Khatami and Ebadi strive for unconditional talks between governments of Iran and U.S.

I've been perusing some Iranian blogs and news sources lately to hopefully establish some new contacts, perhaps even make a new friend or two, and most importantly, listen to what people in Iran, and in a more general sense, the Muslim world, have to say for themselves without being filtered through American corporate media sound-bites or U.S. government rhetoric trying to shape my opinions.

One interesting site I came across was called, Baztab, and from what I've gathered, it's an Iranian news aggregator site. On the surface, a lot of the stories seemed sympathetic to the Iranian regime, so I don't know how strong the ties could be between them.

One article that I found interesting was this one, which was apparently first published by The Christian Science Monitor, and concerned the moderate reformer Mohammad Khatami and a Nobel Peace Prize winner from Iran named, Shirin Ebadi. The article described their efforts to bypass the resistance of hardliners from both the U.S. and Iran to create unconditional talks between the governments of Iran and the U.S.

At the end of the article was a form for sending comments and I'm not sure where it went or whether it will display on their site, but I thought the opinions I expressed were worth documenting here also:

I agree with Mr. Khatami. Direct and unconditional talks with the U.S. government could possibly decrease tensions and improve relations. The problem is, there are elements in the U.S. government that are surely opposed to this...not because they have some kind of blind hatred to Iran or its government; but rather, because they don't want to improve relations with the current regime...they just want to keep applying more and more pressure, and even war, perhaps, if all else fails, until the Islamic regime collapses or is overthrown.

The U.S. government does not want to negotiate on a level playing field. That is, to negotiate with an adversary that will not readily be bribed in some form or simply cave in to its threats and pressures. Therefore, do not expect logic, but do expect continuous provacative rhetoric and threats of 'military action'...especially if John McCain becomes the next President.

The U.S. government will continue 'meddling' in the Middle East, because its life blood (oil) is at stake in the region, and certain corporations (especially the oil industry) will not allow anyone to threaten that or take away their control. Remember what the U.S. and British governments did when Mossadegh defied British domination of Iranian oil?

If people criticize certain governments of being 'puppets' of the U.S. government, then consider what forces pull the puppet strings of the U.S. government itself. These forces are not elected by the American people, nor are they accountable to the U.N. There is huge money to be made by these forces through conquest, such as in Iraq...and a relatively small handful of American soldiers being killed or maimed is a small price to pay (a price most likely not paid by their own sons and daughters) for all of the billions of dollars in wealth which they will accrue for themselves and their shareholders.

Adding to this, many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have been conditioned by some of their biggoted leaders to distrust Muslims as a whole; to consider them prone to terrorism by default; and teaching that the Koran promotes and advocates violence and world domination, even if it means murdering everyone who opposes it. Also, some claim that Mohammad was a pedophile and possessed by Satan. These are no small obstacles to overcome for the Muslim world in the face of such deep-seated contempt and mistrust by a wide swath of essentially uneducated and miseducated Americans.

Politically, I think the position, "We won't talk to Iran until it suspends uranium enrichment" is a red herring. Basically, I think the U.S. goverment has made a decision to either attempt an overthrow by force, or at the very least, to wait things out and hope the regime collapses on its own or by its own people.

The only possible hope, perhaps, is for people like Shirin Ebadi to refocus efforts through bypassing governments entirely and educating citizens directly and facilitating dialogue between ordinary Iranians and Americans. Over time, it will become harder and harder, and look more and more ridiculous for both governments to maintain their slogan-heavy rhetoric against each other when, meanwhile, Iranian and American people are fostering good relationships and increased understanding between each other and their cultures.

The Mohammad Cartoon Controversy Part II (Danes push their mainstream media aside and speak for themselves)

As a follow up to my previous post about the Danish cartoon controversy, I have to say that although it's still frustrating to contemplate the needless harm Danish media caused to many peaceful and innocent people by its petty emotional reaction to a police action against alleged extremists; I am quite happy to see many Danish citizens condemning the childishly provocative actions of its media, showing solidarity with Muslims and taking the parameters of the debate out of the hands of the mainstream media and into their own. The Danes have sent a clear message to their media: "You don't speak for Denmark or Danish people and we have our own voices which aren't being heard. We will handle things from this point forward and speak for ourselves!"

Bravo Denmark!

I learned of these new developments in quick succession, first, reading this story about the reaction of Danish Muslims to recent events.

Hundreds of Danish Muslims were demonstrating peacefully in Copenhagen. They expressed frustration that the Danish media would harm and offend them once again, but seemed sadly resigned that their feelings, beliefs and concerns would continue to be ignored. They didn't blame the Danish people themselves, whom they find largely tolerant and liberal, but put the blame squarely on Danish media for having "stirred controversy instead of trying to help mend community relations."

Though, in fairness, some of the protesters stirred up some controversy of their own by carrying the flags of Hizb ut-Tahrir which certainly could play on some European fears of having their own traditional identities and values absorbed and erased by some medieval-like Islamic caliphate extending to their own countries.

After reading this story, I immediately followed the link of an even more interesting story, which portends to the silent revolution of social discourse and debate which continues to spread around the internet.

Danish people were cognizant of the fact that their media (much like America's, I might add) does not speak for Danish people, but is merely a commercial organization, which largely expresses the views and values of its owners and management.

In response, a Danish student named, Anders Boetter created a site where ordinary Danes could apologize to Muslims for the offense caused by their media and, more revealingly, to give them their own voices back, instead of just passively allowing their own government or media organizations to 'speak for them'.

As a side comment, I find it both amusing and frustrating when I read stories in the media about international relations. They speak of nations as if they were actually individual people relating (and often fighting) with one another. I find the whole concept of a nation so very abstract and fragile anyway. What the media should say is that the government of a particular nation is doing or saying something which may or may not reflect the attitudes and desires of its own people.

But to return to the student's efforts; he criticized the media for making a 'black and white' debate over the issue, where you had to be clearly 'for or against' the cartoons, instead of expressing the ambiguity, the doubts, the subtlety and nuance, which he felt were a more accurate reflection of Danish feeling on the subject. He expressed his awareness that regardless of the underlying debate over the principles of freedom of expression, the simple fact of the matter was that the cartoons had actually deeply hurt and offended many people, both in Denmark and across the world. He wanted Muslims to know that many Danes were sorry about that and wanted to apologize and express their own anger at the emotionally-charged recklessness of their own media.

A Danish woman, reacting to the student's efforts said, "being proud of being Danish is something I rarely feel lately but with your initiative we're finally having a dialogue and there's understanding between people which the media has not been able to show the public".

Being citizens of a free society, some Danes, or course, set up a rival site that argues against the needs to apologize to anyone. They spoke of 'tolerating freedom of speech'; of leaving the country if people didn't like the 'smell in the bakery'; and that traditional Danish norms and values weren't topics open for debate. A simplistic, 'deal with it or get out' mentality.

Although, I do actually agree with many of their views regarding freedom of speech, and of respecting the cultural norms of the societies which Muslims migrate into; still, there's a need to 'choose one's battles' wisely and of not 'stirring up the pot' just to demonstrate that it can be done on principle, without any regard to the global consequences or the harm it could cause innocent people.

What's most encouraging to me, though, is that the debate has shifted from the hands of the mainstream media and into the hands of ordinary citizens.

As the article finished:

"Ignoring the mainstream media, young Danes have found a new way to air their views and debate the future of their society."

I hope that the silver lining of all of this controversy will be the continual empowerment of individual citizens to work out all the social and political issues that are important to them without the bumbling interference and emotional propaganda of governments and corporate, profit-driven media companies.

Something is Rotten in Denmark

Hello visitor, and welcome to my blog. I've been thinking about doing this for some time, but had doubts about the usefulness of adding yet one more voice to the blogosphere and whether it would even be read or have any practical social value to anyone besides its author.

I realize some bloggers probably just enjoy having an outlet to proclaim their views or even just a channel to vent their frustrations on; but to me, blogging will only have long-term value if I can eventually inspire, encourage and facilitate an exchange of views and perhaps even promote increased understanding and tolerance between and across various cultures...particularly, between the Islamic world and the West, which currently seems to be bogged down in what I believe to be largely avoidable tensions and conflict. This isn't to simply and minimize the flashpoint issues, but instead, speaks of my faith that the vast majority of people, regardless of culture, religion and background, are capable of reason, compromise, moderation and tolerance of others.

I guess what finally pushed me into action in creating this blog was this news report regarding a Danish newspaper's reprinting of a cartoon deemed highly offensive to many Muslims.

I don't presume to know the exact motivations behind the cartoonist's depiction of Muhammad, which sparked the original furor that inspired protests and violence across the globe in 2005. Some Muslims, perhaps, thought the cartoonist was being intentionally spiteful and hurtful against their religion and their prophet, but I'm not convinced that this was the simple explanation. Coming from a Westerner's perspective, the artist could have been making a statement regarding the corruption by some extremist elements of a mostly peaceful religion into something toxic, deadly and destructive to both itself and to the world at large. Or it could have been a statement regarding Western perceptions and paranoia regarding a religion and culture it mostly misunderstands and is ignorant of. It didn't necessarily need to be interpreted as a direct attack on Islam itself. Obviously, some of Islam's adherents assumed the worst and violently reacted against the cartoonist, the Danish media that published his work, and to some degree, against Denmark itself. This is particularly sad and frustrating since, in my experience, Danes are amongst the sanest, most peaceful and tolerant people in the world.

Nevertheless, for a time, all hell broke loose over the unflattering depictions of Muhammad, and consequently, real people were losing their lives in violent protests, and a lot of hatred and mistrust was being generated between the Islamic world and the West (yet again)...

Fast forward to current developments: Danish authorities announced the arrests of three men under their surveillance who were plotting to kill the cartoonist in revenge for his offensive depictions of their prophet. In direct response to this revelation, various Danish media outlets, including the original publisher, decided to reprint the exact same cartoons, which had inspired all of the violent reaction in 2005, and in this particular case, also inspired the alleged plans to kill the cartoonist. Which brings me to the purpose of this posting:

Are Danish media really doing Denmark, (or the cause of 'free speech' for that matter), a service by pushing this inflammatory issue into the faces of 1.5 billion Muslims once again? Are they really 'defending' the cartoonist and his work, or are they simply putting his life into even more jeopardy by pushing other Muslims who had, perhaps, previously given Denmark the benefit of the doubt, towards a more extremist view that Denmark and 'the West' were truly motivated to attack Islam itself?

I see these actions of Danish media as an impulsive, emotionally-charged and, quite frankly, an immature reaction to the alleged criminal intentions of an extremist fringe. If the allegations turn out to have merit, and the three men are, in fact, guilty of plotting murder, then that is clearly a crime which should be punished. However, it does not logically follow that it should be exploited as a justifiable cause to reopen old wounds and inflict new ones by reprinting something which is clearly perceived as being deeply offensive, and even blasphemous, by over a billion people across the world.

A more calm and reasoned approach would weigh the value of 'defending' the freedom of speech against the practical value of maintaining positive relations with massive numbers of people who adhere to different cultural norms and beliefs.

To take even the most forgiving perspective on the motives of the Danish media for reprinting the offending cartoons would still compel criticism of the emotional exaggeration in overstating their point while hiding behind intellectual arguments. They could have used plenty of real estate in their newspapers, websites and television channels for loudly railing against the 'oppressive' and 'unfair' sensitivities of Muslims, and religious people in general, for inhibiting writers from expressing their urge to mock and ridicule others. That would have clearly driven the point across regarding the extreme displeasure some people in Western countries experience when the religious adherents of different cultures cry "foul" for behaviors that seem normal and acceptable to us. It could have even opened up a debate on the issue with Muslims themselves...a debate that most likely would have been free of violence and might have even slightly lowered the walls of misunderstanding and mistrust between people with cultural conflicts. Maybe, just maybe, something along these lines could have happened.

Instead, the Danish media decided to 'shoot from the hip' and show the Muslims that the West would not be told what to do. This would be an almost humorous irony, if it weren't so dangerously stupid, since it essentially reflects the "you're either with us or against us" mentality that many Europeans mock President Bush and his conservative constituency for!

For all their big talk of standing up for principle, while hiding behind the smokescreen of 'freedom of speech', it actually smacks more of an emotional and childish gesture of spite; of sticking a thumb into the eye of that radical minority of Muslims who have already written off the West and are intent to inflict damage on us, thereby 'defending their prophet and their religion'. If this was merely the extent of the Danish media's damage, one might be tempted to argue that the balance sheet of hate hadn't changed at all. However, that's a very flawed calculus, indeed.

The reality is that the Danish media have, once again, successfully offended over a billion people who had no bone to pick with them and who harbored no violent or criminal intentions towards the cartoonist. This isn't to suggest that many of those same people weren't genuinely hurt, humiliated and angry at the original publication of those cartoons...clearly, many were. Though, in spite of the intense media coverage of the violent and deadly protests which followed, the vast majority of Muslims did not react violently towards anyone. Regardless of that fact, the Danish media have now blindly and carelessly reopened wounds which were still being healed, and have inflicted new ones on people who had nothing to do with the alleged criminal actions of three men. In U.S. military lingo, that would be considered 'collateral damage': Target three people who've pissed you off, and injure over a billion people who had no dog in that fight and are simply trying to peacefully co-exist with the West and its media's 'freedom of speech' hypocrisy and double standards.

Of course, the hypocrisy of media companies is not hard to find, with self-censorship and the squelching of dissenting views occurring all the time. It's a convenient tool to use when it suits them and helps conform popular opinion to the political leanings of its owners and sympathetic contributors.

I guess this calling out of double standards was the rationale behind the decision of an Iranian newspaper with links to supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to sponsor an offensive and distasteful 'competition' of cartoons about the Nazi Holocaust. With a cloying stench of hypocrisy of its own...that Iranian newspaper, which is undoubtedly no stranger to the self-censorship of dissent, had fired a salvo at Danish media at the expense of offending and inflicting pain on millions of Jewish people, (including Iran's own Jewish minority) who had nothing to do with the dispute at all.

So we can see from both sides, the ongoing exploitation and abuse of the emotions and deeply held beliefs of the peaceful and silent majority of people from all races and religions; perpetrated by the corporate and/or government controlled media, who hypocritically wrap themselves and their 'pure' motives in the flags of nationalism and defending 'freedom'. (So long as it's the freedom to express their views only.)

At this point, I think it is appropriate to point out that I'm actually staunchly in favor of the freedom of expression, which can be enjoyed and expressed by all people, not just the ruling elite or people with influence. Everyone's voice should be heard...even the offensive ones. So how do I square that belief with my assertion that the Danish media's republication of the offending cartoons was a stupid and harmful move?

Because they have stirred up a hornet's nest for no other reason, truth be told, than they are miffed that a few extremists had the gall to come after one of their own. And in doing so, not only have they recklessly harmed massive amounts of people who didn't deserve to be harmed, but they have increased hatred, mistrust and animosity between cultures that are already working from a disadvantaged starting point. Perhaps, most regretfully, they have possibly inspired a new set of extremists to abandon any temptation to engage in dialogue, but to instead, lash out violently against the West, and in particular, that Danish cartoonist, who may not get a lucky break from the police the next time around. I truly hope that he avoids such a fate.

Even though I strongly believe that I should have the freedom, in principle, to walk over to my next door neighbor's front yard in the middle of the night and scream for an hour to the entire neighborhood that his mother is a 'whore', and be able to do so without fear of censorship, arrest or imprisonment. It still does not follow that these offensive actions should be executed, merely to exercise the freedom on principle, and in order to test its validity and strength.

After all the theories, principles and intellectual boundaries have all been hashed out by the freedom-loving West; in the end, it's mostly about exercising good judgment.

In many circumstances, the 'highest good' lies simply in being a good neighbor.