I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...
Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s not all…
I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding.
Recall that, back in May, Ahmadinejad sent a letter to President Bush:
For some time now, I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist… Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make "War on Terror" his slogan,And finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community --- a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
But at the same time,
Have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze.
It’s a great question, which I’ve wondered myself. He goes on:
Because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women --- as occupation troops --- put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.
Ahmadinejad, it would appear, cares more about American troops than President Bush.
There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.
European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him), human rights and liberal values.
Again, Ahmadinejad, who has flagrantly trounced due process and the rule of law in his own nation is still way ahead of Bush on this point, too.
He then goes on to say that even if six million Jews perished in World War II (a point he concedes in this letter), that doesn’t give Israel the right to displace and terrorize Palestinians. He doesn’t call for violence against Israelis. He calls for ending violence against Palestinians.
He takes up the charge of other communities struggling for freedom and justice:
Don't Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected government are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, Why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?
The people of Africa are hard-working, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth -- including minerals -- is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?
Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?
He seems to extend genuine condolences for September 11th:
September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.
And yes, he hints at a conspiracy theory that US intelligence forces may have been involved or complicit --- but it’s not a huge departure from the 9/11 commission and our collective recognition that, for all their failings leading up to the attack, the FBI and CIA got away clean.
Ahmadinejan also pins the tail on the US media:
After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people … some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity --- some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? … American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the street, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
He’s accusing the media of being a mouthpiece of Bush’s “war on terror” instead of accurately informing the American public and, for instance, blames the media for supporting the campaign of misinformation that helped to justify the war in Iraq. Again, this isn’t out there, lunatic, flaming anti-American rhetoric. This is simply a powerful and accurate critique of the United States --- a critique that the Bush Administration and the media would rather silence. Perhaps the Bush Administration’s campaign against Ahmadinejad --- just like its campaign against Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and others --- isn’t as much about whether he’s a danger to the world. There are plenty of leaders who are more dangerous (see, e.g., Kim Jong Il or the ruling junta in Burma). And certainly, as Bush himself illustrates, there are good and bad qualities in all leaders (for the record, Bush was good on immigration for a minute).
Could it be that, to the Bush Administration, one of the most dangerous things about Ahmadinejad is that he is calling the Bush Administration out? And so, if Ahmadinejad can’t be silenced, at least he can be discredited. I’m not saying he’s a good guy at all. I’m only saying it’s hard to know the full story when the Bush Administration seems so invested in smearing Ahmadinejad --- and the media, as we’ve already learned with Iraq, is happy to choose its facts in convenient accordance. Maybe we shouldn't buy into the Bush team's characterization of Ahmadinejad as part of their drumbeat escalating toward potential war. Maybe we should listen to Ahmadinjead ourselves and sift through what, if anything, is worth hearing.
Ahmadinejad ends his letter to Bush by noting how both their presidencies will be judged by history:
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment?
Did we intend to establish justice or just supported special interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship made a few people rich and powerful --- thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs?
Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?
Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?
Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?
Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it?
Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?
Did our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns, Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people's rights?
And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office -- to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets -- or not?
It striking when a leader with an abysmal human rights record is the one championing the rights of the poor and oppressed to the president of the United States who proclaims to be the world’s savior. Dangerous, indeed --- certainly to the status quo he critiques.
Monday, when Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University in New York, I’ll be listening. Maybe with a bottle of wine and some soft music playing in the background. If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he’d probably have me killed, I’ll try to listen for some truth.
© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Privacy Policy
Powered by Scoop.
Permalink | 85 comments