Politics and Hypocrisy (2)
Ali Asghar Kazemi
December2007
_____________________________________
In our previous commentary on this subject we argued that the marriage of religion and politics in pursuit of power gives birth to hypocrisy. Simple explanation for this phenomenon is that complex problems and functions of society can not be carried by supra-natural order as interpreted by ideology.
Common sense dictate that political leaders should be truthful to people whom they need their support for reelection. To that end, they have moral responsibility to rely on reason and logic in political process for the fulfillment of people objectives. This requires science, technical know-how, material and moral capital. Naturally, religion can not supplant these requisites since they are not accessible through mere pretension and ideological rhetoric. In this respect our political leaders are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
On the other hand, with respect to religious role as the Indian philosopher Radhakrishnan once said: “It is the function of religion to turn the world upside down, to make revolutionary demands. If religious men take interests in secular problems, they are convicted of a gross betrayal of religion.”
Political power has an implied connotation of coercive influence, whereas spiritual and religious power relates to persuasive influence. Religion exerts influence over human behavior. But a great deal of religious or spiritual power that we observe in political life is carried under the auspices of nominally religious persons, groups or institutions, may well be a kind of secular power which is hiding behind religious symbols or garb.
On the assumption that power is not an end in itself, how then the two spheres, competing for influencing man in his material and spiritual world can come to an agreement? If man were driven by an insatiable greed for power, as Thomas Hobbes asserts in Leviathan, and Machiavelli had suggested earlier in The Prince, then the world would experience an endless war, and every one would live in permanent fear and frustration. But, presumably the ethical and religious dimension of the” political man” tend to restrain human being from behaving by mere material obsession and desires.
Prophets have come to world in order to show man the right path to truth and salvation. But, few of them however, have been successful. Machiavelli observed that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed prophets have failed. Realistically, power can be thought of as “the instrument by which all other values are obtained.” Since many people consider power as a value in itself, it is safe to say that power functions both as means and ends. Thus, men can share power over nature, but power over human mind is something for which men must compete.
If we perceive the religious sector and the political sector as two actors engaged in competition in some sort of “zero-sum-game,” whatever one side gains equals the losses of the other side. This is more or less the Machiavellian view of power that once said “the Prince who advances another prince’s power, diminish his own.” This is a non-cooperative game as opposed to cooperative game in which the two parties may in fact gain in their interaction, provided they start up with such intention. This makes the difference between an authoritarian dictatorship and democratic political system.
When a spiritual leader sets out to compete with the temporal sector in gaining political power, the case immediately represents as a zero-sum-game, leading to non-cooperative and antagonistic behavior. The problem therefore is whether it is possible to discover elements and situations in which the religious and political sphere can play a game that eliminates antagonism, conflict and hostility, and enhances cooperation, construction and compassion.
Secularist ideal claim that the only way to strike a balance and to reach a mutually constructive solution is to delimit the domain within which each sector can maneuver in order to direct human being toward the path of material welfare as well as spiritual salvation. The two sectors shall then cooperate in using their persuasive and coercive influence for common objectives of people. But in practice the matter is not so much clear and history of mankind has proven that it has never been possible to strike the desired balance.
The hundred year’s war of fifteenth century resulted continuous conflicts over the distribution of power between religious and temporal sectors, church and the state or popes and the kings. In the seventeenth century the same issues provoked the thirty years war. The resurgence of secularism replaced the medieval theocratic paradigm and ushered the age of enlightenment.
The secular consideration of power began its reappearance with Machiavelli’s doctrine of pragmatism in political theory. The basis of this doctrine was to answer the question of what needs to be done by a ruler to remain in power. That is to say that the necessity of political life often required the breaking of moral low. Machiavelli’s princes, unlike Plato’s philosopher-kings, ruled because they were shrewd in manipulating power. Thus, power became devoid of virtue. For Machiavelli, good and evil were traits of all human being and a successful ruler had to be “part lion and part fox.”
Bertrand Russell wrote that faith, ideology and religion as a whole are undisputed elements in forming the power of a state. Indeed ideas influence the development and use of command over power and violence. In cases were nations are not fully developed from a political-democratic standpoint and party politics as well as other social institutions lack the necessary appeal to unite people in the pursuit of their objectives , religion can fill the gaps. Translated into ideology when put into motion, religion may assume a determinant role in a society, provided it is properly used. It can also weaken a state, and deteriorate its internal and external relations if its potential power is not directed toward constructive path and is used in the pursuit of evil objectives.
We shall continue this discussion in our future commentaries.
Footnotes have been deleted for simplicity.Interested readers can consult Scholar e-Journal for references.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Politique et Hypocrisie
Politique et Hypocrisie
Ali Asghar Kazemi
Le 20 décembre 2007
________________________________________________________
La politique par la nature est une entreprise maudisse pour le mettre dans un terme poli. Il y’a des gens qui préféreraient l'étiqueter comme des truques ignobles pour manipuler le public. Machiavel était le premier d’admettre sans honte que la politique et l'éthique sont deux domaines distincts à ne pas être confus. Beaucoup de penseurs et les philosophes ont averti contre lier cet animal avec la corde d'éthique.
Les politiciens laïques dans l'Ouest et ailleurs dans le monde n’ont pas d’objections pour concourir ouvertement avec l'approche machiavélique à la politique. Notre problème est ici avec les dirigeants politiques amateur et prétentieux que sous le déguisement des préceptes religieux se met à manipuler la vérité dans la poursuite de pouvoir.
Afin de mettre ceci dans un contexte plus clair on peut dire que, la gouvernance est vraisemblablement construite sur les prémisses logiques et fonctionne d’une manière rationnelle. D’autre part, la religion est basée sur les principes de foi sans la raison. Quand le gouvernement représentant les institutions politiques et la religion représentant le système de valeur de convictions se conjugue ensemble dans la poursuite du pouvoir, un conflit inévitable surgit, à moins qu’ils se cachent derrière le rideau d'hypocrisie.
Par cette introduction je me permets d’arguer que les politiciens qui font semblant d'agir et comporter autrement en dissimulant leurs visages derrière les moeurs ou l'éthique religieuses sont soit insensés ou hypocrites. Parce que la politique n’a essentiellement rien à faire avec la moralité et sa fonction principale est en effet la poursuite du pouvoir.
Descendons maintenant sur la terre pour voir comment cet argument tient dans le vrai monde. Nous n'avons pas à aller trop loin pour chercher des exemples dans les sociétés éloignées n’ayant rien à faire avec notre vie quotidienne. Si nous observons autour de nous, nos propres politiciens qui voudraient être considéré comme hommes de Dieu et symboles de foi et l'éthique, nous les trouvons des hypocrites enragés sans honte. Ils agissent ni par la raison ni par les principes moraux mais simplement par leur instinct brut.
Sous la guise de volonté sublime de Dieu, le salut humain, l'indépendance nationale, la justice, le bien-être et la souveraineté du peuple, leur but final est la survie et le pouvoir avec tous ses attributs. L'élément essentiel pour eux est le résultat des boîtes de scrutins qui les permettent à rester dans le pouvoir à tout prix. A cette fin, toute chose est acceptable pour dissimuler la vérité, couvrir des faits et même manipuler les boîtes de bulletins de votes.
Sur la scène internationale, ils font semblable d’être hardis et vigoureux, mais ils sont simplement des individus médiocres et irresponsables qui risquent la vie d'une nation pour leur vision immature et sotte. Pour eux n'importe quoi est admissible s'il promeut la cause et les objectifs qu'ils croient être bons pour leur poigne de pouvoir.
Malheureusement, nos politiciens, droite, gauche ou au milieu, sont simplement des disciples incultes de Machiavel dont les seuls attributs dans le domaine politique sont des mensonges, la démagogie et la tromperie. Ils ont tous les vices de politiciens séculiers qu'ils dénoncent mais aucun de leurs vertus.
Nous continuerons cette discussion dans notre prochain commentaire.
La Crise nucléaire n'est pas terminée
Ali Asghar Kazemi
Le 6 décembre, 2007
_______________________________________________________
Malgré le rapport récent de l'Office d’Estimation d'Intelligence Nationale américaine (NIE ) en ce qui concerne la nature paisible d'activités nucléaires d'Iran, comme nous verrons ici, la crise n’est pas encore terminée pour de bon. La débat concerne deux point de vues différentes reflètes de perspectives militaire et politique.
Dans l'analyse politique, nous examinons d'habitude la perception et l'intention d'adversaires et l'environnement dans lequel certaine stratégie pourraient être exécuté avec le coût et l'avantage impliqués dans les divers scénarios. Dans la stratégie militaire cependant, nous supposons que si notre adversaire a une capacité (véritable ou potentiel), il l'utilisera contre nous et donc nous devons neutraliser cette capacité ou être préparé à son encontre.
Peut-être dans le parlant ordinaire les deux points de vues mèneraient à la même conclusion. Mais, ceci est une impression fausse au moins dans la planification stratégique militaire. C'est à dire, pendant que dans la politique nous prenons des risques dans nos décisions et nos actions vers l'adversaire par délicatesse et tact, dans le militaire nous ne sommes pas permis d’être surpris en nous engageant des affaires de calcul de risque et d'autres exercices académiques.
Maintenant ceci est dit, examinons premièrement les évaluations clés du NIE a propos de l'entreprise nucléaire d'Iran. Le sommaire déclassifié du rapport, qui met ensemble l'information de 16 agences d'intelligence américaines, dit avec « haute confiance » que l’Iran a arrêté ses programmes d’armes nucléaires en 2003 « en réponse à la pression internationale ». L'évaluation dit aussi avec « confiance modère» que le programme n'a pas été remis en marche. Cependant, le rapport réclame que l’Iran gardait ses options ouvertes sur les armes nucléaires en voie de développement.Un conseiller supérieur au Président Bush pendant que considérant le rapport comme « positif » a cru que le risque d'un Iran nucléaire reste « sérieux ».
Dans la même ligne, le Conseiller de Sécurité Nationale des Etats-Unis, Stephen Hadley, a dit que les conclusions du rapport ont confirmé que les Etats-Unis avaient « raison d’être inquiétés » des ambitions nucléaires d'Iran et Président George W. Bush a eu « la bonne stratégie ». Cette déclaration transmet clairement le message que la Maison Blanche n’est nullement préparée à laisser l’Iran de continuer son programme nucléaire.
Dans les mots du Président des Etats-Unis, le rapport de NIE était un «signal avertissant » et sa vue qu'un Iran nucléaire serait un danger « n'a pas changée ». Bush a accentué qu'Iran essayait toujours d'enrichir l'uranium et pourrait remettre en marche son programme d'armes nucléaires. Dans sa vue le rapport était « une occasion pour la communauté internationale » de faire pression sur le régime iranien pour suspendre ses efforts pour enrichir l'uranium. Puisque, dans son jugement « ils ont eu le programme, ils le sont arrêté et ils pourraient le remettre en marche ».
Dans les mots du Président des Etats-Unis, le rapport de NIE était un «signal avertissant » et sa vue qu'un Iran nucléaire serait un danger « n'a pas changée ». Bush a accentué qu'Iran essayait toujours d'enrichir l'uranium et pourrait remettre en marche son programme d'armes nucléaires. Dans sa vue le rapport était « une occasion pour la communauté internationale » de faire pression sur le régime iranien pour suspendre ses efforts pour enrichir l'uranium. Puisque, dans son jugement « ils ont eu le programme, ils le sont arrêté et ils pourraient le remettre en marche ».
Malgré le fait que M. Bush n'est pas un homme militaire, il semble que ses vues reflètent clairement l’avis militariste des Néo-Cons à Washington. Les analystes disent que le dernier rapport d'intelligence le fera plus dur pour les partisans d'action militaire contre Iran à disputer leur cas. Cependant, M. Bush a dit que l'action militaire était toujours une possibilité, « La meilleure diplomatie - la diplomatie efficace - est celle dans laquelle toutes options sont sur la table ». A son avis, l’Iran reste une menace au monde malgré la nouvelle intelligence disant que le pays ne peut pas construire d'armes nucléaires.
Regardons maintenant le cas d'un point de vue légal. Malgré tout développement récent qui pourrait être considéré une bonne nouvelle si pas une victoire nationale pour Iran, la question de la résolution du Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU ne reste toujours pas résolue. Ceci signifie que l’Iran est en violation de ses obligations pour abstenir d'obéir la demande du Conseil sans regard de la justification légale ou les circonstances politiques qui ont amené le dossier nucléaire au Conseil de Sécurité. Etant donné que le Conseil de Sécurité a agi sous Chapitre VII de la Charte et ses demandes sont obligatoires à tous membres d'ONU, le défi d'Iran pourrait créer le problème sérieux de crédibilité pour cet organe de sécurité internationale.
Néanmoins malgré certaines différences entre les membres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité sur le problème nucléaire d'Iran, il semble y avoir peu de dispute parmi eux en ce qui concerne la crédibilité de cet organe mondial majeur. Donc, la question de sanctions reste actif parce qu'Iran défie toujours la demande du Conseil de Sécurité pour suspendre son enrichissement d'uranium. Donc dans toute possibilité, le débat parmi les membres du Conseil de Sécurité atteindra le point décisif dans les semaines prochaines.
Ainsi, les Etats-Unis, France et le Royaume-Uni ont exhorté de beaucoup de mesures économiques plus dures, y compris le boycottage de pétrole d'Iran et d'industrie de gaz qui reste la source principale de son revenu. Mais peut-être la Russie et la Chine ne sont pas prêt d’aller aussi loin et pourraient créer obstacle à l'arrangement. Ces dernier peuvent durcir même leur position à la lumière du rapport de NIE en faveur relative d'Iran. Les spécialistes croient que si le Conseil de Sécurité n'atteint pas un accord, France et Grande-Bretagne agiront finalement par l'UE pour suivre les Etats-Unis dans les mesures unilatérales contre Iran.
Ce développement et les faits entiers mènent à la conclusion que la crise nucléaire d'Iran n’est point terminée pour de bon, comme quelques hauts dirigeants à Téhéran le souhaitaient. En d'autres termes, malgré le rapport prématuré du NIE de l'intention bénigne du projet nucléaire du régime Islamique, si l’Iran continue à ignorer la résolution du Conseil de Sécurité sur l'enrichissement nucléaire, nous devons attendre une escalade de crise dans les jours à venir./
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Politics and Hypocrisy
Politics and Hypocrisy
Ali Asghar Kazemi
December 2007
___________________________________________________________
Politics by nature is an untidy business to put it in a polite term. Some would prefer to label it as dirty tricks for manipulating people. Machiavelli was the first to admit with no shame that politics and ethics are two different realms not to be confounded. Many thinkers and philosophers warned against tying this animal with the rope of ethics.
Secular politicians in the West and elsewhere in the world don’t mind to openly concur with Machiavellian approach to politics. Our problem here is with pretentious amateur political leaders whom under the guise of religious precepts set out to manipulate facts in pursuit of power.
To put this in other term, governance is presumably built upon logical premises and function on rational process. Religion on the other hand, is based upon the principles of faith without reason. When government representing the political institutions and religion representing the value system of beliefs come together in pursuit of power, an inevitable clash occurs, unless they hide behind the curtain of hypocrisy.
By this introduction I venture to argue that politicians who pretend to act and behave otherwise by concealing their faces behind religious mores or ethics are either fouls or hypocrites. Because politics essentially has nothing to do with morality and its main function is indeed pursuit of power.
Now let’s descend on the earth and see how the argument works in real world. We don’t have to go too far and look for examples in remote societies having nothing to do with our daily life. If we observe around us our own politicians who like to be considered men of God and symbols of faith and ethics, we find them rabid hypocrites without shame. They act neither by reason nor by moral principles but merely by their brute instinct.
Under the guise of sublime will of God, human salvation, national independence, justice, welfare and people’s sovereignty, their primordial goal is survival and power with all its attributes. Essential for them is the result of the ballot boxes which allow them to remain in power at all costs. To that end, it is permissible to conceal the truth, cover up facts and even manipulate ballot boxes.
In international scene they act as if they were bold and hardy, but they are merely cowardly mediocre persons who risk the life of a nation for their immature and foolish vision. To them anything is allowable if it promotes the cause and objectives they believe to be good for their grip of power.
Our politicians, whether right, left or in the middle, are simply uneducated disciples of Machiavelli whose only attributes in political realm are lie, demagoguery and deception. They have all the vices of secular politicians whom they denounce but none of their virtues.
We shall continue this discussion in our future commentaries./
Ali Asghar Kazemi
December 2007
___________________________________________________________
Politics by nature is an untidy business to put it in a polite term. Some would prefer to label it as dirty tricks for manipulating people. Machiavelli was the first to admit with no shame that politics and ethics are two different realms not to be confounded. Many thinkers and philosophers warned against tying this animal with the rope of ethics.
Secular politicians in the West and elsewhere in the world don’t mind to openly concur with Machiavellian approach to politics. Our problem here is with pretentious amateur political leaders whom under the guise of religious precepts set out to manipulate facts in pursuit of power.
To put this in other term, governance is presumably built upon logical premises and function on rational process. Religion on the other hand, is based upon the principles of faith without reason. When government representing the political institutions and religion representing the value system of beliefs come together in pursuit of power, an inevitable clash occurs, unless they hide behind the curtain of hypocrisy.
By this introduction I venture to argue that politicians who pretend to act and behave otherwise by concealing their faces behind religious mores or ethics are either fouls or hypocrites. Because politics essentially has nothing to do with morality and its main function is indeed pursuit of power.
Now let’s descend on the earth and see how the argument works in real world. We don’t have to go too far and look for examples in remote societies having nothing to do with our daily life. If we observe around us our own politicians who like to be considered men of God and symbols of faith and ethics, we find them rabid hypocrites without shame. They act neither by reason nor by moral principles but merely by their brute instinct.
Under the guise of sublime will of God, human salvation, national independence, justice, welfare and people’s sovereignty, their primordial goal is survival and power with all its attributes. Essential for them is the result of the ballot boxes which allow them to remain in power at all costs. To that end, it is permissible to conceal the truth, cover up facts and even manipulate ballot boxes.
In international scene they act as if they were bold and hardy, but they are merely cowardly mediocre persons who risk the life of a nation for their immature and foolish vision. To them anything is allowable if it promotes the cause and objectives they believe to be good for their grip of power.
Our politicians, whether right, left or in the middle, are simply uneducated disciples of Machiavelli whose only attributes in political realm are lie, demagoguery and deception. They have all the vices of secular politicians whom they denounce but none of their virtues.
We shall continue this discussion in our future commentaries./
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Nuclear Crisis is not over
Iran’s Nuclear Crisis is not over!
Ali Asghar Kazemi
December 6, 2007
_________________________________________________________________________
Despite recent report of the American National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, as we shall see here, the crisis is far from being over. The contention entails two different views projected from the military and political perspectives.
In political analysis, we usually examine the perception and intention of adversaries and the environment in which certain strategy may be carried out along with the cost and benefit involved in various scenarios. In military planning however, we assume that if our opponent has a capability (actual or potential), it will use it against us and therefore we should neutralize this capacity or be prepared for it.
Perhaps in ordinary speaking the two views would lead to the same conclusion. But, this is a false impression at least in military strategic planning. That is to say, while in politics we take risks in our decisions and actions towards the opponent through brinksmanship and tact, in military we are not allowed to run into the business of risk calculation and other academic exercises.
Ali Asghar Kazemi
December 6, 2007
_________________________________________________________________________
Despite recent report of the American National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, as we shall see here, the crisis is far from being over. The contention entails two different views projected from the military and political perspectives.
In political analysis, we usually examine the perception and intention of adversaries and the environment in which certain strategy may be carried out along with the cost and benefit involved in various scenarios. In military planning however, we assume that if our opponent has a capability (actual or potential), it will use it against us and therefore we should neutralize this capacity or be prepared for it.
Perhaps in ordinary speaking the two views would lead to the same conclusion. But, this is a false impression at least in military strategic planning. That is to say, while in politics we take risks in our decisions and actions towards the opponent through brinksmanship and tact, in military we are not allowed to run into the business of risk calculation and other academic exercises.
Now this being said, let us examine first the key assessments of the NIE about Iran’s nuclear undertaking. The declassified summary of the report, which draws together information from 16 American intelligence agencies, says with "high confidence" that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 "in response to international pressure". The assessment also says with "moderate confidence" that the program has not restarted. However, the report claims that Iran was keeping its options open on developing nuclear weapons.
A senior advisor to President Bush while considering the report as "positive" believed that the risk of a nuclear Iran remained "serious". In the same line, US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said the report's findings confirmed the US was "right to be worried" about Iran's nuclear ambitions and that President George W. Bush had "the right strategy". This statement clearly conveys the message that the White House is in no way prepared to back down its earlier position on Iran.
In the words of US President, the NIE report was a "warning signal" and his view that a nuclear Iran would be a danger "hasn't changed". Bush stressed that Iran was still trying to enrich uranium and could restart its weapons program. In his view the report was "an opportunity for us to rally the international community" to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium. Since, in his judgment “they had the program, they halted it and they could restart it.”
Despite the fact that Mr. Bush is not a military man, it seems that his views clearly reflect that of military minded Neo-Cons in Washington. Analysts say the latest intelligence report will make it harder for proponents of military action against Iran to argue their case. However, when asked if military action was a possibility, Mr. Bush said: "The best diplomacy - effective diplomacy - is one in which all options are on the table." In his view, Iran remains a threat to the world despite new intelligence saying the country may not be building nuclear weapons.
Now let’s look to the case from a legal point of view. Despite all recent development that might be considered good news if not a national victory for Iran, the question of UN Security Council resolutions still remain unresolved. This means that disregard of the legal ground and political circumstances which brought Iran’s nuclear case to the Security Council, so far the Islamic regime has abstained from obeying the Council demand for cessation of nuclear enrichment. Given that the Security Council has acted under Chapter VII of the Charter and its demands are mandatory to all UN members, Iran’s defiance could create serious problem of credibility for this important world organization.
Notwithstanding certain cleavage between permanent members of the Security Council on Iran’s nuclear Issue, there seems to be little difference among them as regards to the credibility of this major world body. Therefore, the question of sanctions remains an active one because Iran is still defying the UN Security Council over its enrichment of uranium. So in all possibility, the debate among Security Council members will be reaching decisive point in the coming weeks.
Thus far the United States, France and the UK have urged much tougher economic measures, including boycotts of Iran's oil and gas industry which remain the main source of its income. But Russian and Chinese reluctance to go that far may be an obstacle to the scheme. These latter may even harden their position in the light of NIE report in relative favor of Iran. Specialists believe that if the Security Council fails to reach a consensus, France and Britain will eventually act through the EU to follow the US in taking unilateral measures against Iran.
This whole development and facts lead to the conclusion that Iran’s nuclear crisis is far from being over for good, as some high officials in Tehran wished that way. In other words, despite the untimely report of the NIE about the benign intention of the Islamic regime’s nuclear project, if Iran continues to disregard the Security Council resolution on nuclear enrichment, we should expect a crisis escalation in the days to come./
US Sanctions against Academics
US Sanctions against Academics!
________________________________________________________________________________
Last week I received several complaints from my Ph.D. students about the shutting down of my “Homestead” academic site which has been running more than a decade. The space for this Site was originally offered to alumni of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Tufts University by American based Homestead Company free of charge. The site was designed for graduate students enabling them to have access to academic resources, documents and materials required for their reading and research. It contained references to most of my books, monographs, papers and articles which proved to be useful to interested graduate students.
Upon checking the site, I found that it was in fact closed. First I suspected that the matter was due to censorship which is an ordinary occurrence here. But, it did not take long to realize that the issue was related to the United States sanctions against the Islamic regime in Iran.
Regretfully, as can be seen here, contrary to all US claims that American sanctions against Iran in no way affect academic centers and intellectual activities, the letter of apology from the “Homestead” below bears good witness to the contrary. *
If Homestead is just complying with US regulations and eventually other companies like Microsoft, Hotmail, Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc. follow the suit, this will cause extensive damage to ordinary people as well as academics in Iran.
Furthermore, this restriction will only benefit those hardliners who always wanted to limit access to the internet through filtering and other obstructive techniques.
This proves that the United States administration is not really honest in its various declarations and claims about the nature and direction of sanctions against Iran. Since, in effect, such sanctions benefit the incumbent regime in power to further isolate people from the international community.
As a professor Law and International Relations who has always maintained good relations with American colleagues, I strongly protest against this unfortunate action of US administration and sincerely expect the immediate termination of the sanction against Iranian academics and intellectuals./
A. A. Kazemi
December 4, 2007
* Homestead letter:
“ We're sorry, but your service is being cancelled
As a company based in the United States, Homestead Technologies is subject to the export control laws and regulations of the United States, particularly the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), and sanctions rules of the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Controls.
As part of Homestead's continued compliance with these laws and regulations, Homestead will no longer be able to offer services in the following countries: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, or to any resident or national of any of those countries, or to any person or entity listed on the "Entity List" or "Denied Persons List" maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce, or the list of "Specifically Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons" maintained by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
We're very sorry, but because your account is originating from one of the countries listed above, Homestead can no longer continue your service. We had no choice but to terminate service to your account as of today, November 29, 2007.
We do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you, and want to help you in any way we can. If you need any help, please contact our Compliance Team by sending an email to compliance@homesteadsupport.com.”
________________________________________________________________________________
Last week I received several complaints from my Ph.D. students about the shutting down of my “Homestead” academic site which has been running more than a decade. The space for this Site was originally offered to alumni of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Tufts University by American based Homestead Company free of charge. The site was designed for graduate students enabling them to have access to academic resources, documents and materials required for their reading and research. It contained references to most of my books, monographs, papers and articles which proved to be useful to interested graduate students.
Upon checking the site, I found that it was in fact closed. First I suspected that the matter was due to censorship which is an ordinary occurrence here. But, it did not take long to realize that the issue was related to the United States sanctions against the Islamic regime in Iran.
Regretfully, as can be seen here, contrary to all US claims that American sanctions against Iran in no way affect academic centers and intellectual activities, the letter of apology from the “Homestead” below bears good witness to the contrary. *
If Homestead is just complying with US regulations and eventually other companies like Microsoft, Hotmail, Google, Yahoo, AOL, etc. follow the suit, this will cause extensive damage to ordinary people as well as academics in Iran.
Furthermore, this restriction will only benefit those hardliners who always wanted to limit access to the internet through filtering and other obstructive techniques.
This proves that the United States administration is not really honest in its various declarations and claims about the nature and direction of sanctions against Iran. Since, in effect, such sanctions benefit the incumbent regime in power to further isolate people from the international community.
As a professor Law and International Relations who has always maintained good relations with American colleagues, I strongly protest against this unfortunate action of US administration and sincerely expect the immediate termination of the sanction against Iranian academics and intellectuals./
A. A. Kazemi
December 4, 2007
* Homestead letter:
“ We're sorry, but your service is being cancelled
As a company based in the United States, Homestead Technologies is subject to the export control laws and regulations of the United States, particularly the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), and sanctions rules of the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Controls.
As part of Homestead's continued compliance with these laws and regulations, Homestead will no longer be able to offer services in the following countries: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, or to any resident or national of any of those countries, or to any person or entity listed on the "Entity List" or "Denied Persons List" maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce, or the list of "Specifically Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons" maintained by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
We're very sorry, but because your account is originating from one of the countries listed above, Homestead can no longer continue your service. We had no choice but to terminate service to your account as of today, November 29, 2007.
We do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you, and want to help you in any way we can. If you need any help, please contact our Compliance Team by sending an email to compliance@homesteadsupport.com.”
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Espoir pour la Paix de Moyen-orient
Espoir pour la Paix de Moyen-orient
Ali Asghar Kazemi
Le 29 novembre, 2006
________________________________________________________________
Ceux qui ont condamné l'initiative Américain pour la nouvelle conférence de paix de Moyen-orient connue comme « le Sommet d'Annapolis » et ont lancé une campagne acharnée pour l’avorter, ne peut pas être considéré bienveillants pour la cause palestinienne. La raison simple pour cet argument est que dans la politique vous ne devez jamais renoncer l'espoir pour atteindre votre objectif. Puisque, il a été toujours dit que la politique est l'art d'impossible.
Pour mentionner seulement quelques exemples, il y a peu de temps, qui imaginerait la chute du Mur de Berlin, la fin de la Guerre Froide et l'effondrement de l'Empire Soviétique ? La vérité que multiple tentation de régler des problèmes profonds dans l’issue palestinienne ont échoué, ne doit pas entraver notre perception d'une paix juste et durable dans le conflit.
Le fait que l'initiative vient des Etats-Unis, comme un patron self-proclamé des affaires du monde, ne change n'importe quoi de la raison ni de la substance de l'entreprise. Si quelques pays ne se sentent pas a l’aise avec cette tentative à cause de leurs propres querelles avec les Etats-Unis, ceci ne donne pas certainement la raison pour leur attitude négative vers le processus de paix de Moyen-orient, à moins qu'ils aient d'autres intentions dans le dos de leurs esprits.
Il n'y a pas de besoin ici d'entrer dans le détail de cet argument ni est-il sage de préciser mal-veilleurs qui pour le bien de leurs propres objectifs malin investit sur l'obstruction de l'entreprise.
La Paix de Moyen-orient n'est pas un but lointain si les partis engagés directement dans le conflit, y compris les états et les factions politiques d’une part et tous les étrangers qui font semblant d'être plus catholique que le Pape, mais cherchent à régler leurs propres problèmes, cessent de poursuivre leurs intérêts égoïstes dans l'arène palestinienne. /
Ali Asghar Kazemi
Le 29 novembre, 2006
________________________________________________________________
Ceux qui ont condamné l'initiative Américain pour la nouvelle conférence de paix de Moyen-orient connue comme « le Sommet d'Annapolis » et ont lancé une campagne acharnée pour l’avorter, ne peut pas être considéré bienveillants pour la cause palestinienne. La raison simple pour cet argument est que dans la politique vous ne devez jamais renoncer l'espoir pour atteindre votre objectif. Puisque, il a été toujours dit que la politique est l'art d'impossible.
Pour mentionner seulement quelques exemples, il y a peu de temps, qui imaginerait la chute du Mur de Berlin, la fin de la Guerre Froide et l'effondrement de l'Empire Soviétique ? La vérité que multiple tentation de régler des problèmes profonds dans l’issue palestinienne ont échoué, ne doit pas entraver notre perception d'une paix juste et durable dans le conflit.
Le fait que l'initiative vient des Etats-Unis, comme un patron self-proclamé des affaires du monde, ne change n'importe quoi de la raison ni de la substance de l'entreprise. Si quelques pays ne se sentent pas a l’aise avec cette tentative à cause de leurs propres querelles avec les Etats-Unis, ceci ne donne pas certainement la raison pour leur attitude négative vers le processus de paix de Moyen-orient, à moins qu'ils aient d'autres intentions dans le dos de leurs esprits.
Il n'y a pas de besoin ici d'entrer dans le détail de cet argument ni est-il sage de préciser mal-veilleurs qui pour le bien de leurs propres objectifs malin investit sur l'obstruction de l'entreprise.
La Paix de Moyen-orient n'est pas un but lointain si les partis engagés directement dans le conflit, y compris les états et les factions politiques d’une part et tous les étrangers qui font semblant d'être plus catholique que le Pape, mais cherchent à régler leurs propres problèmes, cessent de poursuivre leurs intérêts égoïstes dans l'arène palestinienne. /
Friday, November 30, 2007
Hope for Middle East Peace
Hope for Middle East Peace
Ali Asghar Kazemi
November 29, 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
Those who have condemned American sponsored new Middle East peace conference known as “Annapolis Summit” and launched pervasive campaign to abort the initiative, can not be considered as well-wisher for the Palestinian cause. Simple reason for this contention is that in politics you should never give up hope to reach your objective. Since, it has always been said that politics is the art of impossible.
To mention but a few examples, not long ago, who would imagine the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Empire? The truth that so far multiple attempts to settle deep-rooted problems in the Palestinian issue have failed, should not hampered our perception of a just and lasting peace in the conflict.
The fact that the initiative comes from the United States, as a self-proclaimed patron of world affairs, neither change anything from the justification nor from the substance of the venture. If some countries do not feel easy with this undertaking because of their own deep-rooted quarrels with US, this certainly does not give reason for their negative attitude towards the Middle East pace process, unless they have other intentions in the back of their minds. There is no need here to go into the detail of this argument nor is it wise to pinpoint ill-wishers who for the sake of their own wicked objectives invest on the obstruction of the undertaking.
Middle East Peace is not a far-fetched goal if parties directly involved in the conflict, including states and political factions on the one hand and all outsiders pretending to be more Catholic than the Pope, but seeking to settle their own problems, cease to pursue their selfish interests in the Palestinian arena./
Ali Asghar Kazemi
November 29, 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
Those who have condemned American sponsored new Middle East peace conference known as “Annapolis Summit” and launched pervasive campaign to abort the initiative, can not be considered as well-wisher for the Palestinian cause. Simple reason for this contention is that in politics you should never give up hope to reach your objective. Since, it has always been said that politics is the art of impossible.
To mention but a few examples, not long ago, who would imagine the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Empire? The truth that so far multiple attempts to settle deep-rooted problems in the Palestinian issue have failed, should not hampered our perception of a just and lasting peace in the conflict.
The fact that the initiative comes from the United States, as a self-proclaimed patron of world affairs, neither change anything from the justification nor from the substance of the venture. If some countries do not feel easy with this undertaking because of their own deep-rooted quarrels with US, this certainly does not give reason for their negative attitude towards the Middle East pace process, unless they have other intentions in the back of their minds. There is no need here to go into the detail of this argument nor is it wise to pinpoint ill-wishers who for the sake of their own wicked objectives invest on the obstruction of the undertaking.
Middle East Peace is not a far-fetched goal if parties directly involved in the conflict, including states and political factions on the one hand and all outsiders pretending to be more Catholic than the Pope, but seeking to settle their own problems, cease to pursue their selfish interests in the Palestinian arena./
Monday, November 26, 2007
L'ombre d'une nouvelle guerre froide
Ali Asghar Kazemi
Novembre 2077
Une nouvelle guerre froide apparaît à l'horizon des relations internationales. Ses symptômes et l'impact sont différents de la vieille guerre froide. Bien que la nouvelle guerre froide est essentiellement idéologique en nature, comme nous verrons, elle n'est pas entièrement une conséquence de l’effort de la Russie pour regagner son statut de superpuissance et ses relations détériorant avec les Etats-Unis.
Contrairement à la guerre froide défunte entre l'Est et l'Ouest, le communisme et le capitalisme (essentiellement identifié par deux superpuissances, les Etats-Unis et l'Union Soviétique), la nouvelle guerre froide implique une hostilité plutôt étrange entre les forces concourantes avec les pouvoirs inégaux et les objectifs plutôt ambigus. Les partis à ce conflit sont l'Ouest d’une part et les « entités » qui ne s'associent pas nécessairement avec un état- nation particulier sur l'autre. La situation a atteint la masse critique après 9/11, et a déjà réclamé les vies de beaucoup de gens innocents et semble graduellement fuir du contrôle.
La réapparition du fondamentalisme islamique dans le Moyen-orient, prêchant le dévouement total et la soumission à la volonté de Dieu et la négation de matérialisme terrestre, est en effet un développement crucial de notre temps. Ce phénomène est capable de déstabiliser l’ordre précaire du monde et le système international entier.
La demande pour le changement social, économique et politique et l'espérance d'un monde différent de l'existant a causé des gens pour chercher des alternatives. La religion réapparaît comme une source d’espoir, d’inspiration et le salut. En même temps, une tendance vers le fondamentalisme rigide est clairement observable. Les gens perdent la foi à leur système et leurs hommes d’affaires et politique ; ils cherchent le refuge dans la religion à la poursuite de leur cause.
La nouvelle guerre froide est un conflit bizarre dans lequel les partis hostiles n'engagent pas nécessairement dans une face à face confrontation classique et ne sentent pas de devoir pour se conformer aux règles de guerre, les lois et les normes humanitaires. Leur but principal est de changer les normes et le statu quo qui gouverne l'ordre actuel du monde. Le Moyen-orient est l'arène principale de cette confrontation ; ou les partis rivaux ne semblent pas avoir l'intention de cesser les hostilités.
Alors que la Chine semble trop occupée pour entrer dans ce conflit à cause de son miracle économique, la réapparition de la Russie comme une superpuissance et ses tensions récentes avec les Etats-Unis pourraient être une source d'inquiétude pour Washington. Cependant, les Etats-Unis ne semble pas être préparé à considérer la Russie un parti à la nouvelle guerre froide. En dépit de plusieurs mécontentements mutuels, y compris l'extension d'OTAN à l'est et le système de défense de missile d'Etats-Unis proposé dans l’Europe d'est qu'est soit-disant visé à la menace perçue des ambitions nucléaires d'Iran, les Etats-Unis considèrent toujours la Russie un partenaire stratégique qui ne doit pas être aliéné des affaires de monde. Ceci est principalement en raison d'une perception géopolitique qu'une Russie hostile pourrait être nuisible aux intérêts d'Etats-Unis autour du monde, surtout dans le Moyen-orient.
En fait, la Russie comme l'héritier aux éléments principaux de pouvoir Soviétique est maintenant capable d’empêcher les Etats-Unis d'atteindre ses desseins stratégiques globaux. Il a pris les Russes presque deux décennies pour se relever du choc paralysant de la désintégration de l'empire Soviétique. Le rétablissement de l’économie Russe et sa tentative pour réapparaître comme une superpuissance pourrait empoigner l'unilatéralisme d'Etats-Unis dans le monde. Pourtant Moscou n’est pas encore préparé à engager dans la compétition globale avec les Etats-Unis.
Vu d'un angle différent, la Russie pourrait être potentiellement utilisée comme une soutienne par quelques états défiants qui veulent redéfinir l’ordre établi du monde actuel d’après leur propre perspective. Ils aimeraient voir une escalade dans les tensions Russo-américaines avec l'espoir de contenir la politique unilatérale et expansionniste des Etats-Unis. Dans leur vue, seulement la Russie peut égaler les Etats-Unis et empêcher sa stratégie diabolique dans le Moyen-orient. Iran pourrait être un de ceux-là qui véritablement accueille la détérioration des relations entre les Etats-Unis et la Russie avec l'espoir de profiter d'une nouvelle compétition « est-ouest », en échappant des nouvelles sanctions du Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU ou éviter une agression militaire possible américaine.
Alors que les faucons « néo-cons » de Washington continuent vigoureusement à isoler l’Iran dans l'espoir qu'il abandonnera son entreprise nucléaire, les Russes jouent un rôle malin en exploitant la situation pour rétablir leur position de superpuissance par rapport aux affaires régionales et globales. L'enchevêtrement américain dans le Moyen-orient, et surtout en Iraq et Afghanistan, a rendu tout à fait difficile pour Washington à traiter Moscou d'une position dominante.
Les relations nucléaires de la Russie avec Iran ont inculqué la confiance nécessaire pour le régime islamique de conter sur la protection russe dans leurs ambitions nucléaires. Pourtant le Kremlin semble attentif pour ne pas perdre de vue ses relations fragiles avec les Etats-Unis et l'Ouest. C'est à dire, malgré le voyage récent du Président Vladimir Putin à Téhéran et la signature d'une déclaration commune avec Iran en ce qui concerne la Mer Caspienne et les autres questions de sécurité, il toujours peut être d'accord avec le 5+1 et consent sur une troisième résolution du Conseil de Sécurité imposant plus de sanctions contre le régime islamique. La Chine, comme un membre permanent du Conseil de Sécurité, est dans la même position.
Comme un dirigeant astucieux et enfant légitime du KGB, Putin est bien conscient des règles du jeu en ce qui concerne la distribution globale de pouvoir. Il semble profiter de la nouvelle situation pour regagner la vieille position de superpuissance de Russie comme un partenaire égal avec les Etats-Unis.
Si nous pouvons classifier la nouvelle situation émergente comme une guerre froide est une question simple de définition. Ce qu’est certain est que le monde est en train d’éprouver un défi sans précédent cela, si pas convenablement managé, pourrait aboutir a un terrible désastre. Toutefois il n'est pas certain que les pays défiant comme l’Iran puissent atteindre leurs objectifs nucléaires ambitieux derrière l'écran de fumée de ces nouvelles conditions.
Publié © par bitterlemons -international. org - 22/11/2007
Ali Asghar Kazemi est le professeur de Droit et les relations internationales à Téhéran.
Ali Asghar Kazemi
Novembre 2077
Une nouvelle guerre froide apparaît à l'horizon des relations internationales. Ses symptômes et l'impact sont différents de la vieille guerre froide. Bien que la nouvelle guerre froide est essentiellement idéologique en nature, comme nous verrons, elle n'est pas entièrement une conséquence de l’effort de la Russie pour regagner son statut de superpuissance et ses relations détériorant avec les Etats-Unis.
Contrairement à la guerre froide défunte entre l'Est et l'Ouest, le communisme et le capitalisme (essentiellement identifié par deux superpuissances, les Etats-Unis et l'Union Soviétique), la nouvelle guerre froide implique une hostilité plutôt étrange entre les forces concourantes avec les pouvoirs inégaux et les objectifs plutôt ambigus. Les partis à ce conflit sont l'Ouest d’une part et les « entités » qui ne s'associent pas nécessairement avec un état- nation particulier sur l'autre. La situation a atteint la masse critique après 9/11, et a déjà réclamé les vies de beaucoup de gens innocents et semble graduellement fuir du contrôle.
La réapparition du fondamentalisme islamique dans le Moyen-orient, prêchant le dévouement total et la soumission à la volonté de Dieu et la négation de matérialisme terrestre, est en effet un développement crucial de notre temps. Ce phénomène est capable de déstabiliser l’ordre précaire du monde et le système international entier.
La demande pour le changement social, économique et politique et l'espérance d'un monde différent de l'existant a causé des gens pour chercher des alternatives. La religion réapparaît comme une source d’espoir, d’inspiration et le salut. En même temps, une tendance vers le fondamentalisme rigide est clairement observable. Les gens perdent la foi à leur système et leurs hommes d’affaires et politique ; ils cherchent le refuge dans la religion à la poursuite de leur cause.
La nouvelle guerre froide est un conflit bizarre dans lequel les partis hostiles n'engagent pas nécessairement dans une face à face confrontation classique et ne sentent pas de devoir pour se conformer aux règles de guerre, les lois et les normes humanitaires. Leur but principal est de changer les normes et le statu quo qui gouverne l'ordre actuel du monde. Le Moyen-orient est l'arène principale de cette confrontation ; ou les partis rivaux ne semblent pas avoir l'intention de cesser les hostilités.
Alors que la Chine semble trop occupée pour entrer dans ce conflit à cause de son miracle économique, la réapparition de la Russie comme une superpuissance et ses tensions récentes avec les Etats-Unis pourraient être une source d'inquiétude pour Washington. Cependant, les Etats-Unis ne semble pas être préparé à considérer la Russie un parti à la nouvelle guerre froide. En dépit de plusieurs mécontentements mutuels, y compris l'extension d'OTAN à l'est et le système de défense de missile d'Etats-Unis proposé dans l’Europe d'est qu'est soit-disant visé à la menace perçue des ambitions nucléaires d'Iran, les Etats-Unis considèrent toujours la Russie un partenaire stratégique qui ne doit pas être aliéné des affaires de monde. Ceci est principalement en raison d'une perception géopolitique qu'une Russie hostile pourrait être nuisible aux intérêts d'Etats-Unis autour du monde, surtout dans le Moyen-orient.
En fait, la Russie comme l'héritier aux éléments principaux de pouvoir Soviétique est maintenant capable d’empêcher les Etats-Unis d'atteindre ses desseins stratégiques globaux. Il a pris les Russes presque deux décennies pour se relever du choc paralysant de la désintégration de l'empire Soviétique. Le rétablissement de l’économie Russe et sa tentative pour réapparaître comme une superpuissance pourrait empoigner l'unilatéralisme d'Etats-Unis dans le monde. Pourtant Moscou n’est pas encore préparé à engager dans la compétition globale avec les Etats-Unis.
Vu d'un angle différent, la Russie pourrait être potentiellement utilisée comme une soutienne par quelques états défiants qui veulent redéfinir l’ordre établi du monde actuel d’après leur propre perspective. Ils aimeraient voir une escalade dans les tensions Russo-américaines avec l'espoir de contenir la politique unilatérale et expansionniste des Etats-Unis. Dans leur vue, seulement la Russie peut égaler les Etats-Unis et empêcher sa stratégie diabolique dans le Moyen-orient. Iran pourrait être un de ceux-là qui véritablement accueille la détérioration des relations entre les Etats-Unis et la Russie avec l'espoir de profiter d'une nouvelle compétition « est-ouest », en échappant des nouvelles sanctions du Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU ou éviter une agression militaire possible américaine.
Alors que les faucons « néo-cons » de Washington continuent vigoureusement à isoler l’Iran dans l'espoir qu'il abandonnera son entreprise nucléaire, les Russes jouent un rôle malin en exploitant la situation pour rétablir leur position de superpuissance par rapport aux affaires régionales et globales. L'enchevêtrement américain dans le Moyen-orient, et surtout en Iraq et Afghanistan, a rendu tout à fait difficile pour Washington à traiter Moscou d'une position dominante.
Les relations nucléaires de la Russie avec Iran ont inculqué la confiance nécessaire pour le régime islamique de conter sur la protection russe dans leurs ambitions nucléaires. Pourtant le Kremlin semble attentif pour ne pas perdre de vue ses relations fragiles avec les Etats-Unis et l'Ouest. C'est à dire, malgré le voyage récent du Président Vladimir Putin à Téhéran et la signature d'une déclaration commune avec Iran en ce qui concerne la Mer Caspienne et les autres questions de sécurité, il toujours peut être d'accord avec le 5+1 et consent sur une troisième résolution du Conseil de Sécurité imposant plus de sanctions contre le régime islamique. La Chine, comme un membre permanent du Conseil de Sécurité, est dans la même position.
Comme un dirigeant astucieux et enfant légitime du KGB, Putin est bien conscient des règles du jeu en ce qui concerne la distribution globale de pouvoir. Il semble profiter de la nouvelle situation pour regagner la vieille position de superpuissance de Russie comme un partenaire égal avec les Etats-Unis.
Si nous pouvons classifier la nouvelle situation émergente comme une guerre froide est une question simple de définition. Ce qu’est certain est que le monde est en train d’éprouver un défi sans précédent cela, si pas convenablement managé, pourrait aboutir a un terrible désastre. Toutefois il n'est pas certain que les pays défiant comme l’Iran puissent atteindre leurs objectifs nucléaires ambitieux derrière l'écran de fumée de ces nouvelles conditions.
Publié © par bitterlemons -international. org - 22/11/2007
Ali Asghar Kazemi est le professeur de Droit et les relations internationales à Téhéran.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Shadow of a New Cold War
Shadow of a New Cold War
Ali Asghar Kazemi
November 2007
A new cold war is appearing on the horizon of international relations.Its symptoms and impact are different from the old cold war. Althoughas we shall see the new cold war is essentially ideological in nature,it is not entirely a consequence of Russia's drive to regain itssuperpower status and its deteriorating relations with the UnitedStates. More...
Ali Asghar Kazemi
November 2007
A new cold war is appearing on the horizon of international relations.Its symptoms and impact are different from the old cold war. Althoughas we shall see the new cold war is essentially ideological in nature,it is not entirely a consequence of Russia's drive to regain itssuperpower status and its deteriorating relations with the UnitedStates. More...
Monday, May 28, 2007
Diplomacy and Subversion: Iran-US Dialogue
Diplomacy and Subversion
US-Iran Dialogue
Ali Asghar Kazemi
May 28, 2007
__________________________________________________________________________
Amidst heated debates and controversies about the modalities of opening the first round of official talks between US and Iran’s delegates in Baghdad, news of spy networks guided by American intelligence services to carry subversive actions inside Iran shattered the whole scheme. In my previous comment I alluded to the flagrant blunders of American policies in the Middle East including Iraq and Iran. Indeed, this new gamble falls in the same array of consecutive US bungles which could be very costly for this superpower in the region.
When on May 30th 2006 the United States ventured to take a bold attempt to open dialogue with Iran on the nuclear Issue with the specific precondition that it should halt all nuclear enrichment, the matter was construed as a rather untenable bid. Since Iranian hard-liners had made so much political maneuver on the subject as a national pride that any retreat from that position would be considered as a public tragedy. Indeed, American decision-makers had a clear vision of the offer, in the sense that they knew well that Iranian government would probably reject emphatically the proposition and thus the ground would be ready for further actions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council.
Recent revelations about spy networks including the detention of some Iran-US citizens appear to be a calculated signal by Iranian hardliners to the American administration that they are suspicious of this whole undertaking. Eventually, those in charge of decision-making in Iran have come to the conclusions that the final aim of American strategy is a fundamental change in Iran’s political structure and thus looks beyond the mere allegations regarding the nuclear issue or even human rights and terrorism.
Mutual signals from both sides are vivid indications that neither Iran nor the United States are willing to engage each other in a true confrontational situation. Nonetheless they continue remain hostile until the time a solution is found in the process. Of course we should not expect much from this first round of talks which is supposed to be centered merely upon security situation in Iraq but could eventually pave the path for further negotiations on other critical issues.
The seemingly American compromising move at this juncture seems to pursue a number of objectives which disregard of Iranian response would be fulfilled. The final aim is to disengage Iran from Iraq internal affairs and to push it to the corner on the nuclear issue with a view to attract Russian and Chinese support for a U.N. Security Council resolution containing serious penalties.
Iranian government is now anxious for its survival and is looking for some safeguard for its security and protection. To that end, it is trying to drag on time for the purpose of finding some avenues for guarantying that a “regime change” alternative would be erased from the American strategy.
As it appears today it seems very unlikely that Iran would go along with the U.S. demands neither on the nuclear issue nor on Iraq. Therefore, it is very probable that hostilities between the two will continue and the nuclear case will be decided upon in the next round of deliberation in the Security Council under chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. We shall wait and see how the issue will develop in the coming days./
US-Iran Dialogue
Ali Asghar Kazemi
May 28, 2007
__________________________________________________________________________
Amidst heated debates and controversies about the modalities of opening the first round of official talks between US and Iran’s delegates in Baghdad, news of spy networks guided by American intelligence services to carry subversive actions inside Iran shattered the whole scheme. In my previous comment I alluded to the flagrant blunders of American policies in the Middle East including Iraq and Iran. Indeed, this new gamble falls in the same array of consecutive US bungles which could be very costly for this superpower in the region.
When on May 30th 2006 the United States ventured to take a bold attempt to open dialogue with Iran on the nuclear Issue with the specific precondition that it should halt all nuclear enrichment, the matter was construed as a rather untenable bid. Since Iranian hard-liners had made so much political maneuver on the subject as a national pride that any retreat from that position would be considered as a public tragedy. Indeed, American decision-makers had a clear vision of the offer, in the sense that they knew well that Iranian government would probably reject emphatically the proposition and thus the ground would be ready for further actions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council.
Recent revelations about spy networks including the detention of some Iran-US citizens appear to be a calculated signal by Iranian hardliners to the American administration that they are suspicious of this whole undertaking. Eventually, those in charge of decision-making in Iran have come to the conclusions that the final aim of American strategy is a fundamental change in Iran’s political structure and thus looks beyond the mere allegations regarding the nuclear issue or even human rights and terrorism.
Mutual signals from both sides are vivid indications that neither Iran nor the United States are willing to engage each other in a true confrontational situation. Nonetheless they continue remain hostile until the time a solution is found in the process. Of course we should not expect much from this first round of talks which is supposed to be centered merely upon security situation in Iraq but could eventually pave the path for further negotiations on other critical issues.
The seemingly American compromising move at this juncture seems to pursue a number of objectives which disregard of Iranian response would be fulfilled. The final aim is to disengage Iran from Iraq internal affairs and to push it to the corner on the nuclear issue with a view to attract Russian and Chinese support for a U.N. Security Council resolution containing serious penalties.
Iranian government is now anxious for its survival and is looking for some safeguard for its security and protection. To that end, it is trying to drag on time for the purpose of finding some avenues for guarantying that a “regime change” alternative would be erased from the American strategy.
As it appears today it seems very unlikely that Iran would go along with the U.S. demands neither on the nuclear issue nor on Iraq. Therefore, it is very probable that hostilities between the two will continue and the nuclear case will be decided upon in the next round of deliberation in the Security Council under chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. We shall wait and see how the issue will develop in the coming days./
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Common Sense Strategy...
Common Sense Strategy
US and the Middle East
Ali Asghar Kazemi
May 26, 2007
_________________________________________________________________
It is a pitiable fact to realize that despite so many prominent strategists, think tanks and prestigious research institutions in the United States, American politicians have done so many blunders in their policies towards various problems of the Middle East. Perhaps, the concept of rationality and coherent decision making is a relative matter in the field of foreign policy and national interests, but one does not need to be very intelligent to understand that US policies towards various problems of the Middle East, including Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq and Iran have been total fiasco in the past several years. (I am letting aside for simplicity the problem of Afghanistan and other issues related to the North African and near Eastern countries.)
The bitter truth is that politicians here and there usually do not listen to academicians and non-partisan people whose advices might work against their individual or group interests or reputations. This is a common feature of more or less all ideologically oriented arrogant leaders whose mistakes might cause irreparable damage to the sublime interests of a nation. It is a common sense that a policy that produces bad results is a bad policy that should be avoided and not insisted upon.
As an example, neither the United States nor the Islamic regime in Iran has been following the rational path to a conclusion of animosity and mutual distrust. They both continue to emphasize on their rhetoric and particular values associated with their beliefs, dogma and ideologies. They both have a tendency to sacrifice their respective interests by using eccentric ways and means to intimidate each other in a zero-sum game whose outcome may not be in the interest of regional security and world order.
Failure of American strategy and policy in the Middle-East , is not just because the disregard of this superpower of the very basic principles of international law and explicit provisions of the United Nations Charter on peace , security and arbitrary use of force in international relations, but mainly due to the arrogant attitude of American unilateralism and lack of understanding the cultural affinities of the Moslem world .
Indeed, this will not help American national interests in the long-run, neither this will promote the cause of democratic changes in the Middle East. Quite on the contrary, this policy is apt to distort American picture abroad and will make life more and more difficult for U.S. soldiers and diplomats in foreign soils.
American policy makers and strategists shall not be surprised by this misfortune. Moslem peoples are very suspicious to foreigners who try to impose their will upon them, even with quite good intentions. Similar policies were applied successfully to Japan and Germany after World War II by the United States, but it did not work in Afghanistan and Iraq, and very probably may not work elsewhere in the region. Persistence on such policies may only deepen the divergence and animosity between Americans and local governments on the one hand, and will prompt anti-American sentiments among peoples which could only benefit totalitarian regimes in power.
Both outcomes are susceptible to be detrimental to U.S. economic and strategic interests in the Middle-East, especially, the Persian Gulf. Thus, it seems that peaceful change, initiated from within, compatible with local norms and values, and legitimately supported by the international community, without hindrance from outside powers, may best benefit the United States and the region as a whole
It seems that the prevailing discipline of social and political science tends to overlook the emerging factors and variables rooted mainly in religious reawakening and struggle for identity in the Middle East. The emergence of new neglected actors, in forms of fundamentalists Moslem has indeed changed both dimensions and patterns of relations among nations. This should necessarily change our perception of the world.
Almost seven years after September 11, it is high time to ponder upon certain questions with respect to security and order in the Middle East and American interests and prestige in the region. Are US interests more protected and American flag more respected than before? Are the Middle-East stability and security more guaranteed and the ground for establishing democracy and a just and durable peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict more fertile?
Unfortunately, answers to most of these questions are not encouraging and do not lead to optimism. A common sense approach says that bad policy leads to bad result. Good intentions are not sufficient. Appropriate policy along with good action and adequate understanding of domestic, regional and international environment are requisites of a good strategy. When the outcome is not in one’s favor, this means that the policy is defective and therefore it shall not be pursued at all costs. /
US and the Middle East
Ali Asghar Kazemi
May 26, 2007
_________________________________________________________________
It is a pitiable fact to realize that despite so many prominent strategists, think tanks and prestigious research institutions in the United States, American politicians have done so many blunders in their policies towards various problems of the Middle East. Perhaps, the concept of rationality and coherent decision making is a relative matter in the field of foreign policy and national interests, but one does not need to be very intelligent to understand that US policies towards various problems of the Middle East, including Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq and Iran have been total fiasco in the past several years. (I am letting aside for simplicity the problem of Afghanistan and other issues related to the North African and near Eastern countries.)
The bitter truth is that politicians here and there usually do not listen to academicians and non-partisan people whose advices might work against their individual or group interests or reputations. This is a common feature of more or less all ideologically oriented arrogant leaders whose mistakes might cause irreparable damage to the sublime interests of a nation. It is a common sense that a policy that produces bad results is a bad policy that should be avoided and not insisted upon.
As an example, neither the United States nor the Islamic regime in Iran has been following the rational path to a conclusion of animosity and mutual distrust. They both continue to emphasize on their rhetoric and particular values associated with their beliefs, dogma and ideologies. They both have a tendency to sacrifice their respective interests by using eccentric ways and means to intimidate each other in a zero-sum game whose outcome may not be in the interest of regional security and world order.
Failure of American strategy and policy in the Middle-East , is not just because the disregard of this superpower of the very basic principles of international law and explicit provisions of the United Nations Charter on peace , security and arbitrary use of force in international relations, but mainly due to the arrogant attitude of American unilateralism and lack of understanding the cultural affinities of the Moslem world .
Indeed, this will not help American national interests in the long-run, neither this will promote the cause of democratic changes in the Middle East. Quite on the contrary, this policy is apt to distort American picture abroad and will make life more and more difficult for U.S. soldiers and diplomats in foreign soils.
American policy makers and strategists shall not be surprised by this misfortune. Moslem peoples are very suspicious to foreigners who try to impose their will upon them, even with quite good intentions. Similar policies were applied successfully to Japan and Germany after World War II by the United States, but it did not work in Afghanistan and Iraq, and very probably may not work elsewhere in the region. Persistence on such policies may only deepen the divergence and animosity between Americans and local governments on the one hand, and will prompt anti-American sentiments among peoples which could only benefit totalitarian regimes in power.
Both outcomes are susceptible to be detrimental to U.S. economic and strategic interests in the Middle-East, especially, the Persian Gulf. Thus, it seems that peaceful change, initiated from within, compatible with local norms and values, and legitimately supported by the international community, without hindrance from outside powers, may best benefit the United States and the region as a whole
It seems that the prevailing discipline of social and political science tends to overlook the emerging factors and variables rooted mainly in religious reawakening and struggle for identity in the Middle East. The emergence of new neglected actors, in forms of fundamentalists Moslem has indeed changed both dimensions and patterns of relations among nations. This should necessarily change our perception of the world.
Almost seven years after September 11, it is high time to ponder upon certain questions with respect to security and order in the Middle East and American interests and prestige in the region. Are US interests more protected and American flag more respected than before? Are the Middle-East stability and security more guaranteed and the ground for establishing democracy and a just and durable peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict more fertile?
Unfortunately, answers to most of these questions are not encouraging and do not lead to optimism. A common sense approach says that bad policy leads to bad result. Good intentions are not sufficient. Appropriate policy along with good action and adequate understanding of domestic, regional and international environment are requisites of a good strategy. When the outcome is not in one’s favor, this means that the policy is defective and therefore it shall not be pursued at all costs. /
Friday, April 13, 2007
Beyond Conventional Wisdom...
Beyond Conventional Wisdom!
The Logic of Iran’s Defiance
Ali Asghar Kazemi
April 2007
___________________________________________________________
Those who are dazed about Iran’s controversial behavior in international scene, especially on the nuclear issue, should understand the very substance and roots of the Shiite doctrine within the realm of Islamic principles and its impact upon the political process in this country.
We should remember that Islam’s basic attitude towards the international order is that it must be transformed into a moral order. This is in fact the main thrust of Ben Laden and his followers’ beliefs and in a way is reflected in public speeches and letters of Iranian President (Ahmadinejad) to heads of states in the past two years. These also echo more or less the essential theme of the teachings of the founding father of Iran’s revolution.
This perception is inherently an anathema of the secular international order built on the political premise of the territorial state and the liberty of men to decide their fate. Therefore, Islamic state shall not be viewed as the term customarily applies in modern law of nations; since only religious affiliation determines the extent and the realm of Islamic community which is generally referred to as Dar-al-Islam. Outside this community-state everything else is considered as Dar-al-Harb, which include hostile and aggressor states against the Islamic community.
Islam is a lucid illustration of a religion which in its inception makes no contradiction between ethical theory and political practice. For centuries Moslem scholars maintained that the concept of holy war (Jihad) not quite unlike to Christian bellum Justum had a permanent character in religions among Moslem and non-Moslem territories. Assuming that Islam was, and still is considered a universal religion and system of belief, these two territories would (at least theoretically) be in a state of permanent hostility and war.
More modern liberal Moslem writers stress that the term refers not only to international war but also to the spiritual struggle for perfection within the heart of man. There is no consensus among Moslem scholars about the concept of peace and war in Islam. But the subject is viewed as an integral part of the conception of the international order in Islam.
By putting war and belligerency within the moral code, war in Islam is for the defense of virtue and truth against evil and falsehood. This is considered the authentic Moslem opinion on war which in practice has seldom been observed in the lifetime of Islam. Historical facts and events have proven that whenever religion was used in support of political power as a source of legitimacy, the deviation from the principles of faith has been unavoidable.
As an example, ever since Persia, whose unity was centered around Mazdaean religion, converted to Islam in seventh century it identified itself with the Shiite doctrine which was at variance with the established Islamic orthodoxy practiced elsewhere in the Middle-East. Thus, just at the time Europe was returning in the great upsurge of the Renaissance, a politico-religious conflict emerged between the two great powers of the time, i.e. Iran and Turkey. The Ottoman Empire, the instrument of Turkish imperialism presented the Sunnite orthodoxy and the Iranian Empire founded on the Persian national ideal incorporated in the Shiite doctrine. The two opponents threw themselves at one another’s throats. The outcome was bloody long wars which ultimately established a new balance of power shared between two Moslem empires of diametrically opposed viewpoints.
The argument which certain Western scholars have advanced with regard to the state of permanent belligerency of Islam stems from the interpretation of the principle of Jihad or the Holy War against Dar-al-Harb. This is the principle of perpetual enmity with and of coercive attitude and aggressive behavior against the unbelievers and infidels. From a moral perspective the struggle is viewed as permanent confrontation between truth and falsehood. On the assumption that Islam is the universal religion and should ultimately bring the whole world under its reign, these scholars hold the view that war and belligerency are the fundamental and necessary institution of Islamic state.
Although the concept of Jihad has gradually lost its strict warlike belligerent character, due to past failure of Moslem rulers to call and organize for holy war, in recent years, especially after the 1979 Revolution in Iran, the concept has regained some relevance in national and international scenes. The new Islamic crusade calls for a return to fundamentalism, a holy war against decadent, Western inspired modernization in Moslem countries. Convinced that Western influence erodes Islamic principles and fails to solve social problems, militant Moslems seek a strict interpretation of the Qur’an. The fundamentalist movement has gradually turned into fanaticism, social unrest, political assassinations, upheaval and terrors throughout the tormented world. The trend is fearfully regarded as a serious threat to the international democratic social and political order.Ideally, Islam, as the name itself indicates, is the religion of peace, brotherhood and compassion. War and violence would therefore be contradictory to its very spirit, unless it is waged in self-defense and for a just cause. Indiscriminate and wanton killing, devastating the natural environment, destroying harvests, defoliation, and deforestation are acts strictly forbidden and against the true spirit of Islam. Yet, in this world of paradox we experience all these ferocities being committed by Moslems against Moslems under the banner of Islam.
Hardly an impartial observer can judge the situation from the Islamic perspective. Since, Holy Scripture, traditions and Islamic jurisprudence can always be interpreted in supporting one’s evil policy and aggressive or hostile behavior. When politics and the pursuit of power become the prime concern of the state, religion and its moral restraints becomes an instrument of policy rather than its ethical guideline.
______________
.
The Logic of Iran’s Defiance
Ali Asghar Kazemi
April 2007
___________________________________________________________
Those who are dazed about Iran’s controversial behavior in international scene, especially on the nuclear issue, should understand the very substance and roots of the Shiite doctrine within the realm of Islamic principles and its impact upon the political process in this country.
We should remember that Islam’s basic attitude towards the international order is that it must be transformed into a moral order. This is in fact the main thrust of Ben Laden and his followers’ beliefs and in a way is reflected in public speeches and letters of Iranian President (Ahmadinejad) to heads of states in the past two years. These also echo more or less the essential theme of the teachings of the founding father of Iran’s revolution.
This perception is inherently an anathema of the secular international order built on the political premise of the territorial state and the liberty of men to decide their fate. Therefore, Islamic state shall not be viewed as the term customarily applies in modern law of nations; since only religious affiliation determines the extent and the realm of Islamic community which is generally referred to as Dar-al-Islam. Outside this community-state everything else is considered as Dar-al-Harb, which include hostile and aggressor states against the Islamic community.
Islam is a lucid illustration of a religion which in its inception makes no contradiction between ethical theory and political practice. For centuries Moslem scholars maintained that the concept of holy war (Jihad) not quite unlike to Christian bellum Justum had a permanent character in religions among Moslem and non-Moslem territories. Assuming that Islam was, and still is considered a universal religion and system of belief, these two territories would (at least theoretically) be in a state of permanent hostility and war.
More modern liberal Moslem writers stress that the term refers not only to international war but also to the spiritual struggle for perfection within the heart of man. There is no consensus among Moslem scholars about the concept of peace and war in Islam. But the subject is viewed as an integral part of the conception of the international order in Islam.
By putting war and belligerency within the moral code, war in Islam is for the defense of virtue and truth against evil and falsehood. This is considered the authentic Moslem opinion on war which in practice has seldom been observed in the lifetime of Islam. Historical facts and events have proven that whenever religion was used in support of political power as a source of legitimacy, the deviation from the principles of faith has been unavoidable.
As an example, ever since Persia, whose unity was centered around Mazdaean religion, converted to Islam in seventh century it identified itself with the Shiite doctrine which was at variance with the established Islamic orthodoxy practiced elsewhere in the Middle-East. Thus, just at the time Europe was returning in the great upsurge of the Renaissance, a politico-religious conflict emerged between the two great powers of the time, i.e. Iran and Turkey. The Ottoman Empire, the instrument of Turkish imperialism presented the Sunnite orthodoxy and the Iranian Empire founded on the Persian national ideal incorporated in the Shiite doctrine. The two opponents threw themselves at one another’s throats. The outcome was bloody long wars which ultimately established a new balance of power shared between two Moslem empires of diametrically opposed viewpoints.
The argument which certain Western scholars have advanced with regard to the state of permanent belligerency of Islam stems from the interpretation of the principle of Jihad or the Holy War against Dar-al-Harb. This is the principle of perpetual enmity with and of coercive attitude and aggressive behavior against the unbelievers and infidels. From a moral perspective the struggle is viewed as permanent confrontation between truth and falsehood. On the assumption that Islam is the universal religion and should ultimately bring the whole world under its reign, these scholars hold the view that war and belligerency are the fundamental and necessary institution of Islamic state.
Although the concept of Jihad has gradually lost its strict warlike belligerent character, due to past failure of Moslem rulers to call and organize for holy war, in recent years, especially after the 1979 Revolution in Iran, the concept has regained some relevance in national and international scenes. The new Islamic crusade calls for a return to fundamentalism, a holy war against decadent, Western inspired modernization in Moslem countries. Convinced that Western influence erodes Islamic principles and fails to solve social problems, militant Moslems seek a strict interpretation of the Qur’an. The fundamentalist movement has gradually turned into fanaticism, social unrest, political assassinations, upheaval and terrors throughout the tormented world. The trend is fearfully regarded as a serious threat to the international democratic social and political order.Ideally, Islam, as the name itself indicates, is the religion of peace, brotherhood and compassion. War and violence would therefore be contradictory to its very spirit, unless it is waged in self-defense and for a just cause. Indiscriminate and wanton killing, devastating the natural environment, destroying harvests, defoliation, and deforestation are acts strictly forbidden and against the true spirit of Islam. Yet, in this world of paradox we experience all these ferocities being committed by Moslems against Moslems under the banner of Islam.
Hardly an impartial observer can judge the situation from the Islamic perspective. Since, Holy Scripture, traditions and Islamic jurisprudence can always be interpreted in supporting one’s evil policy and aggressive or hostile behavior. When politics and the pursuit of power become the prime concern of the state, religion and its moral restraints becomes an instrument of policy rather than its ethical guideline.
______________
.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Bush's Agenda for Victory
Bush's Agenda for Victory
A. A. Kazermi
Democracies are most vulnerable to public opinion and therefore have overwhelming difficulties to fight terror and terrorism. Some argue that a democracy, in order to fight terrorism, is forced to copy its methods and thus become oppressive itself. The assertion suggests that the adoption of repressive measures is inevitable in dealing with the growing dangers of terrorism. The fact that US has so far failed to achieve its objectives in Iraq is an inevitable consequence of this phenomenon. ( Continued...)
A. A. Kazermi
Democracies are most vulnerable to public opinion and therefore have overwhelming difficulties to fight terror and terrorism. Some argue that a democracy, in order to fight terrorism, is forced to copy its methods and thus become oppressive itself. The assertion suggests that the adoption of repressive measures is inevitable in dealing with the growing dangers of terrorism. The fact that US has so far failed to achieve its objectives in Iraq is an inevitable consequence of this phenomenon. ( Continued...)
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
The New Cold War (3)
The New Cold War (3)
Religious Factors
Ali Asghar Kazemi
January 10, 2007
______________________________________________________________________________________
The new cold war is essentially engaged with religious-revolutionary “entities” that do not necessarily associate themselves with any particular state. Their main goal is to change the prevailing norms and status quo in current world order. With regard to the revolutionary aspect of these groups, contemporary social scientists have provided various explanations depending on the area of their expertise or research. On the whole, they seem to agree that certain social factors serve as source of human conflict leading to turmoil, upheaval and revolution. They are socio-economic discrepancies, the aggressive impulse resulting frustration, dissonance between the actual and the ideal, withdrawal and alienation from existing social structures …
Thus for example, the social and political development in traditional Iran, which otherwise simply meant the process of “Westernization” did not produce the necessary ground for a gradual evolution toward a modern democratic state. But it did produce a “cultural shock” to certain layers of the society deeply attached to the prevailing religious and traditional norms. In other words, what the ancien régime wanted to achieve through rapid-but unbalanced- socio- economic and political development, in fact counter produced the desired effect.
A partial explanation for this failure, which led to what later became the Islamic fundamentalist revival, is that the economic boom of the seventies which provided the people with the necessary means to acquire without much thought or effort what they could purchase from the West. This dimension of development did not pose unbearable difficulties, but the missing part of the puzzle was the whole gamut of cultural, technical, political and bureaucratic gap along with other aspects of the development which could not be easily bought by money.
Almost three decades after the Islamic revolution in Iran, religion is still fueling social unrests and serves as a pretext to legitimizing the canalization of social forces toward perpetual hostilities against Western democratic values. In other parts of the world, it is being used by frustrated groups to embark upon unconventional and sometimes irrational actions such as acts of terror, in order to gain recognition and make their cause known. Terrorist actions in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South East Asia, Europe, and America are now ordinary events that occur every once and while.
State sponsored terrorism either to counter domestic dissensions or to intimidate and humiliate foreign countries, is also a dangerous development of the so-called low-level violence in international relations. There is no doubt that the support of terrorist activities, in whatever manner, by a state or group of states will further increase these latter’s capacity for violence, by encouraging recourses to such operations for the settlement of ethnic, political or religious differences.
Terrorists have already demonstrated that they can achieve disproportionately large effects in world order with a relatively small number and limited capacity for violence. They have caused widespread alarm, compelling governments with a clear preponderance of conventional military power to negotiate with them, to grant them concessions or simply to back down with humiliation.
Religious inspired terrorism has also helped certain colonial territories to fight against powerful countries for their liberation. In such case the freedom fighters or liberation movements sought justification for their operations viz the attainment of a legitimate cause. For example, the Algerian struggle for independence turned to terrorism, once the rebel armies were virtually beaten in the field by the French forces. It was only after recourse to such activities that French military might in Algeria came to its knees.
The Moslem Shiite Militia in South Lebanon pushed the Israelis out of their occupied land through harshest terrorist activities. Afghan Moslem Mujahedeens fought a superpower (USSR) through guerrilla warfare and terrorist operation in occupied Afghanistan. They caused most trouble to Moscow, as did North Vietnamese to the United States. In both cases the two superpowers have used all kinds of military means, short of nuclear weapons, in order to bring the freedom fighters to a situation to accept the status quo and to give up hope. The United States failed to achieve this objective then and is now striving to do the same in embattled Iraq.
Urban guerrilla warfare, low-level violence or mob actions directed by religious groups are dimensions of ideological conflicts and revolutionary theories which now manifest in form of domestic and international terrorism. Dissidents of tyrant leaders and dictatorial regimes find their voice heard and their cause achieved through what we call terrorism for sake of simplicity, but they consider it legitimate jihad or just struggle against the infidel enemies.
Religiously inspired terrors are understandably more ferocious and crueler than mere political violence or mob actions. When martyrdom is considered as a grace and blessing of God, a Moslem fanatical believer can easily risk his life in a suicidal attack in order to do damage to his ideological opponents.
The life in our modern societies is becoming more and more unbearable and people are becoming increasingly restless, feeling alienated and alternating between faith and doubt, hope and anxiety. The demand for social, economic and political change and expectation of a world different from the existing one, have caused people to look for alternatives. Religion is re-emerging as a source for hope, inspiration and salvation. At the same time a trend toward fundamentalism is clearly observable. People are losing faith in their political system and politicians; they are seeking refuge to religions in the pursuit of their cause.
The resurgence of the Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle-East whose participants preach total devotion and submission to the will of God, and negation of earthly materialism, is indeed a crucial development of our time which is capable of destabilizing the international system and the world order. Whether we can label the new emerging situation as a cold war, it is a simple question of definition. What is certain is that the world is experiencing an unprecedented challenge which could end up to disaster if not properly managed. /
Religious Factors
Ali Asghar Kazemi
January 10, 2007
______________________________________________________________________________________
The new cold war is essentially engaged with religious-revolutionary “entities” that do not necessarily associate themselves with any particular state. Their main goal is to change the prevailing norms and status quo in current world order. With regard to the revolutionary aspect of these groups, contemporary social scientists have provided various explanations depending on the area of their expertise or research. On the whole, they seem to agree that certain social factors serve as source of human conflict leading to turmoil, upheaval and revolution. They are socio-economic discrepancies, the aggressive impulse resulting frustration, dissonance between the actual and the ideal, withdrawal and alienation from existing social structures …
Thus for example, the social and political development in traditional Iran, which otherwise simply meant the process of “Westernization” did not produce the necessary ground for a gradual evolution toward a modern democratic state. But it did produce a “cultural shock” to certain layers of the society deeply attached to the prevailing religious and traditional norms. In other words, what the ancien régime wanted to achieve through rapid-but unbalanced- socio- economic and political development, in fact counter produced the desired effect.
A partial explanation for this failure, which led to what later became the Islamic fundamentalist revival, is that the economic boom of the seventies which provided the people with the necessary means to acquire without much thought or effort what they could purchase from the West. This dimension of development did not pose unbearable difficulties, but the missing part of the puzzle was the whole gamut of cultural, technical, political and bureaucratic gap along with other aspects of the development which could not be easily bought by money.
Almost three decades after the Islamic revolution in Iran, religion is still fueling social unrests and serves as a pretext to legitimizing the canalization of social forces toward perpetual hostilities against Western democratic values. In other parts of the world, it is being used by frustrated groups to embark upon unconventional and sometimes irrational actions such as acts of terror, in order to gain recognition and make their cause known. Terrorist actions in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South East Asia, Europe, and America are now ordinary events that occur every once and while.
State sponsored terrorism either to counter domestic dissensions or to intimidate and humiliate foreign countries, is also a dangerous development of the so-called low-level violence in international relations. There is no doubt that the support of terrorist activities, in whatever manner, by a state or group of states will further increase these latter’s capacity for violence, by encouraging recourses to such operations for the settlement of ethnic, political or religious differences.
Terrorists have already demonstrated that they can achieve disproportionately large effects in world order with a relatively small number and limited capacity for violence. They have caused widespread alarm, compelling governments with a clear preponderance of conventional military power to negotiate with them, to grant them concessions or simply to back down with humiliation.
Religious inspired terrorism has also helped certain colonial territories to fight against powerful countries for their liberation. In such case the freedom fighters or liberation movements sought justification for their operations viz the attainment of a legitimate cause. For example, the Algerian struggle for independence turned to terrorism, once the rebel armies were virtually beaten in the field by the French forces. It was only after recourse to such activities that French military might in Algeria came to its knees.
The Moslem Shiite Militia in South Lebanon pushed the Israelis out of their occupied land through harshest terrorist activities. Afghan Moslem Mujahedeens fought a superpower (USSR) through guerrilla warfare and terrorist operation in occupied Afghanistan. They caused most trouble to Moscow, as did North Vietnamese to the United States. In both cases the two superpowers have used all kinds of military means, short of nuclear weapons, in order to bring the freedom fighters to a situation to accept the status quo and to give up hope. The United States failed to achieve this objective then and is now striving to do the same in embattled Iraq.
Urban guerrilla warfare, low-level violence or mob actions directed by religious groups are dimensions of ideological conflicts and revolutionary theories which now manifest in form of domestic and international terrorism. Dissidents of tyrant leaders and dictatorial regimes find their voice heard and their cause achieved through what we call terrorism for sake of simplicity, but they consider it legitimate jihad or just struggle against the infidel enemies.
Religiously inspired terrors are understandably more ferocious and crueler than mere political violence or mob actions. When martyrdom is considered as a grace and blessing of God, a Moslem fanatical believer can easily risk his life in a suicidal attack in order to do damage to his ideological opponents.
The life in our modern societies is becoming more and more unbearable and people are becoming increasingly restless, feeling alienated and alternating between faith and doubt, hope and anxiety. The demand for social, economic and political change and expectation of a world different from the existing one, have caused people to look for alternatives. Religion is re-emerging as a source for hope, inspiration and salvation. At the same time a trend toward fundamentalism is clearly observable. People are losing faith in their political system and politicians; they are seeking refuge to religions in the pursuit of their cause.
The resurgence of the Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle-East whose participants preach total devotion and submission to the will of God, and negation of earthly materialism, is indeed a crucial development of our time which is capable of destabilizing the international system and the world order. Whether we can label the new emerging situation as a cold war, it is a simple question of definition. What is certain is that the world is experiencing an unprecedented challenge which could end up to disaster if not properly managed. /
Monday, January 08, 2007
The New Cold War (2)
The New Cold War (2)
Competing Forces
Ali Asghar Kazemi
January 8, 2007
_____________________________________________________________________
In the first part of this commentary we stated that a new cold war is emerging at the beginning of 21st century in which the main arena of confrontation is the Middle East. The parties to this conflict are the West on the one hand and religious groups associated with Islamic fundamentalism on the other. Unlike the defunct cold war between East and West, or communism and capitalism (essentially identified by two superpowers, i.e. United States and Soviet Union) the new one is a rather strange hostility among competing forces with unequal powers and undetermined objectives.
Some scholars, like Samuel Huntington, have interpreted the conflict as a clash of civilizations or a religious struggle between Moslems and Christians. Others prefer to call it blind terrorism striving to uproot modern Western civilization and a return to the age of barbarism. Struggle between Moslems and Christians is not a new phenomenon and here we are reminded of the times of the Crusades in the past centuries. In fact, wars of some sorts have always existed between the true believers of Islam and Christian states who by their technological dominance set out to capture colonies in Islamic lands in the Asian and African continents.
European civilization owes much of its success of its “religious wars” of the past. Now the ideological conflicts continue to be exploited one way or another. The religious power struggle of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries reached its end by establishing a rough balance of power among Western states. Most wars were fought among colonial powers for the objective getting the most out of foreign lands. All competitions and cooperation were guided by colonial intentions and international law and diplomacy were directed towards these objectives. After the Peace of Westphalia, religious wars among Christian sects (Catholics and Protestants) receded and thereafter the question of faith was no longer a decisive factor in international politics.
Once the battle Poitiers[1] decided the question whether Europe would remain Christian or become Moslem. The religious wars ended in a compromise which was founded on a frank recognition of power as the final arbiter between competing forces.
It has been suggested that if statesmen of the nineteenth century had commanded the present destructive forces (including the nuclear arsenal), unlike their ancestors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, they were under no compulsion to multiply the risks of international politics by engaging in ideological crusades. It may be partly true that the power structure and general characteristics of our age has subdued by necessity the hostile relations between and among major powers. But the revolutionary trends that dominate in some parts of the world seem beyond the actual power structure. The secular ideological conflicts of the post-world war II cold war have now changed to new religious clashes threatening to destabilize the present international order.
The emergence of religious-ideological movements, led by fundamentalist groups or fanatical leaders who do not hesitate to annihilate the whole civilization for the sake of their beliefs or what they think to be truth, is a dangerous development of our present time. In the past, these ideological battles were called religious wars; they are now mere ideological conflicts. Fanatics now divide the world and human beings into two separate ideological camps: we and the others. It is not quite clear whether their self-claimed mandate to guide the others to the path of salvation emanates from some sort of prophetic revelation, an identity crisis or pure insanity!
Indeed, ideas can conquer human minds without the initial support of organized power or use of force. Histories of several religious movements, Islam and Christianity as well as other ideologies, have proven the argument. But, in the long run, the use of force, coercion or otherwise organized power, have necessitated their maintenance. Thus, when the source of legitimate power was claimed to originate from God, people were subjugated and treated like slaves, and tyranny resulted.
Although it is true that religions and ideologies know no physical frontiers and transcend geographical limits and are aimed at human minds, it has to be recognized that power and force play a decisive part in this struggle. The role of force and power is extremely important in the initial phase of this conflict until the outcome is decided. Thenceforth the use of force gradually loses its effectiveness until such time that victors no longer can sit on bayonets. Unless a credible system is established during this interval, sooner or later the appeal of ideology will diminish and the people will revolt against the tyranny of ideas.
During the 20th century, a new ideological struggle replaced the old fashion rivalries and power conflict in the East-West context became axis of hostilities. As the capacity of weapons of mass destruction increased, gradually military might became redundant and other factors of national power such as technological breakthrough for the conquest of space, economic progress, respect for human rights and criteria of similar kind appeared on the agenda of great powers and international institutions. The downfall of the Soviet empire was an immediate consequence of this development. This whole process paved the way for the termination of the cold war in the last decade of the twentieth century.
In the meantime certain socio-political factors in some developing traditional countries in the Middle East gave way to religious awakening among Moslems. To put it in simple terms, the Islamic revolution in Iran was the product of such development. Parallel to that, in the past decade the world has witnessed the emergence of a phenomenon associated with terror, violence and religious fanaticism. This trend is described by observers as one of the sad paradox of our time; the myth of “romantic revolution” whose promoters are the ideologues, whose dupes are the young and idealistic and whose victims are the weak and the little men, the children, the old and defenseless.
The use of religion as a new ideological tool to change the status quo has led to revolutionary ideas. The lack of democratic political structure in traditionally closed and socially backward societies has given birth to a new set of norms for the third world people looking for change. The new emerging religious-ideological appeal to third world Moslem states is indeed an unprecedented challenge for the international system and world order as a whole. The new cold war is an outgrowth of this metamorphosis in which religious factors play an essential role. We will discuss this dimension in our future comments. /
(To be continued…)
[1]. Poitiers is located in Southern part of France where in a decisive battle French Charles Martel crushed the Arab invasion in 732. A.D.
Competing Forces
Ali Asghar Kazemi
January 8, 2007
_____________________________________________________________________
In the first part of this commentary we stated that a new cold war is emerging at the beginning of 21st century in which the main arena of confrontation is the Middle East. The parties to this conflict are the West on the one hand and religious groups associated with Islamic fundamentalism on the other. Unlike the defunct cold war between East and West, or communism and capitalism (essentially identified by two superpowers, i.e. United States and Soviet Union) the new one is a rather strange hostility among competing forces with unequal powers and undetermined objectives.
Some scholars, like Samuel Huntington, have interpreted the conflict as a clash of civilizations or a religious struggle between Moslems and Christians. Others prefer to call it blind terrorism striving to uproot modern Western civilization and a return to the age of barbarism. Struggle between Moslems and Christians is not a new phenomenon and here we are reminded of the times of the Crusades in the past centuries. In fact, wars of some sorts have always existed between the true believers of Islam and Christian states who by their technological dominance set out to capture colonies in Islamic lands in the Asian and African continents.
European civilization owes much of its success of its “religious wars” of the past. Now the ideological conflicts continue to be exploited one way or another. The religious power struggle of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries reached its end by establishing a rough balance of power among Western states. Most wars were fought among colonial powers for the objective getting the most out of foreign lands. All competitions and cooperation were guided by colonial intentions and international law and diplomacy were directed towards these objectives. After the Peace of Westphalia, religious wars among Christian sects (Catholics and Protestants) receded and thereafter the question of faith was no longer a decisive factor in international politics.
Once the battle Poitiers[1] decided the question whether Europe would remain Christian or become Moslem. The religious wars ended in a compromise which was founded on a frank recognition of power as the final arbiter between competing forces.
It has been suggested that if statesmen of the nineteenth century had commanded the present destructive forces (including the nuclear arsenal), unlike their ancestors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, they were under no compulsion to multiply the risks of international politics by engaging in ideological crusades. It may be partly true that the power structure and general characteristics of our age has subdued by necessity the hostile relations between and among major powers. But the revolutionary trends that dominate in some parts of the world seem beyond the actual power structure. The secular ideological conflicts of the post-world war II cold war have now changed to new religious clashes threatening to destabilize the present international order.
The emergence of religious-ideological movements, led by fundamentalist groups or fanatical leaders who do not hesitate to annihilate the whole civilization for the sake of their beliefs or what they think to be truth, is a dangerous development of our present time. In the past, these ideological battles were called religious wars; they are now mere ideological conflicts. Fanatics now divide the world and human beings into two separate ideological camps: we and the others. It is not quite clear whether their self-claimed mandate to guide the others to the path of salvation emanates from some sort of prophetic revelation, an identity crisis or pure insanity!
Indeed, ideas can conquer human minds without the initial support of organized power or use of force. Histories of several religious movements, Islam and Christianity as well as other ideologies, have proven the argument. But, in the long run, the use of force, coercion or otherwise organized power, have necessitated their maintenance. Thus, when the source of legitimate power was claimed to originate from God, people were subjugated and treated like slaves, and tyranny resulted.
Although it is true that religions and ideologies know no physical frontiers and transcend geographical limits and are aimed at human minds, it has to be recognized that power and force play a decisive part in this struggle. The role of force and power is extremely important in the initial phase of this conflict until the outcome is decided. Thenceforth the use of force gradually loses its effectiveness until such time that victors no longer can sit on bayonets. Unless a credible system is established during this interval, sooner or later the appeal of ideology will diminish and the people will revolt against the tyranny of ideas.
During the 20th century, a new ideological struggle replaced the old fashion rivalries and power conflict in the East-West context became axis of hostilities. As the capacity of weapons of mass destruction increased, gradually military might became redundant and other factors of national power such as technological breakthrough for the conquest of space, economic progress, respect for human rights and criteria of similar kind appeared on the agenda of great powers and international institutions. The downfall of the Soviet empire was an immediate consequence of this development. This whole process paved the way for the termination of the cold war in the last decade of the twentieth century.
In the meantime certain socio-political factors in some developing traditional countries in the Middle East gave way to religious awakening among Moslems. To put it in simple terms, the Islamic revolution in Iran was the product of such development. Parallel to that, in the past decade the world has witnessed the emergence of a phenomenon associated with terror, violence and religious fanaticism. This trend is described by observers as one of the sad paradox of our time; the myth of “romantic revolution” whose promoters are the ideologues, whose dupes are the young and idealistic and whose victims are the weak and the little men, the children, the old and defenseless.
The use of religion as a new ideological tool to change the status quo has led to revolutionary ideas. The lack of democratic political structure in traditionally closed and socially backward societies has given birth to a new set of norms for the third world people looking for change. The new emerging religious-ideological appeal to third world Moslem states is indeed an unprecedented challenge for the international system and world order as a whole. The new cold war is an outgrowth of this metamorphosis in which religious factors play an essential role. We will discuss this dimension in our future comments. /
(To be continued…)
[1]. Poitiers is located in Southern part of France where in a decisive battle French Charles Martel crushed the Arab invasion in 732. A.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)