On Thursday, June 24, I happened to catch a segment of Neil Conan's Talk of the Nation, an interview with director Oliver Stone about his new documentary, South of the Border, which, in his words, is a film "about South America," specifically the rise of UNASUR, or the Union of South American Nations. Stone addresses quite a few topics, including Iran and the development of "a very strong and good antidote to our policies" there.
The transcript of the interview is available online. This is the relevant portion:
Mr. STONE: Of course they're much different. They're different societies, different backgrounds, different languages. But Lula and Chavez have expressed tremendous support and admiration for each other over the years. There are differences here and there, but overall it's very clear from the film that they're brothers. They consider themselves brothers. Lula has supported Chavez constantly. And recently, by the way, Chavez - Lula of Brazil has been condemned by the U.S. for so-called meddling in their Iran policy. Now, this raises a whole distinction of what, you know, what is meddling in our - is America the policeman of the world? Do we decide who will - that we are going to run the world by our rules? Are not Brazil and Turkey allowed to talk to Iran? And they actually did come up with a uranium swap there. So some - and by the way, at the security council, they voted - Turkey and Brazil voted on the security council against - vetoed the - against - I mean, voted against the resolution on sanctions in Iran.
CONAN: They're members of the security council at the moment but not the permanent five members. They're the only ones with the...
Mr. STONE: Yeah. That's the first time its happened, I gather.
CONAN: On the occasions of the sanctions against Iran, I believe it's the first time it has not been unanimous or at least with one country abstaining. Lebanon also abstained in that particular vote.
Mr. STONE: That's correct. It's quite something. It's - in other words, there is a third bloc. There was, when I grew up in the 1950s, there was a neutral bloc. It was made up of great nations like Egypt, like India, like Indonesia. And in Africa, there was Kwame Nkrumah. There was a leader - a group of leaders who emerged and that has - and that concept was eroded as each one was destabilized, often by United States' participation against them.
So, you know, now here we are in this post-Soviet world and we're alone. Were trying to ride it out alone, it won't work. China is too big. Venezuela is too big. Russia is way too big. Turkey, by the way, is a regional power. And America seems to want to dominate the world. And these regional powers are, I think, are a very strong and good antidote to our policies.
Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable state created when one person holds two conflicting thoughts at once. Perhaps Mr. Stone's next documentary will cover this topic. For while implicitly condemning US militarism and aggression against Iran, Mr. Stone continues to champion Congressman Alan Grayson as, in his words, "a warrior for peace." This phrase when applied to Mr. Grayson is almost Orwellian; while the representative may be opposed to Blackwater/Xe, Halliburton and corruption created by the military industrial complex, Mr. Grayson is also a hawk when it comes to the State of Israel. As documented in the April/May edition of the Philadelphia Jewish Voice, Mr. Grayson consults with AIPAC regularly and believes Iran is a major threat to Israel:
I met with Howard Kohr, the head of AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], twice last week.
PJV: And what was the gist of the conversation?
The gist of the conversation was that Iran is a tremendous threat to Israel and needs to be stopped. And I agree with that.
PJV: And what about what is going on in the Gaza Strip; was there any conversation about that?
Yes, we talked about that. I think what AIPAC often tries to do is to educate Members of Congress who frankly follow this a lot less closely than I do. In my case, I read Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post online four or five times a week, so I am pretty familiar with the circumstances and why the war took place. As a famous Israeli once said, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Perhaps even more alarming, Mr. Grayson believes that we need to do "everything" "short of occupation" including "military action" "to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons." In short, the "warrior for peace" has endorsed a military strike against Iran, by the United States. Additionally, it is clear from the interview that Mr. Grayson's primary concern is the protection and safety of Israel. While the US and Israel are close military, strategic and political allies, Israel is also a nuclear state. Mr. Grayson may be a champion of many progressive causes, but Mr. Stone should know better than to lend his support to Grayson as a "warrior for peace."
There is cause for caution and concern; Haaretz reported yesterday that G8 leaders were convinced Israel could take steps to preemptively attack Iran. From Toronto, site of yesterday's mix of peaceful protest and anarchist violence, Italy's prime minister had this to say:
"Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively," Berlusconi told reporters following talks with other Group of Eight leaders north of Toronto.
CIA Director Leon Panetta believes that Israel will give the US space to resolve the nuclear issue without military intervention, while conceding that economic sanctions will not be a sufficient deterrent to prevent Iranian nuclear ambitions.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Grayson is not a "warrior for peace," and it is irresponsible to portray him as one. Tomorrow, Grayson will hold an online "peace party" to raise money for his campaign. This Orwellian moment should be countered with a gentle reminder from Orwell himself:
All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.
George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism