Freiheit, na und?

Wie sehr vornehmlich Linksintellektuelle dazu neigen, die Zustände in nahöstlichen Diktaturen mit dem Verweis auf vermeintliche Parallelen hierzulande zu relativieren, weiss ich aus eigener Erfahrung nur zu gut. In “Why is the liberal/leftist discourse of the West incapable of including Iranian voices of freedom and democracy?” führt Naheed Rasa all die tumben Denkfiguren westlicher Linksintellektueller im Demokratiediskurs vor und erklärt, warum die neokonservative Aussenpolitik der USA soviel Zuspruch unter der iranischen Bevölkerung findet:

For years — since before the 1979 Revolution in Iran — we considered ourselves part of an international progressive discourse whose defining elements included issues of democratic movements in countries such as Iran. However, we have had a growing sense that, in this new era of “New World Order”, the international Liberal/Leftist discourse has left us out. And here is what I think is the underlying reason: this discourse is now defining itself simply as Anti-Conservative discourse, nothing more. And simplistic Anti-Conservatism is incapable of addressing real issues of democratic movements in Iran (and, I believe, many other countries in the region).

Let me give you some examples to clarify my point. I start with the current war in Iraq. We believe that the Bush Administration’s justifications for war were quite baseless and shameless yet we believe it is ridiculous to deny that, for example, in Iraqi Kurdistan we are witnessing the formation of one of the best examples of democracy in the region. (…) But the reaction of the Liberal/Leftist discourse to this (…) has simply been sneering and stock answers such as “You cannot impose democracy”, “Force cannot bring freedom”, and so on.

Let us think of another example. (…) For example, the American administration does nothing about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, but it insists on preventing Iran from developing even the technology. We understand this. But at the same time we believe those who think the current government of Iran is not pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons are total idiots.

So, here is the question: should we be concerned with the double standards of Conservatives, or should we think about the fact that no matter how you look at it, it is a terrible idea to let the current regime in Iran lay its hands on nuclear weapons? It seems that according to the current Leftist discourse, this is not the important question. They just keep trying to point out the inconsistencies in Conservatives’ arguments. What will become of Iranians and many others in the region if the Islamic regime does end up possessing nuclear weapons is of no importance to them.

Let me give you the latest example. The recent presidential election in Iran was a joke. The position of the Conservative discourse was announced through the current US administration, which called this election undemocratic, rigged, ridiculous. Once again it is obvious that they were not necessarily concerned about democracy in Iran and had other ulterior, transparent reasons.

The Leftist discourse, thinking that American Conservatives might use this occasion to justify their possible aggression against Iran, reminded Conservatives that recent presidential elections in the US have not been problem-free either. And here lies the difficulty. We agree that there have been and are many problems with the elections in the US, but we also believe it is either ludicrous or disingenuous to compare them to Iranian elections.

(…) So once again here is our dilemma: We believe the Leftist discourse is correct in pointing out the inconsistencies of the Conservatives’ position, but this does not help us at all because it does not address our main concern, namely the deterioration of the situation of Iranian people with regard to fundamental freedoms.

Take for example the issue of Hejab (Islamic covering for women) in Iran. Everybody knows that it was imposed on Iranian women after the 1979 Revolution. To this very day, the Islamic regime has to use force to persuade Iranian women to conform to their culture! Officials of the Islamic regime are never challenged when they refer to Hejab as a cultural phenomenon, and what is worse, scholars then try to theorize about this exotic phenomenon.

One of those culture-specialist scholars who had done “research” on this topic argues that Islamic Hejab gives women more power because they can see while they cannot be seen! I really wish these so-called scholars would go to Tehran in the summer and ask women who are forced to cover themselves head to toe out of doors in more than 100-degree heat about the balance between power and overheating! I understand that some people here need to publish in order to get their tenure, but do we not also need a minimum level of intellectual integrity?

(…) Other than that, the idea that different cultures and their voices should be automatically respected or tolerated has had further terrible consequences. We all remember Salman Rushdie’s case. The shameless fatwa by Khomeini should have provided sufficient cause for any Liberal/Radical/Leftist discourse to pressure the governments of every single democratic society to take the strongest position against the Islamic regime of Iran. But instead, this fatwa was simply criticized, condemned, and accepted, and at the same time discussions were held about the sensitive nature of faith issues!

Ironically enough, since Conservatives (specifically, the European ones) were protecting their capitalist constituents, they did not have any specific reason to advocate a strong position against the Islamic regime either. When translators of The Satanic Verses were attacked and killed, the same “tolerance” and “respect” continued. What was academic/Leftist discourse supposed to do, one might ask.

(…) Therefore what we see in these academic environments, even when faced with events such as the mass murders of 9/11 or the massacre of political prisoners in the summer of 1988 in Iran, is the sheepish repetition of clichés such as “this is not true Islam”, “Islam is the religion of peace”, … Nobody gives enough of a damn to actually examine these statements. At least in Iran, every time Islam has been in power peace and freedom have disappeared and oppression has emerged.

(…) After the killing of the Iranian-Canadian journalist, Zahra Kazemi, in the notorious Evin prison, not one single serious effort was made to force the Canadian government to rethink its relationship with Iran. And there are many, many similar examples of such atrocities which have been overlooked.

Even when they have been instigated in Western countries by agents of the Islamic regime, they have led to no meaningful reaction. One needs only think about the killing of the opposition figures especially in Germany (1992) which led to a ruling by a German court that implicated a number of public officials in the Islamic regime. Yet today Germany is one of the main economic partners of Iran; only recently the leaders of the Green Party asked the Iranian ambassador to convey their message to Iranian officials concerning Akbar Ganji. This is the full and entire extent of their efforts!

I should add that, in my opinion, this “tolerance” has led to a belief among many Moslems that it is their right to attack and kill whatever and whoever they think acts against their sacred beliefs. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I am publishing this piece under a pen name (…) Some damned fool might issue a fatwa to kill me: another damned fool might be tempted to carry it out in order to end up in a garden filled with virgins, Paradise according to the Qoran. This might sound farfetched, but it is impossible not to think about the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, who was foully murdered for daring to make a movie criticizing the way Islam treats women. (By the way, let us not forget that the strongest reactions to van Gogh’s murder came from conservative discourses and not liberal or leftist ones.) (…)

We further realized that this so-called Leftist discourse has become totally enmeshed with an academic version of spinelessness that continues to regurgitate benign clichés whose sole purpose is to protect the undeserved perks of the members of academia. That is why this discourse is not even thinking about tackling taboos.

(…) Conversely, and surprisingly, we came to realize that on several occasions the Conservative discourse is addressing some of our concerns, albeit for different reasons and not strategically. This is probably one of the main reasons which account for the recent popularity in Iran of US Middle East policies.

Well said! Und hier meine Vorhersage: Auch für diese Stimme werden die europäischen Linksintellektuellen wieder einmal taub sein.

• Ein Volk von Dissidenten, July 24, 2007 | By Michael Kreutz
• Vom Youth Bulge direkt in die Rentenkrise, April 27, 2009 | By Martin Riexinger
• Das arabische Sofa, June 27, 2009 | By Martin Riexinger
• Dilettantismus (2), June 22, 2009 | By Michael Kreutz
• Iranische Bomben für den Irak, August 6, 2005 | By Michael Kreutz
• Die algerischen Muslimbrüder, October 17, 2009 | By Martin Riexinger
• Die Ignoranz der Intellektuellen gegenüber dem Irak, October 11, 2005 | By Michael Kreutz
• Kleine Provokationen…, October 17, 2005 | By Michael Kreutz

Tags: Bush, Demokratie, Freiheit, Iran, Islam, Israel, Opposition, Religion, UN, USA

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 9th, 2005 at 10:50 pm and is filed under Europäische Union, Irak, Iran. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.