Politics and Hypocrisy(2)

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.

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

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 ».

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./

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./

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.

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.”

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. /