The last few days of June

AOG, Madrid

What a week, what a week. A week for freedom in more ways than one.

First off the continuing struggle for freedom in Iran and the search for truth defies the will of the Ayatollahs.

As if that were not enough, shock horror, Farrah Fawcett died. My favourite Angel.

But, wonders did not cease, since a few hours later, Michael Jackson died too, trumping and obliterating any further mention of Ms. Fawcett’s struggle with cancer.

Both artists are, in their own way, free from the struggles their daily lives, according to the press, had become. I wish them happiness.

Come Sunday, Honduras stages a Coup, and president Manuel Zelaya is kidnapped by the Honduran Army and flown to Costa Rica, from where he stages a press conference and assures all and sundry that he will remain as President elect until next year.

Soon enough, Hugo Chávez and Cuba started their outpour of support.

Iran 2009

AOG, Madrid

The past few days have shown the less friendly face of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have read testimony after testimony of the protesters in Iran regarding their Government. Many of them, perhaps most, are amazed at the actions of their Government. Some say that they cannot believe that an Iranian would ever harm another Iranian. Disbelief seemed to permeate the early stages of the, in my opinion, soon to be aborted Iranian version of the Orange Revolution.

Certainly the people in charge will ensure that they remain in charge for a long time to come. As with China and Tiananmen Square 20 years ago last month, so with Iran.

It everything points towards that being the ultimate outcome of this national happening, if that is the word that can be allowed to describe the recent events in that country.



Today it surfaces that president elect Ahmadineyad is asking the US for a formal apology, all the while the G8 condemns and threatens to isolate Iran even further.

My question is, how much can one isolate a country already isolated? And what purpose will this solve?

I wonder what kind of brainwashing must go on in authoritarian regimes that its own population seems to believe time and time and again that it is somehow impervious to the greater evils of its Government?

Time after time History has shown that authoritarian, as well as pariah, states are the first to turn their might against their own citizens. True, democracies are known to do this as well, but never like these countries do. Never on that scale.

So I wonder what it is that people get told to make them think that their form of Government is benign, when the rest of the planet seems to think otherwise.

Where is the criteria that allows people to understand that any state which calls for the destruction of another (like Iran and Israel and, lately, North Korea and the US), is far from benign. Far from just. And far from sane.

Perhaps it is a sign of weakness the fact that the Ayatollahs endeavour to harm their citizens so freely. However, as with China, I’m sure that just as they can fool people into thinking they are a force for the greater good, they can also fool them into thinking that they are still powerful. And that Iran will not withstand, under any circumstances, any more revolutions other than the 1978 Islamic one.

Nevertheless, according to French philosopher and writer Bernard Henri-Levy, "Whatever happens, the people know, from this point on, that they are the people and that there is not a regime on earth that can remain in power against the people", as he wrote for the Huffington Post in reference to Iran's situation.

I wish he were right, but then I think of China, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and a host of authoritarian regimes intent of maintaining power no matter what, and I can't help but disagree.



PS: According to today's Guardian, Mousavi is defying the Government's crackdown and accuses his opponents of an "evil conspiracy". Is there hope yet for change, positive change, in Iran?

Iran

AOG, Madrid

Iran is on a knife-edge, with millions of voters taking to the streets in outrage as evidence mounts that the government may have massively rigged and stolen last Thursday's election.

The Islamic regime has cracked down brutally on the protesters and is imposing a blackout on Iranian society - shutting down domestic and international media, the internet and even text-messaging. For many, it the best thing that could have happened to Twitter.

The voice of Iranians may have been silenced at the polling booth, now the regime is attempting to silence them everywhere else.

Facing beatings and gunfire, the opposition, according to Western media, is organising mass demonstrations and a general strike.


This election is of international importance. Iran is a major regional power, and the international community is seeking diplomatic engagement that holds a key to peace in the Middle East.

The conservative Guardian Council, headed by a key Ahmadinejad ally, is reviewing the vote over the next 9 days.

According to some Western media, “There is a real possibility that democracy will prevail.”

However, just because a regime allows for elections, a voting booth, and an electoral list, this does not mean it is a democracy, nor that the elections are free.

Ultimate power in Iran lies with Ayatollah Khamenei, who may have backed the rigging - but he is hired and fired by the Assembly of Experts, chaired by ex-President Rafsanjani who has condemned vote-fixing.

If Rafsanjani and allies can get enough votes on the Assembly this week, they can press to re-open the results, even to remove Khamenei from power.

But will any of this happen?

The Islamic Revolution came into power back in the 1970s in a similar way, and the religious right took over the country.

Is the West not expecting too much in hoping that a recount, if it goes ahead, will show a true vote count?

Are we to think that the regime will welcome change peacefully?

Of course, it could also turn out that Ahmadineyad won the election fair and square.

But the current state of affairs in the country certainly points to a feeling of insatisfaction within the Iranian population.



Even if the election was not rigged, there is obviously a certain malaise in the country which the ruling oligarchy would do well to address. Sooner rather than later.

Here are some international sources:

1. The Guardian: "Iran's regime cracks down on opposition and media", 16 June 2009


2. Al-Jazeera: "Supreme Leader Under Pressure", 15 June 2009


3. "Evidence that the Iranian Presidential Election Was Stolen", Juan Cole, 13 June 2009


4. More detailed analysis by a polling expert of "fishy numbers" in the results announced by the interior ministry.


5. One of many active live-blogs.


6. #IranElections - live, unfiltered updates via Twitter from Iran and around the world

US Iran To Have Direct Group Talks Over Nuke Program

AOG, London




I have always thought that the best way to deal with proto-nuclear powers is through engagement. True, Iran is not just that. Having left the Western sphere of influence after the Islamic revolution, it is a country intent on carrying out a very proactive foreign policy. As of late, it has done well playing off the US and Russia against each other.

It is perhaps too early to tell if this has actually helped Iran's cause any, but it is obvious that it has bought the regime time, and it has shown it to be a very independent player in the world stage.

It is also true that in foreign policy matters, Iran is preaching to the converted. Nowhere outside the Islamic world (with the odd exception of Venezuela, and possibly Russia) is Iran seen as a serious player. Too dependent on religion to be taken seriously by most secular powers, nevertheless it is a country intent on undermining, when not outright demanding, the destruction of Israel.

I think the Obama administration is doing well in bringing Iran to the negotiating table. I am not sure that it will stop the Ayatollahs from creating a nuclear power in the region, but it is a start.

About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Cold War 2 or how Russia manages to upset things once again

AOG, Madrid

U.S. plans to deploy parts of an anti-missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic have become a fresh irritant in US-Russian relations. Washington says the system is needed for defence against rockets launched by Iran and North Korea - an argument rejected by Moscow. Russia is wary of US missiles close to its borders.

Who is at fault?

NATO should heed Russian President Vladimir Putin's call for talks about a U.S. missile shield to be built in formerly communist eastern Europe, German Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler said on Monday.

Russian premier Vladimir Putin used this weekend's high-profile security conference in Munich to accuse the US of sparking a new arms race by trying to become the world's "one single master", a speech U.S. senator Joseph Lieberman said smacked of Cold War rhetoric.

Putin, understandably, has attacked the missile shield to be located in Poland and the Czech Republic and has warned that enlargement of NATO was "a serious factor provoking reduced mutual trust". Nothing new perhaps, except that now Russia is more powerful and influential than it was, say, 5 years ago. Russia 2007 is resurgent, mostly due to its being flush with oil and gas money. It has paid off its debts and is thus no longer corsetted by the constraints of international financial organizations. Putin is tightening controls at home, increasingly bullying its neighbors and acting almost reflexively antagonistic to American interests around the world. The US needs Russian support abroad but it is finding it hard to get. Russia, erratically perhaps, has been seen more intent to cooperate with countries such as Iran than to join the West and give more aplomb to UN resolutions and international pressure.

Should the US antagonise its former rival further?

Washington has suggested the shield in question is needed to protect Europe from Iranian missiles, however Moscow believes Washington and its NATO allies are building the shield because of Russia- if not that, then certainly they are being built too close to home. The Warsaw pact died a long time ago, however NATO is still running strong and it has declined on numerous occassions to allow Russia in. Russia sees a nuclear threat on its border once again. Only this time, they have not provoked it. There is no Cold War in 2007.

"I think it would make sense to take the Russian president's comments about the perception of NATO seriously" Germany's Erler said.

Although NATO has had years of good cooperation with Russia-especially in the former Yugoslavia- Putin fears the missile shield would "bring NATO capabilities closer to the Russian border and this without any intensive discussions or negotiations with Russia", Erler said.

"There is something that needs to be clarified here, namely what actually is the relationship between NATO and Russia". It was also important to consider whether talks could avoid any irritation on Russia's part so that Moscow would not take any military steps that would lead to a new arms race, he said.

The idea of negotiating the missile shield with Russia would not be pleasant for the Czech Republic. Czechs remain suspicious of Putin's Russia and fear the new Moscow wants to make old Russia a dominant power in Europe the way the Soviet Union once was. After all, same country, different name.

Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg shrugged off Moscow''s criticisms. "Demands from other states will not influence our government" Schwarzenberg told the Munich conference, adding it was "an internal issue" for Prague. So is Russia to believe that the Czech republic is under threat from Iran? Poland too? But not Italy, Greece, Portugal or Spain?

No new Cold War

German government spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm told reporters that Berlin did not see Putin's speech as a sign that Russia was trying to revive Cold War animosities.

After Putin''s speech Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied the Russian president was trying to provoke Washington, saying it was a call for thought and dialogue. Perhaps the West should take heed. America's recent foreign policy has more than paved the way for Russia to increase its sphere of influence, especially over former Soviet client-states such as Iran.

Erler said he viewed Putin's speech in the context of Russia's search for its proper place on the international stage- whatever this might be- its increasing self-confidence and the increasing significance of its vast oil and gas resources.

Well, naturlich! If anyone thought that 1991 was the end of Russia, they were very mistaken. It is only a matter of time before that particular Bear begins to flex its muscle once again. Europe and the US should be prepared for what looks to be an aggressive power in search of influence and prestige.