DONKEYS PARTY

10-10-2007
06-12-2007
06-08-2007
06-06-2007
06-01-2007

The Possibility of War:

Interview with Mehrdad - Audio - Text

Interview with Mohsen - Audio - Text

Friday, October 26, 2007

Cut off funding for Iranian civil society?    [Michael Rubin]

Akbar Ganji has an op-ed in today's Washington Post arguing that Congress should cut off any aid or assistance to Iranian civil society. It is a direct response to my Washington Post op-ed last week.

Ganji is accomplished, but there are several flaws in his logic:

• He seeks to build credibility by noting his time in prison. But he was imprisoned before the Congress began funding Iranian civil society, and released after such funding.

• He argues for freer media, but is unaware that more than half the money he seeks to cut funds independent media. Very little if any money funds individuals or groups. It is clear but sad that his English-speaking handlers manipulate him.

• He seeks to speak on behalf of Iranian democracy activists, but many of those who suffered in Iranian prison staunchly disagree with him .

As an aside, it has been almost a week since my op-ed, and the National Iranian American Council has yet to explain why they simultaneously l obbied against civil society funding , while at the same time soliciting U.S.-funded grants to conduct civil society funding. Since NIAC calls on the State Department to identify who participates in its civil society programs, will NIAC do the same? Will NIAC return the money they solicited from NED (including in 2007, I am told)?

10/26 06:50 AM

From: Nazli Kamvari
To: Donkeys Party
Date: Oct 25, 2007 1:11 PM

I sometimes wonder if our friends such as Mr. Khalaji and the gang of the native-informant experts (trained in Sorbonne and all) are aware of the historical role they are playing (I mean they are certainly very well aware of the mainstream political language when they call the members of the Union of Workers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, Bus Drivers).  Khalaji's tone in logically advocating sanctions as the only solution to Iran's problem reminded me to remind him of the good old Iraqi situation (I am doing some research on the matter so that I might be able to pursue some friends to write on Iraq in Persian to raise some awareness on the situation).

I was reading Tyner's " The Business of War: Workers, Warriors and Hostages in Occupied Iraq" some time ago and wondering if the ignorance of our native-informants in world history is at all contributing to the sort of writing we are witnessing on Iran. Aside from Tyner's main thesis that the actions of the Bush administration reflect a continuity with earlier administration namely the American imperial expansion through intervention, Tyner used a rather over-used metaphor of the Orwell's Nineteen eighty-four  that I felt I had to share with Mehdi:

  It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest in his capacity as an administrator. It is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones; but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile, no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.

At the same time I was writing this email I was also wondering if it is even worth writing anything in line with my student activist work and effects of advocacy of sanctions and what happened to Iraq (and how many children died each year ...) which I thought I should spare you the rowzeh since arguments as such is old news for the members of this list.

I suppose it is the "Manifest Destiny" of our friends Ramin Ahmadi, Akbar Atri, Mehdi Khalji et al . (natives of the third world) to be part of the greater "Manifest Destiny" and I suppose it makes little or no difference who is lying and why! After all before our friends decided to be "active" in making the world a better place it was President Polk who in 1848 made sure to legitimize US actions in Mexican war by saying that the land gained by the US is of little value to Mexico and with US domination the land will be of "great benefit to United States, the commercial world and the general interests of Mankind" (Tyner, 2006, p.35). 

In the same line of arguments President Jackson thought of US expansions as "extending the area of freedom" and President McKinely argued that the war on Philippines was not a conquest but a move for love of freedom and for the sake of humanity (ibid).  Of course if one looks for "manifests" one finds "manifests" in the 1992 commissioned writings of Paul Wolfowitz (a good friend of Iran and Iranians) for then secretary of defense Richard Cheney where he argued that that American military power can be used to punish the use of weapons of mass destruction even in conflicts that otherwise do not directly engage US interests" (Tyner, 2006, p.50). Further Wolfowitz suggested that "an unchallenged American Hegemony in the world" is needed and "pre-emptive military force can be used to maintain this position (ibid).

Ironically enough those who pushed for sanctions on Iraq were the same ones who pushed for military action and were the same ones who pushed for further economic liberalization after the invasion of Iraq to institutionalize the norms of neo-liberal governance in such way that benefits the US long term plans in the region. So, for example after the oil for food program, the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) ended Saddam's "protectionism" including the subsidies on fertilizers, pesticides which adversely effect Iraq's food production and depended Iraq on imported food now compromising 25% of Iraqi government's revenue in the form of the imported monthly food basket (See Herring and Rangwala's "Iraq in Fragments: The Occupation and its Legacy" 2006, p.222).

The case for Iraqi agriculture seems to be a criminal one as far as I am concerned with the CPA now banning seed saving and sale of genetically modified seeds arguing that the farmers have to pay patent holders their share (Herring and Rangwala, 2006, p.240). This is particularly interesting when it becomes clear that the patent holders are none but the multi-national companies such as Bayers and Dow Chemical and the century old farming systems of the Iraqis is of no value in this new global world order as they have never registered their patented agricultural methods in any international legal body. Of course the CPA is too involved in caring for the benefits of all US-businesses and while it is allowing for the %100 foreign ownership of all businesses in Iraq (except for those involved with natural resources initial processing, i.e oil), it make sure that those trades are liberalizing enough to only allow US-friendly companies or processes to gain benefit from them (Herring and Rangwala, 2006, 227).

I was also wondering how people become native informants and experts? Is the training at Sorbonne or merely visiting Sorbonne? By the way, what does training at Sorbonne mean? Do universities now train experts and give them a title of "trained at Sorbonne?"  While I understand that those who need "experts" will find experts, I really think we should be more critical of native informants and  think thank experts short cutting the academic processes and the tenure-tracks!

05-31-2007
Qajar Photographs
Nest of Spies
05-22-2007
05-20-2007
05-15-2007
05-10-2007
05-08-2007

HAMID DABASHI ON BOLINGER, AHMADINEJAD, AND GANJI

From: Elham Gheytanchi
To: Donkeys Party
Date: Oct 14, 2007 3:52 AM

I am having a hard time understanding " Ganji's colonizing mind "?!
http://www.nilgoon.org/Donkeys -Party/Articles/Donkeys _10122007.html

From: Mohammad Borghei
To: Donkeys Party
Date: Oct 14, 2007 3:29 PM

I would be grateful if you put my comment on site too.
Borghei


I read Dr. Dabashi 's excellent article . It was well written and courageous. He analyzed every part of Mr. Bollinger's speech and criticized it quite well. I especially liked his point that most liberal academicians only express their views when they feel that they are safe and therefore don't take enough risks.

What I didn't like in his article and found very unfair and unjust is his view of Mr. Ganji .  Dabashi compared him with Bollinger and considered both of them two sides of one coin. He blamed Ganji for gathering 300 signatures of famous intellectuals all over the world and since the list of signatures did not included any Iranians, he is labeled as a man with a colonized mind . The history of Ganji's life shows that he is a very brave and courageous man who fully endangers his life for his beliefs. From the time Ganji came to the U.S. he has demonstrated in all of his activities that he is a very independent and intellectual man. As well all know, most Iranian opposing individuals who immigrated to the U.S. as well as many writers and intellectuals residing in this country, in one way or another cooperate with the U.S. government in hopes of some sort of benefit.  This point has been expressed in Dr. Dabashi's previous discussions. However Ganji did not welcome any approach of the U.S. authorities. He even refused invitation from the White House. In his writings, including this petition, he sharply criticized America and insisted that the U.S. should not interfere with Iran's internal affairs and condemns any attack or sanction against Iran. in fact by his actions during the last year and half he demonstrate that one can be  a famous opposition of Iranian government but be totally independent from any foreign power.

Considering all of this I don't understand why he was labeled a man with a colonized mind. Yes, Iranians signatories were not included on that petition because it's well known world wide that the majority of Iranian intellectuals ,including Dr. Dabashi,oppose the oppressive government of Iran. This petition added another voice to the loud Iranian protest against their government.

Dr. Dabashi is very well aware that any action can be criticized.  And one can say that each action could be performed in a better way. While everybody is entitled to his or her opinion and taste, they are not allowed to label a man in such a ruthless and irresponsible manner, especially if that man has proved  his sincerity, independence, and  love for democracy and freedom. Wise men as well as holy books during centuries warned the writer about the responsibility of the pen. A writer is not allowed to let his personal anger dictate his judgment.

From: Ahmad Eshraghi
To: Donkeys Party
Date: Oct 17, 2007 9:27 AM

I consider Mohammad Borghei a fair and open-minded person, and that is why I am responding to him. After I read Hamid Dabashi 's article, I felt extremely agitated. And that is the danger in his writings. He seems to me unfair and unnecessarily provocative. He picks on some true themes but goes so much to exteremes and twists things around that, on the whole, the picture you get is unjust and false. I am appalled at what Bollinger did that night and feel embarressed at Ahmadinejad 's performance, but I don't think I should let Dabashi poison my mind about him this much. If you know he is unfair about Akbar Ganji and is trying to demonize him only because Ganji failed to get Iranian signatures in his petition, if Dabashi is so vicious toward Azar Nafici about the picture on the cover of her book that might not even have been her choice, then he might be unfair toward Bollinger as well. I find his articles interesting but at the same time poisonous. He seems to me bitter and overinflated at the same time. I think you should consider him with a bit of caution. Don't fall for some obvious truths and facts in his writings.   

From: Fariba Amini
To: Donkeys Party
Date: Oct 22, 2007 9:43 PM

Again, it is our dear Mr. Dabashi who intervenes in the struggle against the almighty imperialism while enjoying a comfortable life in the Big Apple.  His article in Al-Ahram deserves little or no comment. Like his book, " Iran: A People Interrupted ", it is full of innuendo and wrong interpretations about people, individuals and the history of Iran.  His article is just a replica of that, written in bombastic English. Though Dabashi targets A.N. and Bollinger and the fiasco at Columbia,  half of his article is addressed to Akbar Ganji . Whereas in one chapter in his book he praises Ganji as a courageous man, in this article, he makes him look like a man who sells his "inorganic" ideas to the West.

Ganji has been relentless in exposing the human rights violations of this corrupt regime--not just Ahmadi Nejad's role in it, but the entire system.  Recently, he gathered more than 300 signatures of world renowned intellectuals.  How many of us have ever done anything like that, living in our comfortable homes, tending to our jobs and making enough money in this vast imperalist country? Obvisouly, Ganji has sacrificed a lot. Now, Mr. Dabahsi is mad at poor Ganji after the latter refused to add him to the list.

Why is he so mad at Ganji?  Maybe it is  jealousy, maybe the fact that Ganji in a short time has received more praise than all of us combined?  Now we can add " colonized mind " to the long list of terms in Dabashi's vocabulary.  It is sad that a professor of such stature at an Ivy league University would misuse the pages of a major Arab newspaper to slander an Iranian compatriot who has been only exemplary in his words and in his actions. Why, may I ask, does Dr. Dabashi remain at this terrible Ivy League school instead of going to, say, Birzeit University in the occupied territories?  Surely he likes this life better than living in constant danger and sharing the daily struggle with the Palestinians.  Some people practice; others just preach.

On this topic, I fully agree with Ahmad and respectfully disagree with Dr. Borghei .

FA

From: Ramin Ahmadi
To: Donkeys Party
Date: Oct 23, 2007 9:43 AM

Reply to Fariba Amini

Akbar Ganji is lucky to have so many loyal friends who would voice their solidarity with him and protest ad hominem arguments of the mad men. I have been a target of these attacks in Al-Ahram and lost my entire Egyptian fan club last year.

Ramin

Dollar Democracy

Akbar Ganji

OCTOBER 27, 2007

Iran and the West need to have friendly and peaceful relations. But, at present, everyone is more than ever faced with the threat of war. In order to prevent war, there are things that need to be done. Peace is a product of democracy. Despotic states are furtive and untrustworthy. The Iranian people want to have a secular, democratic state that is committed to freedom and human rights. If Iran had a democratic state, the West would no longer need to fear the Iranian government. Iran's current fundamentalist state is a dangerous state; but it is dangerous for its own people, not for the US. We need freedom, democracy and peace; not war conditions and the constant dreading of a barrage of destructive US missiles. The seeds of democracy need fertile soil in order to grow. Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. are fertile soil for fundamentalism. If free and fair elections were held in these countries now, fundamentalists would emerge victorious. Iran is the only country in t! he Middle East in which modern, democratic forces would win any free and fair elections. Transition to democracy through peaceful struggle is our current concern. But our problem is not just the fact that the Iranian regime suppresses civil society on the pretext of war, it is also the fact that the regime describes all its opponents as US stooges and mercenaries.

Democratic Iranian forces' opposition to the 75m-dollar US fund has generated a great deal of misunderstanding. So, we need to make it clear what we oppose and what we favour.

1. Any government's foreign policy is directed at fulfilling and safeguarding the country's national interests. Any government provides financial aid to others based on its own interests. And those who receive this kind of aid naturally have to align themselves with the donor's policies. The affiliation to the Iranian government of Lebanon's Hezbollah, the Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council, and some Afghan groups is because they receive financial assistance and weapons from Iran. The US Administration also provides assistance of this kind to various countries and groups. The Iranian people do not want their democratic movement to be dependent on and affiliated to any foreign government.

The US Administration's foreign policy in Asia and Africa is (not unusually) dictated by US political and economic interests, not by concern for spreading democracy. Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and many other countries that have friendly ties with the US Administration are major violators of human rights and have despotic regimes. But the US Administration does not attach much importance to the violation of human rights in these countries and does not allocate budgets to make them democratic. The people of the Middle East see US foreign policy as biased support for the Israeli government, not as an effort to spread democracy.

2. In view of the fact that many Iranian politicians in the last two centuries were steered by and in the pay of foreign embassies, the general disposition of Iranian intellectuals and opposition activists is anti-foreigner. When an Iranian receives money from a foreign government, he/she is shunned by the people and becomes ineffective. In Iran, anyone who accepts money from a foreign government is dubbed "a mercenary". If the US Administration is striving to give official recognition to democratic Iranians, it should be aware that any Iranian who asks the US for money or takes money from it will not be "recognized" as a democrat by Iranians.

3. The Iranian regime uses the 75m-dollar US fund as an excuse to accuse all its opponents of drawing on this fund. Although this is a big lie, this ploy has proved to be a relatively effective way of poisoning the public's mind against the regime's opponents. One of the reasons for the current regime's staying power is Iranians' opposition to and fear of foreigners.

4. What if the US were to allocate a 1bn-dollar fund to spread democracy in Iran? Would it be possible to create a democratic state in another country (Iran) with this sum? The people who think that they can make democracies with dollars should submit a bill for the allocation of funds for transforming all despotic regimes into democracies. If dollars could create democracies, why did the US Administration send so many troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, and squander more than 500bn dollars?

5. Iran's democratic movement and civil institutions do need financial resources. But these resources must come from Iranian sources. If Iranians themselves do nothing to make the transition to democracy, democracy cannot be presented to them like a gift. Expatriate Iranians have worked hard and have made a big fortunate (amounting to some 600bn to 800bn dollars). They can help their country's democratic movement and assist the transition to democracy by establishing a truly national medium (TV).

6. Democracy has epistemic and social prerequisites. If these prerequisites exist, then, it is the turn of brave, freedom-loving individuals to make the transition to democracy possible through their struggles. Many of social prerequisites of democracy do exist in Iran now. But dollars cannot produce the brave, combative individuals who are prepared to pay the price of struggling for democracy.

7. What has the 75m-dollar fund been spent on? On Radio Farda, VOA TV and US State Department activities. It makes no difference to us how much is allocated to these recipients. But even if one single dollar of this fund has been given to an Iranian group, why is this not publicized openly? In view of these facts, why do you describe this fund as a fund for supporting democracy in Iran? Why not call it a fund for Radio Farda, VOA TV and the State Department? This would also help dispel the idea that these media's purpose is to overthrow the Iranian regime. At the same time, does Congress feel no need to make a clear assessment of whether or not this fund has assisted the progress of democracy in Iran so far?

This is our request: In order to do away with any misunderstanding, approve a bill that totally bans the payment of any funds to Iranian opposition groups/individuals. The Iranian people's democratic movement does not need handouts from foreign governments; it needs the moral support of the international community and condemnation, by the world, of the Iranian regime for its extensive and systematic violation of human rights. The United Nations' ineffective Human Rights Council must also be made effective.

So, what do we favour? The Iranian regime has closed down all independent media and is preventing the people from hearing any democratic voices. The Iranian government is using modern technology, which it has purchased from Western companies, to block many websites and to make it almost impossible for Iranians to use the Internet. The West has made profit at the Iranian people's expense by selling this technology to the Iranian government. The Iranian regime's extensive censorship and media hegemony has to be ruptured. If the Iranian people can learn about events via a 24-hour TV and have effective access to the Internet; and if they can hear and read open criticism of the regime's policies and learn about alternative models of government, the regime will be forced to abandon its security-censorship apparatus. Giving funds to the opposition is one thing; allowing Iranians to have access to foreign media and accurate information is another thing altogether.