the September 11 attacks took place there was ”a natural sense of shared humanity and sympathy expressed within Iran”. ”It just shows once again sort of the difference between how the Iranian leadership and this regime operates and how I think the vast majority of the Iranian people who are respectful and thoughtful think about these issues,” he said.

So who is talking nonsense? Obama’s comments seem to have no reference to what Ahmadinejad actually said. He is persisting with the big lie that Iran is engaged in creating an nuclear bomb, while ignoring the possibility that Iran has been subject to a cyber attack by Israel. While Obama is purportedly talking directly to the people of Iran via BBC Persian, it is equally reasonable to suppose he is talking to his domestic audience as a PR scam. The BBC has the interview.

When the reporting is compared to what was said at the UN, the propagandistic nature of these reports can be appreciated.

One way to see these characters – Ahmadinejad and Obama – as following the Yellow Brick Road. This thought is suggested by Ray McGovern’s contention that “Obama knows the War is Dumb but prefers Power over Peace. And so perhaps he might fit the persona of the Lion in search of his heart. Might Ahmadinejad be the Scarecrow? He is the straw man for the media commentary.

ELSEWHERE:

At Salon, Laura Miller reviews Scott Peterson’s, “Let the Swords Encircle Me: Iran – A Journey Behind the Headlines”.

Iran, it seems, does not support independent journalism and is not alone in that position, although perhaps is more extreme in exercising political authority (via War in Context).