Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Iran: Now the hard part

by Paul Wells on Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:04am - 39 Comments

Riot police at Freedom Square and Revolution Square. (UPDATE: reports of water cannon and tear gas.) The protesters have resisted using violence and the regime refuses to back down. Live blogs here, here, here and here. Vaclav Havel, who was jailed a decade before he became his country’s president, says this:

I would advise them not to fall prey to skepticism if they do not achieve immediate results in spite of their efforts.
These efforts are important in and of themselves because there is virtue in working for a good cause. And these efforts can pay off later, God knows when, God knows how. But you cannot time it. That, at least, is our experience.

UPDATE: Astonishing BBC video shows a pitched battle.

Tags: iran, Vaclav Havel

More by Paul Wells

PolJunkie

Tyranny is, by its very nature, unsustainable. There will be much bloodshed, of that I am sure but when a people unites the way these Iranians have, there is no turning back.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Why is tyranny unsustainable? We Westminster-y people overthrew our own homegrown tyranny in 1689, and even then it took a huge boost from abroad (including a foreign army and a foreign king). The mechanisms for repressing dissent and crushing resistance have improved considerably in that time. I don't think the Nazi tyranny was unsustainable at all, I think it could have endured hundreds of years; ditto North Korea. The only reason the Iranian government hasn't crushed the protesters so far is that the Army and even the Revolutionary Guard has apparently been sitting on the fence.

Mulletaur

"The only reason the Iranian government hasn't crushed the protesters so far is that the Army and even the Revolutionary Guard has apparently been sitting on the fence."

I think that it has more to do with the fact that the Islamic leadership was caught by surprise with the scale of the protests and reacted cautiously at first in order not to provoke Iranians further. Also, I get the sense that there are leadership issues at the top which are unresolved and perhaps exacerbated by the election outcome. Robert Fisk speculates on this in an article in today's Uk Independent :

"Because the fundamental conflict in Iran is being fought not on the streets of Tehran – a mere tragic, brutal sideshow that could soon become a bloodbath – but beneath the cupolas and minarets and pale blue tiles of the mosques of Qom."

Not so much sitting on the fence as waiting for clear orders. Now these have been received from Ayatollah Khamenei. Remains to see whether they will be followed, to what extent and how long.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Thanks for the link, Mulletaur. I wonder if the real orders have been given yet; if they have, and not much has happened (i.e. it's still the riot police and paramilitary vs. the protesters, no Guards or Army yet), I take that as a hopeful sign. I see several senior clerics have endorsed the protests and (acc. to Fisk, reading between the lines) been pricked by Khamenei. But what is their moral authority with the Army? I guess we will find out soon.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

PolJunkie, I am not so sure history bears you out on this. Tyranny has been the universal rule for, well, almost ever, and still remains the norm for billions and billions. It seems to me that FREEDOM has been the far more fragile state of human affairs, is a relatively recent concept, and has had variable degrees of success in its tentative "march" across the world.

Just how far the enlisted army is willing to go to follow orders against their fellow citizens: that will tell us how sustainable this Iranian tyranny will prove to be. Let's hope it's not very.

jarrid

Tyranny may well be unsustainable as PJ says and I agree with Havel's comments as well about the efforts by the Iranians to stand up to tyranny.

But, to quote the Beatles song, they'll only "get by with a little help from [their] friends."

Tyranny was vanquinshed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in no small part by the West's direct and indirect aid – both moral and material – to the dissidents. The U.S. president at the time, Ronald Reagan, was very hands on with assistance of every kind. The current U.S. president, on the other hand, shows Jimmy Carter like proclivities. His recent comment about the Iranian election says it all, he spoke favourably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

With friends like that, and the usual hand-wringing commentary and idle emoting indulged by many Canadian" friends" in times like these, it looks like it'll take an eternity before democracy breaks through in Iran.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. Think about it fellow Canadians, talk is cheap.

Mulletaur

How typical that somebody who represents a political party, the Conservative Party, which does not hesitate to take foreign money to settle its leadership contests sees no political or moral barrier to using money to interfere in the internal political affairs of another country, no matter how counterproductive it would be.

Talk may be cheap, Jarrid, but yours is both cheap and tawdry.

jarrid

These are my views, but since you want to be partisan about it, let's talk about Pierre Trudeau's role in the events in Poland. Not only did he not lift a finger to support the Solidarity movement, he actually backed the Polish government when they brought in marshall law! Talk about being on the wrong side of history. No wonder dicatators showed up at his funeral. They had a friend in Pierre.

If the likes of Pierre Trudeau had had any meaningful influence on the world stage, there would be many more dictatorships to contend with than there are today.

Mulletaur

"Not only did he not lift a finger to support the Solidarity movement, he actually backed the Polish government when they brought in marshall law !"

What evidence do you have for this ridiculous statement ?

Mulletaur

Here is what Reuters reported on 19 December 1981 :

"Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said today that he regretted the imposition of martial law in Poland but could not condemn it if it prevented civil war and if the military authorities did not abuse their power. He rejected suggestions that Canada stop grain sales to Poland at preferred prices."

Not condemning something is a far cry from 'backing' it, but I expect the nuance escapes you, Jarrid the ConBot. By the way, you should always check your facts before mindlessly repeating Robert Fulford.
jarrid

He also said at the time that the Soviets controlled Poland pursuant to Yalta agreement and nothing could be done about that. In other words, pouring cold water on any thought of challenging the status quo.

Trudeau stood on the sidelines with his hands in his pockets while the world changed around him for the better. He was missing in action on arguably the most momentous moment of the 20th Century.

Where was he during World War II, right up there with the fall of the Berlin Wall as a momentous time during the last century when the time to fight evil was upon us? Why don't we hear from the horse's mouth, here's Trudeau writing in his 1993 memoirs "

"So there was a war? Tough… if you were a French Canadian in Montreal in the early 1940s, you did not automatically believe that this was a just war… we tended to think of this war as a settling of scores among the superpowers."

That's right folks, he takes a powder. And what is more, Mr. Super Genius I-know-better-than-anyone says he was just following everyone else, like a bleating sheep.
Stephen

PET couldnt condemn Martial Law since he had imposed it himself at one point. oops. But PET's comments were hardly surprising. His dragging out of Yalta was a convenient excuse though. In some ways PET was very conventional in his thinking on these issues, the world was as it was and he couldnt imagine it being otherwise, hence the acceptance of Soviet domination of Poland.

As for Iran. The american are limited in what they can do or say and are best advised to find ways to signal support for the aspiration of the Iranian people. As much as I would like to criticize Obama on this front, for the moment he is following an appropriately prudent course.
Mulletaur

So you would have gone charging in with tanks to liberate the Poles ? Give it a rest, numbnuts.
RayK

It seems obvious to me that Trudeau was not about to become the poster boy for opposing martial law in Poland when Trudeau himself had imposed martial law in Canada. Given that history this is probably about as strong as his comments could have been without seeming hypocritical.

Stopping grain sales to Poland at preferred prices would have just left people to starve.

Joseph

If you read Ignatieff's experience in Iran in 2005, which Potter recently dredged up, it seems more likely that any assistance from America would just hurt the Iranian dissidents. Remember that George H.W. Bush, who actually presided over the fall of the Soviet Union was very cautious not to openly endorse the reformers, lest he give the authorities an excuse to crush them.

Iranians clearly want more democracy, but they want it on their own terms. America under the influence of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine (supporting authoritarian regimes is ok as long as it helps fight the Cold War totalitarians) already has a sordid history of interferring in the affairs of Iran, with the CIA-backed overthrow of a secular democratic (but too left-wing) government to install the Shah (their right-wing puppet), supplying weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, etc. Unfortunately, the people of the Muslim world have a long memory, and so any aid from America now is still viewed with suspicion, even by the pro-democracy reformers.
Canuckistanian

"A friend in need is a friend indeed" (but a friend with weed is better ;-)

with friends like 'jarrid' (bomb-bomb-bomb Iran), you literally do not need enemies. literally. or maybe bombing your friends is jarrid's way of 'killing with kindness'.

the republican talking point on iran is truly a thing of beauty. go from nuking them to being BFFs in a matter of months.

Mulletaur

The irony of the current situation in Iran is that people may be demonstrating against the presidency of Ahmadinejad precisely because they want to avoid having the crap bombed out of them. They are afraid that Ahmadinejad's provocative statements and actions will make it easier to justify, at least on a political level, an attack on Iran.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Thanks for reminding us how cheap talk is, Jarrid.

Canuckistanian

LOL ;-D

good thing i was drinking milk…it'd be coming out my nostrils…

Riley Hennessey

What should Canada or Canadians be doing with respect to the Iranian protests? Could we be helpful? Should Lawrence Cannon be doing more?

I'm interested in your thoughts on Canada's role, if any.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

We should be booking a flight for Jarrid and find him a good spot near the water cannons.

jarrid

Sisyphus, given your predilection for intellectuals acting as apologists for corrupt and brutal regimes, think Chomsky's backing of Cambodia's Pol Pot regime, I have trouble picturing you being sprayed by a water cannon, but I sure can picture you manning one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Stop it, Jarrid. The mental image is too too exciting.
Canuckistanian

"but I sure can picture you manning one."

me too. but my mental image is UHF: "you get to drink from the firehose!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbbNCWZ2lvA

Riley Hennessey

By "if any" I meant to ask whether Canada should have a role, or not at all.
Terren

Iran is ridiculous. How can you forbid foreign journalists? How can you do this stupid stupid Iran.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

I saw one Iranian man interviewed the other night – he doesn't dare go back because of his beliefs. He's older, but believes in separation of church and state. He also said 70% of Iran's population is 30 or under. He feels this is hopeful.

A woman was also on and she lives in an Iranian neighbourhood in L.A. Apparently, she's worked on a documentary on the goings on there – and she also can't go back.

If we figure out a way to help more than it would hurt – by all means, but I think taking the approach Obama is taking right now is the right one.

Proof, isn't it, that you have to want this democracy and freedom enough for yourself to fight hard for it.

Gosh, I hope it works out well for them. I see some of those young Iranian people with all this determination – the girls are actally quite beautiful and they are the strongest in this, apparently. Equal rights for women.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Brammer Brammer

An election was held and many do not like the results. Nothing new so far.

In the absence of third party confirmation that the vote was in fact rigged, I think Obama's position is correct and we should not interfere.
Mulletaur

I think this is the sort of thing our dear friend Jarrid has in mind.
JMinTO

According to tweets posted on Andrew Sullivan's blog (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_d… the Canadian embassy is rejecting injured protestors.

PW: Get someone from DFAIT on the horn to confirm / deny!

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

JMinTO, if ever there was a city in which an embassy should be very careful about opening its gates, surely Tehran qualifies.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

The Australians, among others, are doing so.

I tried calling the public number on the DFAIT website but apparently no one is home.

Canuckistanian

aaargh! *wasn't* drinking…
Jenn

I remember a bit from Jon Stewart's show several years ago where he pointed out how the Americans gave weapons to each and every one of their enemies in the Middle East, to wage war against the USSR, Iran, etc. Every enemy used to be their friend, every friend then turned the weapons against the U.S. The bit was supposed to be funny, and it started out getting a few audience laughs, but as the truth sunk in, there was a moment of raw emotion–I could feel it even through the TV–between Stewart and the audience members. I rather think Stewart cut off the rest of the bit–he was definitely affected, and they broke for commercial. I wondered what the network did to get everyone back to high spirits. Anyway, I never forgot it.
Mulletaur

No less an authority than Dr Henry Kissinger says that Obama "is doing the right thing" by staying out of it in Iran. But Stephen and Jarrid know better, of course.

It is easy for forget (particularly if you weren't even born at the time) that Europe and North America lived under the constant threat of a nuclear war until the Cold War finally ended. Easy also to ignore the fact that Iran will become a nuclear weapon state no matter who is the president – should we really provoke them in advance by sticking our nose in Iran's internal affairs ? Never mind that it will be as counterproductive as any interference of Western nations in the internal affairs of others has ever been.

More amazing than anything is the enthusiasm of those on the conservative right for our state to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries while at the same time opposing any role whatsoever for the state in our own country. They know better what's good for foreigners but can't even manage themselves. Pathetic.

jarrid

Keep taking down your manufactured straw man arguments, if it makes you happy and content.

It is obvious that the western democracies, particularly the U.S., has to tread carefully as regards the situation in Iran. I just don't think we should pull a Trudeau and back the bad guys. We should back the good guys. I trust that's not controversial?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

But then Kissinger was a supporter of Pol Pot ….. until he stopped being a supporter of Pol Pot.
Mulletaur

Trudeau didn't back the 'bad guys', tosser. He just didn't condemn martial law in Poland "if it prevented civil war and if the military authorities did not abuse their power". Lordy, how do you unstick your fingers from the keyboard ?

And who are the good guys ? What do these good guys represent ? Perhaps you could answer those questions if you knew. But you don't. So you can't.
Mulletaur

Oh yeah, and you didn't reply to this, because you couldn't, you know that you are totally snookered :

"More amazing than anything is the enthusiasm of those on the conservative right for our state to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries while at the same time opposing any role whatsoever for the state in our own country. They know better what's good for foreigners but can't even manage themselves. Pathetic."

I will of course continue to remind you of this.