9th October 2007 | Draft
Just Who's Afraid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
commentary on speech by the President of Iran
to the UN General Assembly
On 25th September 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, addressed
the 62nd UN General Assembly in New York at a time when there was every expectation
that Iran would be subject to an imminent tactical nuclear strike. Live
coverage of his whole speech was provided on CNN. It followed a controversial,
and widely publicized, question and answer session at Columbia University (Ahmadinejad
speaks; outrage and controversy follow, CNN, 24 September
2007; Jesse Walker, Who's
Afraid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? After all the trembling, the Iranian president
got a bruising instead of a boost, Reason Magazine, 25
September 2007).
[NB The fact that the main title of the latter
commentary was identical with that of earlier drafts of this commentary (on
a different meeting) is purely coincidental, although it is obviously the
similarity of the situations that evoked the choice, but with quite different
intents. The title of this commentary was then distinguished by prefixing
it with "Just", as a consequence of the manner in which a major search
engine appeared suddenly to manipulate its relative rankings of the two commentaries
-- possibly as a consequence of pressure regarding the contents of what follows.
It is necessarily unclear to what pressures search engines are responsive
-- especially on political issues which may affect their revenue stream]
Despite the content of his UN address, and speculation regarding such an
attack, there was almost no media coverage immediately thereafter -- creating
an impression of deliberate cover-up. Various websites subsequently carried
versions of the full text (Global
Security.org; Washington
Post). At the time of writing there appears to be little commentary
on the serious issues he raised -- other than to question his integrity and
sanity (Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walks
among us, Daily
News,
24 September 2007)
Given the current dramatic state of an increasingly faith-based
world, it is appropriate to compare the born again George Bush -- who would
order the strike -- with the equally religious Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whose
defence is argued below (Amil Imani, Who
is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? American Thinker,
3 October 2007). Both attest to a privileged communication with the divine.
It is indeed that which concerns some American observers (Iran
leader's U.N. finale reveals apocalyptic view; Iran
prepares people for 'messiah miracles': Government broadcasts series on imminent
appearance of apocalyptic Islamic 'Mahdi'; Iran
leader's messianic end-times mission), just as others
are concerned by undeclared faith-based agendas on the part of the country
in possession of most nuclear weaponry. As noted, from an earlier interview
with an Iranian editorialist, cited in the
Christian Science Monitor:
"Bush
said: 'God said to me, attack Afghanistan and attack Iraq.' The mentality
of Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad is the same here -- both think God tells
them what to do," says
Mr. Mohebian, noting that end-of-time beliefs have similar roots in Christian
and Muslim theology. (Scott Peterson, Waiting
for Rapture in Iran, 21 December
2005)
In what follows the official
Iranian version of Ahmadinejad's speech is reproduced
with a series of comments interspersed in italics (note also the official
UN version, not initially available).
The format of the text has been slightly modified to improve readability (notably
by occasional use of bullet points; spelling and grammar are as in the original).
The purpose of the exercise, in supplying the commentary, is to highlight issues
raised by the leader of a country that may be shortly, and uniquely, subject
to nuclear attack -- irrespective of how such an attack may be finally justified.
As the commentary shows, this does not imply agreement with the points made
in the address.
The
following pointers to the well-structured contents of the address have been added
for convenience.
In the Name of God, the Almighty
"Oh God, hasten the arrival of Imam Al-Mahdi and grant him good health
and victory and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness" |
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am pleased and grateful to the Almighty to have the opportunity once again
to attend this important universal forum.
Comment: Whilst any such preface might be cause for
reservations in the primarily secular mode of discourse within the international
community, it is striking to compare it with the fairly similar appeals
made by the faith-based leadership of the Coalition of the Willing and
most notably by American politicians. Indeed, just as in Islamic cultures,
those in America consider it increasingly appropriate to make such references
when interacting with their supporters. However it is relevant to
note that the language used to that end in Islamic cultures has far more
poetic resonances than the simple binary form that is common in the West. It
is also characteristic that the American version is primarily of the form
"God Bless America" in contrast with the more generic Islamic phrasing.
What is striking under the circumstances, with the immediate threat
of a nuclear strike, is the formal recognition in a UN arena of a universal
transcendental context -- presumably in some measure common to faith-based
cultures, whether potential attacker or probable victim thereof.
Given that the clashing
Abrahamic cultures
hold so profoundly to their respective understandings of this transcendental
reality, how is it that immeasurably greater resources are devoted by each
to the design and use of weaponry in defence of their particular understanding
-- in comparison with the paucity of resources devoted to clarifying the
mystery of why the mysterious nature of that reality should be so variously
understood, notably by others?
How different is the nature and origin of the misunderstanding that
has violently separated over centuries: Sunni from Shiite, Catholic from
Protestant, Orthodox from non-Orthodox Jews -- as compared to that separating
Islam from Christianity, and either from Judaism, also over centuries?
References to an omniscient Almighty must surely hold these violence-engendering
differences, in the Name of God, to arise from limitations of human misunderstanding,
especially amongst the Abrahamic religions -- the "People
of the Book" -- living as they
do in expectation of an integrative fulfillment of divine prophecy.
It is appropriate to compare the unique invocation of the prophesied
Imam Al-Mahdi, in a formal
international arena, with analogous expectations associated with prophecies
in the other
Abrahamic religions, the Messiah
of Judaism and the Messiah
of Christianity.
It would be a grave mistake to fail to recognize the determining influence
of such expectations on governmental policies, notably on the leadership
of the Coalition of the Willing in invading Iraq. It is however curious
that believers in such prophecies should find no other basis for dialogue
than the use of weapons, and especially nuclear weapons.
In the present tumultuous world and predominance of loud outcries, threats and
tensions, and in the time:
- when the big powers are unable to solve the present
problems, (an unquestionable fact)
- when mistrust in regional and international arenas is on the rise, (an
unquestionable fact)
- when psychological security of societies is being targeted by an onslaught
of political and propaganda designs, (an assertion which many would
consider reasonable, however "propaganda" is to be understood)
- and disappointment prevails over efficacy
of policies and actions of the international organizations in establishing
of durable peace and security, (an unquestionable fact, despite efforts
to focus the media on "positive" achievements and vigorously to
deny the accumulation over many years of evidence to the contrary)
- and the protection of human rights is being
weakened, (an unquestionable fact)
I plan to touch upon and explain the roots and ways out of these
predicaments and some of the principal challenges facing our world.
Comment: Such a preamble surely sets
a context which justifies attention to what follows, if only in that
respect is due to a culture that may well be deliberately destroyed beyond
recovery by nuclear attack -- recently described in the case of a neighbouring
country as a threat of being "bombed back to the Stone Age".
Can the significant absence of representatives of the USA and Israel
during the speech, as highlighted by the media, be considered other than
evidence that the case had been prejudged? Do advocates for the prosecution
-- demanding immediate execution -- leave the courtroom when those for
the defence make their final case? Or is it that directly publicizing the
plea worldwide to "we the peoples", through media such as CNN,
makes physical presence at the UN "court" unnecessary? What behaviour
in such a final court of appeal is to be considered a mark of uncivilization
and backsliding to barbarism? Does this reflect the very same logic whereby
a civilized democracy indulges in secret tribunals uncluttered by substantiated
appeals from the defendants?
I will
also speak to you about:
- the need for amending the present situation,
- prospects
for brighter and more hopeful future,
- and about the reappearance of the sublime
and beauty, kindness and dignity, justice and blossoming of all divine human
talents and dominance of love of God and realization of the promise of God
as stated by of all divine prophets and righteous men.
Comment: Again this points to the
possibility of the kind of future to which most would aspire.
I will then put to
your judgment the nuclear issue of Iran as a reality and testing ground for
measurement of honesty, efficacy, steadfastness and victories. In the closing
part of my address, I will offer my proposals.
Comment: This issue, with the immediate
threat of nuclear attack,
provides a degree of immediate urgency greater than
most other issues currently the subject of debate and procrastination
within the international community. The unforeseen
consequences and possible multiplier effects of such an attack are
dimensions of which historians are well aware -- World War I, as triggered
by a simple targeted assassination
of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, is
a classic example. More technically these have been recognized
under various names (from the "butterfly
effect" to the "Black
Swan" effect)
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
As you are all aware we are presently facing important, numerous and diverse
challenges that I will refer to some of them.
1. Organized attempts to tear down the institution of family and to reduce the
status of women
Family is the most sacred and valuable human institution that serves as the center
of the purest mutual love and affection of mothers, fathers and children, and
a safe environment for the upbringing and cultivating human generations, and
a fertile ground for blossoming of sentiments and emotions. This institution
has always been respected by all nationalities, religions of cultures.
Comment: This view, as implied, is just
as strongly held by Christian fundamentalists who
might well choose the same phrases to articulate their focus on family values.
Indeed it is a view held by fundamentalists of other religious persuasion.
Curiously however it would be the fundamentalists of two of the Abrahamic
religions who would most strongly support any nuclear strike by the Coalition
of the Willing on Iran -- with the predictable impact on thousands, if
not millions, of family relationships. One might ask whether this
reference was cynically given this importance as a skillful ploy -- and
yet it remains a fact that all Abrahamic religions indeed hold family values
to be of fundamental importance, whether or not there is any hypocrisy
in that assertion by politicians.
Today we are witnessing an organized invasion by the enemies of humanity and
plunderers to tear down this genuine institution. They target this noble institution
by promoting lewdness, violence and breaking the boundaries of chastity and decency.
Comment:
Again this is a view that it is held by many in all cultures. The debate is
a vigorous one with both sides counting among their strongest advocates those
with other undeclared agendas that might be considered far more suspect and
worrying. "Family
values" may indeed also be used as a form of "human shield" by
those advancing far more dubious and destructive causes.
The argument also (deliberately)
obscures the problematic current attitude of Islam to homosexuals, notably
in Iran. How easy it is to fail to recall the degree to which this attitude
is shared by fundamentalists of the other Abrahamic religions -- and most
vociferously (and even violently) in the USA? And how much more easy is
it to fail to recognize how widely this attitude has been held in "developed
countries" until very recently?
Why is it expected that the development
of every culture should be in lock step timing with the recent human rights
"discoveries" of those who claim moral superiority -- following
their complicity in the unique level of human slaughter in the first half
of the 20th century? What allowance is made for the stage of socio-economic
development of such cultures and for the processes and forces which have
inhibited their development to a more enlightened level? Do countries and
cultures have every right to indulge in the human rights practices appropriate
to the degree of development at which they have been sustained, or to which
they have been reduced? What practices could be reasonably expected of a
country that had been "bombed
back to the Stone Age"?
The intolerance of homosexuality by Islam is especially highlighted
by the execution in Iran of those who offend against faith-based edicts.
Curiously, in the media, it has been possible to dissociate such condemnation
of homosexuals from the capital punishment to which they are then subjected
-- a form of punishment widely practiced and defended in the USA, although
abhorred in many civilized countries to a far higher degree than homosexuality.
The precious existence of women as the expression of divine beauty and peak of
kindness, affection and purity has been the target of heavy exploitation over
the past recent decades by the holders of powers and owners of media and wealth.
In some societies, this beloved creature has been reduced to mere instruments
of publicity and all boundaries and protective shields of chastity, purity and
beauty have been trampled. This is a colossal betrayal of human society, of succeeding
generations, and an irreparable blow on the social coherence.
Comment: As such, and allowing for cultural differences,
this statement would be one which might easily be shared by feminist campaigners
in the most advanced "developed" countries. It can of course
be readily argued that it (deliberately) disguises the many issues relating
to the particular institutionalized treatment of women within Islamic cultures,
and in this case Iran. But
before assuming an unwarranted degree of self-righteousness, it is important
for critics to recognize the extent to which -- despite legislative measures
-- equality between men and women is far from having been completely achieved
in most "developed" societies, if only in terms of remuneration.
All the Abrahamic religions continue to justify practices that restrict
or constrain the role of women; this is notably the case in certain Christian
and Jewish sects.
It is
ironic to note, for example, the role of male-only clubs and secret societies
(such as the freemasons) with respect to the leadership of countries that
claim to be models of democracy. It is also appropriate to recognize the
extent of harassment of women by men in such model societies. Whether the
most appropriate technology or not, the use of the veil inhibits such harassment
and reduces the need for women to arm themselves against violent attacks
-- as in some of the most developed countries.
There are curious dynamics and contradictions in deliberately associating
"freedom" in a democratic society with the right to physical self-exposure
in public, however it is curtailed by ordinances regarding "public
decency"
or "appropriate clothing" -- as for participants in the UN General
Assembly, for example. This "right" has now been extended into
an obligation to expose the face
at all times to ensure appropriate visibility to omnipresent security cameras
-- as a means of protecting "freedom". And yet in the missionary
activity of all Abrahamic faiths, covering the body is a requirement --
until recently epitomized by efforts to ensure that traditionally uncovered
indigenous women were obliged to wear brassieres (subsequently considered
symbolic of a constraint on "freedom").
Are there not strange symmetries
that merit exploration before focusing narrowly on a particular case in
a particular historical period -- before seeking to bomb women out of their
burkhas and into bikinis, supposedly in their best interests? Again associating
universal human rights with current fashions obscures issues regarding
norms of supposedly "civilized" societies
in decades past -- and the rights of societies to manage such controversial
issues independently of the whims of the fashion industry of particular
cultures that aggressively claim universality.
2. Widespread violations of human rights, terrorism and occupation
Unfortunately human rights are being extensively violated by certain powers,
especially by those who pretend to be their exclusive advocates:
- setting up
clandestine prisons, abductions, trials and secret punishments without any
regard to due process,
- listening on telephone conversations,
- opening private
letters and
- frequent summons to police and security centers
have become commonplace
and prevalent.
Comment: These phenomena are all well-documented
by international human rights organizations as well as those of developed
countries
[Furthermore:]
- They prosecute scientists and historians for stating their opinions
on important global issues.
- Comment: This assertion
surely merits the most careful consideration by the international community.
Given the problematic hyperdefensive attitude to whistleblowers, and
the degree of cover-up regarding issues endangering communities on
a smaller scale and humanity on a larger scale, is it the case that
human society is operating at a much higher level of risk than is widely
recognized? To what extent is the huge quantity of classified information
an indication of the probable dimensions of this misunderstanding?
This point (deliberately) disguises
the controversial questions raised regarding Iran's call for "further
research" on the Holocaust. Curiously those objecting to any further
research have not the slightest difficulty in accepting continuing research
on the historical evidence for the origins of their own faith. At what
point does "re-search" become a threat and why? If there is
nothing new to be discovered why object to allocation of resources to
the matter? Or is it the case that some matters are beyond question and
must necessarily be accepted as an article of faith for all time? This
would be curious given the quantity of research undertaken on the Holocaust
by documentalists to present its horrors in a new light -- in the movies
promoted by the so-called Holocaust
industry.
- They are using different alibis to occupy sovereign
nations and cause chaos and divisions, and then use the prevailing situation
as an excuse to continue their occupation.
- Comment: Again is it
not appropriate that more attention be given to the degree of subterfuge
and game-playing associated with the dynamics of the international
community? Given the credibility cultivated by frequent movie portrayals
of rogue government agency initiatives, and the documented and anecdotal
evidence of "false
flag" operations, should such assertions not be considered
with greater objectivity?
Striking examples are the emergence
of evidence regarding systems of illegal rendition, secret prisons, state-sanctioned
torture and covert electronic surveillance -- all with the complicity
of permanent members of the UN Security Council -- and as debated by
the European Parliament (but not by the United Nations). Who has the
authority to challenge evidence presented by supposedly trustworthy
authorities -- as was the case with presentations to the UN Security
Council, by a permanent member, "confirming"
the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
- For more than sixty years, Palestine,
as compensation of the loss they incurred in the war in Europe, has been
under occupation of the illegal Zionist regime.
- Their people have been displaced
or are under heavy military pressure, economic siege or are incarcerated
under abhorrent conditions. (an unquestionable fact?)
- The occupiers are protected and praised, while
innocent people of Palestine are subjected to political, military and
propaganda onslaughts. (an unquestionable fact?)
- The people of Palestine are deprived of water, electricity and
medicine for the sin of asking for freedom, and their government that
has come from the votes of the people is targeted. (an unquestionable
fact?)
- Terrorists are being organized
to attack the lives and property of people, under auspices of politicians
and military officials of the big powers. (a questionable fact?)
- The brutal Zionists carry out targeted
assassinations of Palestinians in their homes and cities, and terrorists
receive medals of peace and support from the big powers. (a questionable
fact?)
- On the other hand
they gather a number of deprived Jewish people with false propagation
under pretext of providing them with welfare, job and food from different
parts of the world and settle them in the occupied territories and exposed
them to harshest restrictions, psychological pressures and constant threat. (an
unquestionable fact?)
- They
prevent these deprived people to return to their main lands and by use
of force and false propagation make them show their hatred towards indigenous
Palestinian people. (a questionable fact?)
Comment: Sadly the international community
has discovered no means of debating such matters (preferably in the light
of "further research") other than through a continuing pattern
of simplistic binary assertion and denial -- appropriately matched by unending
cycles of violence through which bullets continue to be pumped into human
bodies.
Ironically
whereas technological innovation with respect to destructive weaponry proceeds
at great pace in support of such cycles, the capacity for innovative imaginative
thinking with respect to dialogue and strategic options to break out of such
cycles is virtually stagnant -- despite dubious claims to the contrary in
which the UN has long been complicit.
The above statement of course (deliberately) avoids reference to Iran's position
on the right of existence of the State of Israel. However it might be argued
that it is the total lack of investment in imaginative thinking regarding resolution
of this issue which should be the larger concern on the debating tables of
the international community. Why is the focus so narrow at a time when, for
example, arguments are urgently made for imaginative reflection on technical
solutions to the challenges of climate change? Where is the catalogue of possibilities,
speculative or otherwise, for creative exploration of the matter? How have
most options been designed off the negotiating tables? In whose interest?
Is this another case where "further research" is framed
as threatening to the status quo -- however many continue to suffer from
it for the benefit of others?
Iraq was occupied under the pretext of overthrow of a dictator and existence
of weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi dictator who had been supported by
the same occupiers was disposed of, and no weapons were discovered, but occupation
continues under different excuses. No day passes without people being killed,
wounded or displaced, and occupiers not only refuse to be accountable and ashamed,
but speak in a report of a new market for their armaments as the result of their
military venture. They even oppose the constitution, national assembly and the
government arising from the votes of the people, while do not even have the courage
to declare their defeat and exit Iraq.
Comment: Such points were emphatically
denied immediately after 9/11, and were even considered to be treasonous
on the part of those advancing them, although they are now a common feature
of political debate -- even within the USA.
How was the critical capacity of supposedly intelligent,
civilized peoples so successfully numbed in this way? Can the process be
repeated?
Unfortunately we are witnessing this bitter truth that some powers do not put
value on any nation or human beings, and the only things that matters to them
are themselves, their parties and groups. In their view, human rights are tantamount
to profits for their companies and friends. The rights and the good name of American
people are also being sacrificed for the selfish desires of those holding power.
Comment: These challenging points
merit careful discussion. It is of course to be expected that such points
would be made by the representative of a country under immediate threat
of a nuclear attack and disruption to its whole society. How might it be
appropriate to debate such issues to determine the degree or circumstances
of their validity, if any? It is of course appropriate to note that such
arguments have long been advanced as part of political discourse within
western societies. They have also been advanced within the United Nations
by developing countries, notably in support of those not yet independent
or subsequently exploited.
How have such dissenting views been so successfully repressed and in whose
interests? Why has the United Nations been complicit in this process?
3. Aggressions against indigenous cultures and national values
Culture is the expression of identity and the key to survival of nations and
the foundation for their interaction with others. In an organized movement, indigenous
cultures that are messengers of monotheism, love and fraternity are being subjected
to broad and destructive aggressions. National customs and values are humiliated
and self-esteem and character of nations are ridiculed and defamed.
Comment: These assertions are a dimension of the continuing
tragedy of global society. Again how might it
be appropriate to debate such issues to determine the degree or circumstances
of their validity? What actions might be possible or appropriate
to counter such tendencies? How might those actions be negatively framed
by their opponents -- under the guise of enlightened promotion of democracy
and freedom?
The statement introduces the primacy of monotheism without clarifying
its scope -- but with the implication that it is uniquely, if not solely,
characterized by the Abrahamic religions that have been so fundamental
to bloody conflict down the centuries -- all in the name of love, fraternity
and the fulfillment of divine will.
The statement unfortunately fails to address the extent to which the
customs and values of cultures imbued by non-Abrahamic faiths have been
humiliated, ridiculed and defamed by the agents of Abrahamic cultures.
It is however extremely interesting as an implied proposal to unite the
Abrahamic faiths in opposition to others framed as unbelievers in a particular
monotheistic worldview. It is also unfortunate that it does not envisage
that the integrative coherence of many such other faiths may be an understanding,
through a different "way of knowing", of what the statement assumes
is uniquely characteristic of monotheism. Why not envisage
the need for
"further research" to understand the coherence of any such other
view in response to the complexity of human experience and the mystery
of creation?
The purpose is to promote blind emulations, consumerism, skeptism toward God
and human values, and plundering of their wealth by big powers.
Comment: Again these assertions are not unusual, but
it is to be appreciated that they have been advanced for discussion in
the arena of the United Nations General Assembly by a nation that is already
under threat of attack and therefore is past the point of needing, like
its peers, to be more circumspect in order to curry favour with those big
powers. The degree of "straight-talking" in
the address is unusual for an intergovernmental arena. Why?
What kind of debate might be possible if such pressures
to conform to a dominant worldview were not so omnipresent?
4. Poverty, illiteracy, health deprivation and
gap between the poor and the rich
While a major part of the natural environment in Asia, Africa and Latin America
is being plundered by political and economic domination of certain powers.
Comment: These assertions have long been made with
supporting documentation by respected political constituencies -- even
in countries considered to be models of democracy.
The
situation of poverty and deprivation is very alarming. These are some of numbers
by the United Nations:
- Every day close to 800 million people go to bed hungry and about 980 million
suffer from absolute poverty, with less than one dollar a day in purchasing
power.
- People of 31 countries, equivalent to 9 percent of the world’s
population, have an average life expectancy equaling to 46 years, which is
32 years less than the average of some countries.
- Ratio between the rich and the poor in some parts of the world is 40
times.
- In some countries, majority of people are deprived of access to education
and schooling.
- In many developing countries the maternal mortality rate during pregnancy
is 450 per 100,000. This ratio is 7 in the richer nations and the ratio of
mortality of new births is 59 for developing countries and 6 for the richer
nations.
- One-third of mortality in the world, or 50,000 daily, results from poverty.
I believe these numbers clearly demonstrate the tragic situation prevailing over
the global economy.
Comment: Why does the international
community not focus more effectively on such concrete issues -- rather
than on supporting questionably justified military intervention generating
widespread social disruption, suffering and death?
To what extent would
have the level of resources allocated to military intervention by the Coalition
of the Willing achieved significant amelioration of the conditions described
above? Or,
given its token efforts to do so over decades, why does the international
community not assess the reasons for its failure to achieve significant
remedies in a situation which continues to deteriorate -- despite the dangerous
optimism of "hope-mongers"?
Typically the statement fails to recognize the extent to which these
problems, and the associated suffering and death, are primarily engendered
by the doctrines of the Abrahamic faiths -- in support of ever increasing
population. The possibility that fewer people would mean fewer
problems has been deliberately designed out of any debate by processes
in which the Abrahamic religions have been totally complicit.
5. Ignoring noble values and promotion of deception and lies.
Some powers sacrifice all human values including honesty, purity and trust for
the advancement of their goals. They propagate skepticism and deception in the
relations between states and peoples. They lie openly, level baseless charges
against others, act contrary to legal norms and damage the climate of trust and
friendship. They openly abandon morality and noble values in their relations
with others, and substitute selfishness, supremacy, enmity and imposition for
justice, respect for others, love, affection and honesty.
Comment: Again these challenging points
merit careful discussion. By what arguments are these accusations to be defended
and in what arena? Again it is of course to be expected that such points
would be made by the representative of a country under immediate threat of
a nuclear attack and disruption to its whole society. How might it be appropriate
to debate such issues to determine the degree or circumstances of their validity?
It is of course appropriate to note that such arguments have been advanced
as part of political discourse within western societies.
With respect to lying, how is it that those at the very highest level,
who have been proven to be liars on matters which have cost the lives of
many thousands, continue to be valued by faith-based communities that claim
to abhor lying and slaughter? How is that those rejected from leadership
of their countries for this reason are then appointed to positions of confidence
to mediate in complex situations which have suffered endlessly from lying
on all sides?
But there would also be those who would reframe the address by a leader
of Iran as an example of lying in its own right, irrespective of the merit
of some of the points made. The "People
of the Book" have all been warned
about the silver-tongued skills of oratory of those who would lead them
astray. In whom should they have faith? By what acts should they be
judged?
Is repeated engagement in the slaughter of others one such
criteria -- whilst claiming to abhor the necessity of it? But then
have the Abrahamic religions not distinguished themselves by their enthusiasm
for such slaughter down the centuries?
It would have been helpful had the speaker also made reference
to the tendency of everyone to lie to themselves -- deceiving themselves
in some measure regarding issues they have every right to believe are
fundamental.
They sacrifice all the good things of life and the sublime for their own greed.
Comment: It is curious that, at the time of the address
to the General Assembly, a recently-retired chairman of the board of governors
of the US Federal Reserve should confirm that the intervention in Iraq
was indeed "only about oil" -- as many had long argued.
6. Violations of rules of international law and disrespect of commitments
Some who were themselves the drafters of international law openly and easily
violate them and apply discriminatory policies and double standards.
Comment: Is there not a case for
the UN to document the existence of discriminatory policies and double
standards, if such is the case? Why has it failed to do so?
They drafted
disarmament regulations, but every day test and stockpile new generations of
lethal weapons.
Comment: This is undisputed. But
curiously the information seldom figures in international debate -- nor
the manner in which the hypocrisy is justified.
They framed the Charter of the United Nations, but show disrespect
to the right of self-determination and independence of sovereign nations. They
conveniently abrogate their formal treaties, and do not yield to laws concerning
protection of environment. Most of the violations of international obligations
are done by few global powers.
Comment:
Subsequent to the
address, why were such assertions not the subject of immediate media coverage?
Is it that they are so ridiculous? Or is it that their degree of truth is such
that widespread cover-up was encouraged by those with capacity to influence
media coverage -- even amongst the quality newspapers? More surprising,
but perhaps predictable and indicative, was the extent to which the speaker
was framed by commentators as mentally deranged.
Again it
is the case that arguments in support of such points have been well-developed
by respected and well-informed authorities.
7. Escalation of threats and arms race
Some powers, whenever their logic fails, simply use the language of threat.
Comment: This assertion is surely
worthy of careful debate, whether or not it is true. However, if it is
true in the case of individuals and of smaller groups, why should it not
be true in the case of countries, cultures and civilizations? Whilst the
language of threat is evident, how does failure of logic manifest? As fear
of engaging in dialogue? Is this an early indicator of cultural
collapse?
The
heavy arms race cast the shadow of threat over the globe. The nations of Europe
were the victims of two world wars and a number of other devastating conflicts
and were subjected to the consequences of the Cold War for many decades. Today
Europeans are living under the shadow of threat, and their interests, security
and lands are endangered under shadow of the arms race imposed by certain big
powers.
A bullying power allows itself the right to set up a missile system, makes the
life of the peoples of a continent bitter and lays the ground for arms race.
Comment: This is surely fair comment. It
has been made by countries within the region.
Some rulers who superficially appear to be powerful act as a child that has acquired
a plastic water gun and feels powerful power and starts shooting impatiently
at all things and at all times, threaten others and cast the shadow of insecurity
over nations and regions.
Comment: The larger issue raised by this
assertion is the real nature of power and why it is so readily associated
with more and more sophisticated weaponry -- when history is marked by a
long succession of collapsing cultures and civilizations distinguished by
such overriding power.
The issue is made especially curious when
such forms of power are championed by those in faith-based cultures who are
supposedly convinced of their belief in a higher power. There is a certain
irony to the implication that the strength of their belief in this higher
power is thereby demonstrated to be inversely proportional to their apparent
dependence on physical power -- in marked contrast to the beliefs of early
Christian martyrs. Or is this dependence to be considered their real measure
of the real weakness of the higher power that they so readily claim to be "almighty"?
8. Inefficacy of international mechanism to prevail over
these challenges and to bring durable peace and security.
International organizations and mechanisms clearly lack the capacity to overcome
problems and challenges, to put in place fair and just relations and peace, fraternity
and security. There is hardly any government or nation that places much hope
on | 
