By Russell A. Berman · Thursday, November 23, 2006 The emerging realist hypothesis plays regional stability off against democratic reform. We’re presented with a choice: Peace or Freedom, i.e., to get to peace, we are apparently supposed to give up on freedom.
The policy vision of a democratized Middle East is now relegated to the dustbin of history, dismissed as a Wilsonian illusion strangely in the hands of a Republican president, now to be replaced by the older and wiser formula of a system of stable states, secure in their sovereignty and therefore committed to preserving order. It won’t be democratic but at least (so they promise) it will be quiet. After the revolution: Metternich (which is why we suddenly have to listen to Kissinger again).
More specifically—so the plan may go—if the US begins to “talk” with Iran and Syria, the axis-of-evil member and its mini-me might stop making trouble and become engaged in the establishment of order in Iraq. Clearly one important and dubious assumption is that the sectarian and factional war in Iraq (which for a long time has surpassed anything like an insurgency against the US) is primarily a function of Iranian and Syrian policies and not—as is much more likely—a consequence of the nature of Iraqi society itself. The regional version of realism which places the emphasis on an arrangement with neighboring states tends to minimize the significance of domestic Iraqi concerns: which is exactly why it involves dismissing “democracy.” Instead of pursuing the establishment of domestic Iraqi institutions, this strategy implies ceding influence to Tehran and Damascus, in order to “solve” Baghdad. (As if the Yugoslav wars could have been solved by “talking” in Budapest and Athens.)
Continue reading →
By Russell A. Berman · Saturday, November 4, 2006 Whatever one may think of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, one can only cringe at investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s >reported assertion that “There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq.”
Murderous? Quite a harsh accusation directed against American troops at war. No doubt this message has already been carried back to Iraq where it can only stiffen the resolve of the insurgents as they gun down Americans as well as Iraqis (which may or may not qualify as “murderous” in Hersh’s view). Aside from this likely de facto assistance to the enemy, Hersh’s accusation was distinguished by a poor choice venue: Hersh decided to denounce the allegedly criminal character of American soldiers at an address outside the US, at McGill University in Montreal. There is no accounting for this particular tastelessness: Hersh could have easily pocketed honoraria in US currency at scores of American universities where his denigration of the troops would have been at least as welcome as in Montreal.
Hersh’s blindness to the impropriety of holding this sort of diatribe on foreign soil is stunning. (Or is it the blindness of his booking agent: googling “Seymour Hersh Montreal” to collect background for this blog, I found that the first pop-up ad on the right of the screen directs the reader to the agency that can bring Hersh to your hall. More on the fee structure below.)
Continue reading →
By Russell A. Berman · Thursday, October 19, 2006 While the Western press has devoted considerable attention to the situation of prisoners in Guantanamo and in Iraq, hardly any reports of the situation in Iran circulate. Articles on inmates in the Islamic Republic apparently do not sell papers. Clearly, the rights of prisoners are viewed as a function of electoral politics: since stories of Iranian prisons will not detract from Republican support in November, the New York Times et al. do not consider it newsworthy. The inconsistency is glaring.
If you won’t talk about Evrin prison in Tehran, then don’t talk to me about Guantanamo.
But the “anti-imperialist sentiment” current in liberal and left circles is prepared to jettison every one of its principles in order to celebrate, or at least apologize for, regimes deemed to be opposed to US hegemony: no matter how egregious their abuses.
Reports from Iran Press News are mixed. The student leader, Ahmad Batebi has been released—but after 79 days in solitary confinement and a hefty bail.
Continue reading →
By Russell A. Berman · Thursday, October 19, 2006 Today’s NYT editorializes against the European discussion of the use of the veil by Muslim women. First Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, and then both Tony Blair and Romano Prodi have made statements, critical of the veil as a hindrance to assimilation. The Times knows better.
First, the editorial marginalizes the question of the veil with the transparent rhetorical ploy of minimization: ” . . . one has to wonder how many [veiled women] are regularly encountered by Jack Straw . . . or any other Briton.” If it’s not widespread, we need not be concerned? Alright, let’s apply the same standard to the Times: one has to wonder how many veiled women participate in the editorial board discussions. So few? Well then what do these people know about it?
In a second move, the NYT runs away from the veil and expands the topic: “The issue in need of serious discussion is not the niqab—the veil that covers all but a woman’s eyes—but the larger question of the place of Europe’s Muslim minority.” This is no doubt the case: context matters, but the expansion of the topic is a rhetorical strategy to avoid the matter at hand. Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardoner. Any specific issue can disappear by putting a frame around it: this is liberalism, after all. Still, just because the NYT makes a claim does not mean that it’s wrong.
Continue reading →
By Russell A. Berman · Wednesday, October 18, 2006 At this point, it seems that the grand diplomacy around North Korea has led to another illusion of solution. Diplomacy means finding language that simulates action and therefore prevents it. What is to be done? Nothing. North Korea faces sanctions, which, apparently, may not be enforced; a warning with no consequences. Of course, the North Koreans and their illustrious leader may test again and (possibly) provoke a genuine reaction, but for now they face just the Potemkin village of UN anger.
Which brings us back to Lebanon, and the success of diplomacy there. The much touted European military force, it is now clear, has no intention of disarming Hezbollah. Its value is solely semiotic, a display of a sign, showing the flag. Again, a pretense of action is the outcome of diplomacy. The irrational is the real. In fact, however, matters are worse. The Syrians are shipping arms into Lebanon (despite the UN resolution—are we not shocked?) so UNIFIL is actually just guarding the rearmament process. To the extent that Israel intervenes to block that rearmament, it may find itself at odds with . . . France.
Continue reading →
By Russell A. Berman · Monday, October 16, 2006 The real impact of the Khatami lecture at Harvard, discussed previously in this blog, is now clear: he has been invited to deliver an address and receive an honorary doctorate at St. Andrews in Scotland. The Harvard gig, in other words, was a vehicle to lend him credibility as the poster boy of the Iranian regime. Whitewashed in Cambridge, he can now move on to the European lecture circuit. One more pretty face? The point was never to engage in a genuine dialogue of cultures, as the useful idiots explained his visit; it has only been about the propagandistic outreach from Teheran and the variously motivated western factions who are eager to collaborate.
To those who misrepresent Khatami as a reformist, one can only ask: where has he ever criticized the current regime directly? When has he called for a release of the political prisoners, including student leaders (for whom, arguably, university communities might have a particular interest)? Or—as proposed here earlier—had he wished sincerely for reconciliation with the United States, why did he not visit the survivors of the 1979 embassy seizure and ask for their forgiveness? But: no truth and no reconciliation.
Continue reading →
|
|
