Here's a recent article by Danny Postel and  Nader Hashemi  which is well worth reading.
We’re pleased to have received several thoughtful responses to our  recent blog post “Why  Peace Activists Should Take an Active Interest in the Green Movement in  Iran”. One reader asked what we meant by our claim that there is  considerable confusion among peace activists about Iran. We’re glad he asked  about this. Here are a few examples.
Back in 2006, the Iranian Nobel Peace Laureate, human rights lawyer and  women’s rights advocate Shirin Ebadi gave a lecture in London. As someone who  defends the victims of the Iranian regime’s repression — indeed as  someone who has done jail time for her work on that front — the issue of the  Islamic Republic’s human rights violations tends to feature rather centrally in  her scheme of things. Which is not to say that it’s the only issue on her  agenda, or that it in any way blunts her criticisms of the United States and its  foreign policy. Quite the contrary. She has spoken out in no  uncertain terms against the US invasion and  occupation of Iraq, against the Guantánamo detainee camp, and the torture at Abu  Ghraib — and has made it utterly  clear that she opposes any US intervention in Iran. And yet, at her  lecture in London, an antiwar activist told her that she should not denounce  Iran’s human rights record — indeed not discuss it at all — explaining that  doing so only plays into the hands of the warmongers and fuels the fires of  imperialism. Ebadi upbraided that antiwar activist in the strongest terms.  Leaning over the lectern and waving her finger at him, she made plain that any  antiwar movement that advocates silence in the face of tyranny, for whatever  reason, could count her out.
That antiwar activist may have been especially brazen and presumptuous  in telling Ebadi what she should and shouldn’t say about her own government —  few peace activists would dare do such a thing. Yet his thinking reflects a  widespread sensibility in the peace movement. There’s a pervasive sense that we  shouldn’t criticize the Iranian government lest we somehow fuel the fires of the  warmongers in Washington. What Ebadi — and multitudes of other Iranian labor,  student, peace, and human rights activists — contend is that we can and should  do both — that we rub our tummies and pat our heads at the  same time — and that there’s no contradiction or even tension between the two.  As one slogan  of Iran’s student movement puts it: “Our struggle is twofold: against internal  oppression and external foreign threats.” We could do worse than to follow the  spirit and logic of this formulation.
Another source and instance of the confusion comes from Hugo Chávez’s  enthusiastic embracing of the reactionary and authoritarian Ahmadinejad.  Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry denounced the Green movement from the get-go,  issuing the following statement  in June 2009:
The Bolivarian Government of Venezuela expresses its firm opposition  to the vicious and unfounded campaign to discredit the institutions of the  Islamic Republic of Iran, unleashed from outside, designed to roil the political  climate of our brother country. From Venezuela, we denounce these acts of  interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while  demanding an immediate halt to the maneuvers to threaten and destabilize the  Islamic Revolution.
It’s important to note that trade unionists and student activists in  Iran have expressed deep dismay about Chávez’s support for Ahmadinejad (see the  Open  letter to the workers of Venezuela on Hugo Chávez’s support for Ahmadinejad  and “Problematic Brothers: Iranian  Reaction to Chávez and Ahmadinejad”).
We wish we could say that admiration for Ahmadinejad among progressives  was limited to Hugo Chávez — lamentably, it is not. Bitta Mostofi, an  Iranian-American immigration and civil rights attorney who has traveled to Iraq  with Voices for Creative Nonviolence and been  active against the Israeli occupation, wrote a depressing account of a love fest  for Ahmadinejad organized by a group of US antiwar  activists in October. In her account, poignantly titled “Admiring Ahmadinejad and  Overlooking Activists: We’re Better Than This”,  Mostofi wrote:
Unfortunately, after over one hour of speeches from other activists  in the room, I found myself feeling disappointed and dismayed. One after  another, the guests at the dinner delivered prepared statements, posing no  questions or challenges to the Iranian delegation. … They lauded Ahmadinejad as  a hero … and likened the meeting to Malcolm X’s encounters in Africa with  revolutionaries fighting against colonialism. … Speech after speech failed to  address any calls for solidarity with the brave young men and women in Iran who  took to the streets and demanded their rights in the face of  government suppression.
Like Mostofi, we believe the peace movement should be better  than this.
We highly recommend reading and signing on to the Campaign for Peace  and Democracy’s important and principled statement End the War Threats and  Sanctions Program Against Iran, Support the Struggle for Democracy Inside  Iran.
Further Reading:
Reese Erlich
“Iran and  Leftist Confusion”
Saeed Rahnema
“The  Tragedy of the Left’s Discourse  on Iran”
Muhammad Sahimi
“America’s  Misguided Left”
Hamid Dabashi
“Left is Wrong  on Iran”
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Iran and Peace Activists: Clarifying the Confusion
Posted by
Unknown
at
7:57 PM
Labels: democratic left, Iran, peace movement
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment