Here is a comment I left on Paul Krugman's post, "The monster years". It hasn't appeared there yet, and I wonder if the moderator will find it "on-topic and not abusive". So here it goes:

Mr. Krugman,

I read your post with shameful quiet a few times. I was saddened by your de-humanizing tone and insensitive idea but having read many of your public writings at least I was not surprised. However, I was astonished to see not even a single commenter call you on the cruelty and senselessness of your words.

To demonize the people we don't like or disagree with is the way of hatemongers. When done systematically, its logical conclusion throughout history has been banishing the citizens from their society, putting them away in jail en masse, and ultimately the killing of millions of people. Some of your commenters have already begun on this frightening path. One even calls Ronald Reagan, whose legacy is seen by many an inspired freedom fighter around the world as facing down the biggest tyranny of modern times, in your hateful terms.

Such strong terms must be reserved for the very worst of situations, or else they risk losing any useful meaning. Even then, one must be careful in using them. Even Hitler or Saddam Hussein had a human dimension. For you to de-humanize the likes of Karl Rove and Cheney, however much you dislike or disagree with them, while at this very moment youngsters are hanged and women are stoned to death in my homeland, is beyond any reason. If Tom DeLay is a monster, then what is Kim Jung Il?

That you use the occasion of Obama's win, supposedly a victory for hope and tolerance, to put forward such an intolerant idea only adds to the irony. It perhaps shows your own inner demons. I hope that you reconsider these shameful words. Otherwise, the shame will forever remain on you.

Labels: democracy, media, politics, society, US

 

Akbar Ganji, "someone who spent six years in Tehran's Evin Prison on a bogus charge of endangering national security," has published a column in the Washington Post (translated from Farsi) to clarify "why Iranian pro- democracy forces oppose the $75 million the U.S. government provides to aid civil society in their country."

But even the very title and the starting point is presumptuous. First, why should Ganji think he can represent such a vast group of people as "Iranian pro-democracy forces"? Second, why is being an Iranian democrat taken to be synonymous with "shuning foreign aid"? What, then, are Akbar Atri, Ali Afshari, and countless other activists? Ganji also claims that in any Middle Eastern country other than Iran people would choose fundamentalists in a free and fair election. Why? This is pseudo-intellectual nonesense! In fact, this statement has already been proven wrong in Iraq. But the problems with Ganji's piece are much deeper than this.

After a string of incongruous expressions of facts and opinions-dressed-as-facts about the situation in Iran and the Middle East and what people want or don't wan't, he reaches the following culminating point:

So here is our request to Congress: To do away with any misunderstanding, we hope lawmakers will approve a bill that bans payment to individuals or groups opposing the Iranian government.

This rhetorical request has a deeply sensational tone. But it is a foolish thing to say, void of any logic. Why should anyone hoping to help a group of people (Iranian pro-democracy forces here) ban transactions with them? How could such outright blocking of aid possibly help?

But it gets even worse. Ganji charges the (collective) West of helping Iran's government to restrict and filter the Web. (This, of course, confounds private companies with governments, but that's a minor offense.) Then, he proceeds to say that all Iranians really need is free media and TV,

The support we need at this point has nothing to do with funding the regime's opposition but with aiding Iranians in the quest for independent media and accurate information.

Mr. Ganji's piece is apparently in response to an earlier op-ed by Michael Rubin. But he seems not to have read it:

The congressional appropriation has grown from $1.4 million in 2004 to $66 million this year. Of this, $36 million disappears into the coffers of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. The State Department applies an additional $5 million each to visitor exchange programs and to translation of its Web sites into Persian.

VOA Persian and Radio Free Europe (Radio Farda in Persian) are perhaps the closest things accessible in Iran to free media with wide coverage through their radio and TV programs. Mr. Ganji has used VOA's platform several times already to reach his fellow Iranians. Now, he wouldn't want them off, or would he?

Labels: democracy, Ganji, iran, UN

 

Akbar Atri, an Iranian activists now living in exile in the US, writes in the Wall Street Journal,

As I write this, close friends of mine are sitting in cells of Evin prison in Iran. They are suffering from torture, solitary confinement and denial of medical care. Despite their suffering, they write and smuggle out of prison essays about the brutality of Iran's government and about how the democracy movement can stay resilient despite mounting repression.

Here in America, where I have been living since 2005 as an exiled activist, a controversy has emerged over the Bush administration's pledge to provide $75 million in democracy and human-rights assistance to Iranians. Critics of the funding, among them some Iranian-Americans, say the money endangers the lives of activists and gives pretext for the Iranian regime to crack down on their activities. Supposedly speaking on behalf of the Iranian people, these critics claim Iranians do not want and do not need America's help in their fight against oppression.

Then he mentions that similar opinions are expressed by Iranians, such as Akbar Ganji, another activist who is living in the US at this time. (See this related piece.) Mr. Atri continues,

I respectfully disagree. There are many sides to this debate, but one thing is clear: Those in Iran who favor receiving foreign assistance and consider international solidarity essential to the success of Iran's homegrown civic movements cannot speak freely. If they do, they will be subject to immediate retaliation by the regime. The lack of robust, transparent appeals for outside help by civic leaders should not be confused with a lack of need or desire for such help.

Prominent activists in Iran, and even activists recently exiled, fear the repercussions of open appeals for outside support, so they color their statements about American democracy funding in order to protect themselves and their families. This is understandable as a strategy and self-preservation tactic by otherwise brave activists against a regime that prohibits free and open interaction with the outside world.

Criticism of American support for Iran's democracy movement is not defensible when made by those who have barely seen Iran, much less been a part of its struggle for freedom. Despite being an elected leader of the Iranian student movement and an active participant in university politics for 10 years, I do not purport to represent Iranians or even the Iranian student movement. I speak for myself. Yet when Iranian-Americans who have no standing in Iran, and who have received no backing from Iranians, claim to represent the will of all Iranians, I feel I need to speak up.

Those so righteously opposed to funding might have us believe that if it were not for American support, Iranian activists would not be facing intimidation, imprisonment and torture. But since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian regime has been systematically imprisoning, killing and otherwise silencing civic actors -- particularly secular, liberal democrats -- under bogus charges of espionage and collusion with foreign agents. Just this year, Iranian authorities have executed without due process over 100 people, yet none were said to be connected to U.S. democracy funds. There is not much new in the Iranian government's strategy of repression, but what is promising and hopeful to Iran's democrats -- and threatening to the Iranian leadership -- is that there is finally real support from the outside.

And how does the funds get spent anyway?

Iranians have already benefited immeasurably from democracy funding, especially from the Persian-language broadcasts by Voice of America television and Radio Farda ("Tomorrow"), for which a majority of the $75 million at issue now is allocated. These broadcasts offer news and perspectives to the Iranian public that they would not otherwise have, including news regarding developments inside their own country. The broadcasts are popular with millions of diverse Iranians and have successfully broken the Islamic Republic's attempt to isolate the country from external sources of information. The Iranian regime could not be happier to see its popular nemeses -- VOA television and Radio Farda -- exterminated by Iranian Americans and others purporting to do good.

America's best civil-society organizations have also been developing successful links and activities -- independent of the U.S. government and in collaboration with international partners -- to support democratic awareness and civil society inside Iran. To cut Iranians off from the transfer of lessons and experiences gleaned from civic movements globally only strengthens the Iranian government.

And the necessary conclusion is:

American lawmakers and Iranian-Americans who would eliminate financial support for Iran's democrats need to understand the following: Supporting Iranian civil society and the nonviolent struggle toward democracy and human rights is likely the most cost-effective means to prevent a future conflict with Iran or an armed struggle within its borders. Democracy is difficult to achieve. But with its remarkably young, educated population, and a long-stifled yearning for the fruits of modernity and liberalism, Iran has many of the key ingredients for success.

With some help from their American allies, Iranian democrats are brave enough and capable enough to achieve for their country what the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Vaclav Havel achieved for theirs.

Very well said!

Labels: democracy, iran, US