"Susan Doesn't Suffer Fools." On the Other Hand, She Says Many Stupid Things.

The quote I used was taken from B4's link which talked about

"President Barack Obama is cutting funding for a well established program that has been working to increase democracy in Iran"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121643.html

Iran, unlike the examples you cite, (Afghanistan and Iraq) does have a history of modernization and democratic institutions. These terms are not alien to their culture or their way of life, before and even after the revolution, to some extent. moreover, the more recent demonstrations have shown that these principles still carry a lot of value and promise for the masses we watched on TV.

Denying them this little assistance simply cannot be understood by the simple formula you provide "they don't want to buy it, you can't sell it.".

Democratization of Iran is the only slimmest of hopes, or alternative, to war and other punishing measures leveled at Iran. If Obama cuts that brunch, rejects attacking the sites or cannot enforce sanctions, what are we left with? What kind of a vision of Iran do you get from these three rebuttals?

Try this:

"The Arabs know -- even if they won't say it -- they know that Israelis will only use nuclear weapons if they've been annihilated. But an Iranian nuke's destiny isn't in Israel. They all know that the Israel propaganda thing is just BS. [...]

MJT: Here's my read on this: The Iranians continue to threaten Israel while they're building this system, and I suspect they're doing this to calm down Sunni Arabs. The Iranians say "Hey, we're not after you guys, we're after the Jews. Relax." But what they really want to do is dominate Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, wherever there are Shias.

Eli Khoury: The Gulf and the Levant. They want to dominate the Gulf and the Levant."

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/10/in-the-crosshai.php

____________

This is from the blogger Selma who writes from Tehran:

"I was thinking that I wanted my children to live…

Because I have not.

I want them to live a life that is nothing like what I’ve lived…

I want them to know how it feels to kiss a lover in the streets and proudly let every passer watch you. I want them to make love without feeling guilty. I want them to love without fear.

I want them to wear all the colors of rainbow in one go, and feel safe. I want them to know that the police are out there watching the rapists and criminals, not young girls wearing skinny jeans and laughing a free spirited laugh. I want them to drink…I want them to party…I want them to let the breeze caress their hair… I want them to think of headscarves as occasional accessories, for fun, a fashion statement …not a fascist obligation for everyday…I want them to join face book without the need for anti-proxy software.

don’t want them to know how it feels to sleep in a bomb shelter, when you are five. I don’t want them to know what a red alert siren before the bombings sounds like. I don’t want them to watch anti air craft rockets against the dark sky, and remember that every time they see a shooting star when they are 27. I don’t want them to shiver at the sound o thunder storm.

I don’t want them to know what revolutionary executions are. I don’t want them to know revolutions never create the idealistic heavens they preach.

I don’t want them to be tortured and killed for their vote. I don’t want them to sigh every time they hear “civil liberties”. I don’t want them to cringe at the thought of another 4 years…40 years…who knows…

I was thinking that I wanted my children to live…because I have not."

http://antiutopia.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/all-quiet-on-the-eastern-front/

Great post, Noga. I think the corollary of "if they don't want to buy it, you can't sell it" is "if the want to buy it, you ought to sell it". Cutting off support for Iranian democracy is a form of malicious and morally bankrupt realpolitik that appeases, legitimizes, and strengthens a hostile, dangerous and illegitimate regime.

With regard to the "Iran Human Rights Documentation Center," is there an explanation from the Obama administration or from the State Department regarding the cutting of funding for it? Is it an elimination of funding, or merely a reduction in funding? And how can the State Department, rather than Congress, make these kinds of funding decisions?

dhurtado: "...Is it an elimination of funding, or merely a reduction in funding?"

"...Program directors were shocked when they were told that their yearly request for a grant of $2.7 million in program funding had been rejected."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121643.html

As for an explanation from the Obama administration, it is always hard to explain the inexplicable and defend the indefensible.

Irony, Thanks for the response.

I meant to add one paragraph but it was late last night, so here it is:

4. The role of the Holocaust is also important but complicated esp. in C&E Europe. While denazification worked largely in West Germany, it was the 1960s before the Germans took any serious steps to hunt down war criminals and genocide technicians (before that, either people protected their own or the lack of coordination between the federal states brought the same result). At some point, likewise, the generational shift brought about a broad rejection of the underlying social assumptions of fascism, which helped solidify democratic culture. At the same time, we wanted West Germans on our side in the Cold War, so we had an interest in not putting the entire nation on trial, so to speak. In C&E Europe, however, that process either didn't happen or there was a skewed version of it under communism. So some of the authoritarian impulse (and Hungary and Romania had been allies of Germany, more than victims) survived and we have seen it re-emerge here and there.

Austria is a special case.

Broadly, I think that we had/have a kind of double vision for a lot of places like Poland and Hungary -- are they the brave little nations that were imprisoned in the Soviet Bloc for so long, or are they the somewhat hysterical ethnic formations that came out of the Hapsburg empire with a vital tradition of antisemitism and ethnic exclusivity?

Yes, Bl462, I read the Haaretz article. But rejecting a request for a particular amount does not necessarily mean that no amount at all was granted. I have served on the board of a legal assistance organization that annually requested and received federal funding. It was often less than that requested, and sometimes was even less than what had been granted the prior year. That was very upsetting to the board. Some of us attributed it to antipathy on the part of some in congress toward any kind of public assistance. But I am sure many in Congress would say it is simply a matter of allocating limited resources among many worthy enterprises.

Which goes to the question of whether there is an explanation for eliminating or reducing funding for the IHRDC other than an antipathy toward human rights and democracy. Before one draws the latter conclusion, one ought to at least seek out an explanation from the adminstration.

On the Iran HRDC funding -- according to the Oct 6 Boston Globe story, the review of applications had been shifted downward from State's Near Eastern desk to USAID. I haven't a clue, however, whether that is of any significance for explaining this unexpected and, to put it very mildly, curious decision.

Despite all the assumptions we can make, however, I think it unlikely that the White House signs off on every 2.7 mi subvention to a small monitoring group. But it remains unclear -- at least as of 10/6 -- whether USAID is using altered or just different criteria to adjudge funding applications.

dhurtado:"...one ought to at least seek out an explanation from the adminstration."

I think the onus is on the Administration to offer an explanation, unless the explanation is that the cut speaks for itself.

Bl462: "I think the onus is on the Administration to offer an explanation, unless the explanation is that the cut speaks for itself."

Do you know that the administration has NOT offered an explanation? I think the onus is on you to support the contention that the administration is hostile to human rights and democracy, if that is what you are asserting. The cut does not speak for itself. As I have explained to you, there are plausible reasons for cutting funding even for worthwhile endeavors, e.g., limited resources to be allocated among many worthy causes.

dhurtado,

Why the hostility? Hey, all I know is what I read. If you can find an explanation, please enlighten me.

I am not sure why you regard my post as hostile Bl462, particularly given the tone of discourse that normally prevails on the Spine. It was not intended to be hostile and I'm sorry if it came across that way. In any event, the following passage from Farah Stockman's October 6, 2009 article in the Boston Globe suggests some reasons for the cut in funding other than hostility toward human rights and democracy:

"The job of doling out money to groups seeking to influence Iran has been shifted from the State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs Bureau to a lower-profile division, its US Agency for International Development. USAID spokesman Harry Edwards did not provide an explanation of why funding was denied for the Human Rights Documentation Center, widely seen as the most comprehensive clearing house of documents related to human rights abuses in Iran. He said the government’s funding priorities have not changed.

“US government priorities for the region continue to include support for civil society and advocacy, promoting the rule of law and human rights, and increasing access to alternative sources of information,’’ Edwards said. “Applications submitted to USAID are thoroughly reviewed against the evaluations criteria outlined in its solicitations.’’

The State Department has always been tight-lipped about who receives democracy funding for Iran, out of fear that the groups’ associates would be targeted in Iran. It is unclear how many other groups have lost their funding under the Obama administration.

Obama officials have argued publicly for a less-confrontational approach than Bush, in the belief that the Bush administration’s vocal support for democracy activists made them targets in Iran and stirred up fears of regime change.

The Obama administration has emphasized other forms of assistance, such as aid for software programs that help activists communicate on the Internet anonymously. It also has continued funding for exchange programs. In the coming months, for instance, the administration hopes to bring Iranian lawyers to major cities in the United States, including Boston, to talk with American lawyers about their concept of law."

At least part of that reasoning is that the administration favors means of promoting opposition to the Iranian regime that are not as likely to place the dissidents in danger. Another is that the administration still favors a strategy of engagement and therefore favors other means of supporting the opposition. One can certainly argue that those policies are completely wrong-headed, but I do not think it is fair to concude that they represent antipathy toward human rights and democracy.

Googling the keywords brings an odd absence of enlightenment. Seemingly the Boston Globe was the only regular publication to cover the story, and it was then picked up by Fox, and by a few conservative blogs and a couple of NGO-type places. Other than that, two things can be said: (a) the story seems to die out a week or so ago (temporarily maybe) and (b) the same language keeps repeating itself from reference to reference, so the impression is that there was no new reporting, but just a recycling of the original Globe article.

Also, the original USAID call for applications can be read. They had a pool of $20 mil to disburse, so it would be interesting to know whether they spent the whole sum, and if so, what groups obtained funding in lieu of the IHRDC? Searching for "Iran" on the USAID website brings up material on the 2003 earthquake -- not a lot of use -- but USAID funding decisions are not secret, so it shouldn't be too difficult to establish who got what from the $20 mil.

On the other hand, reading that part of the article again in dhurt's post, maybe Iran-related funding IS secret.

dhurtado,

Thanks for the info and no hard feelings. But the quote by the USAID official article seems to be highlighted as a non-explanation in the Globe article.

"...USAID spokesman Harry Edwards did not provide an explanation of why funding was denied for the Human Rights Documentation Center, widely seen as the most comprehensive clearing house of documents related to human rights abuses in Iran. He said the government’s funding priorities have not changed..."

On the other hand, in the Haaretz article, Sen. Lieberman, Muravchik from Johns Hopkins, the unnamed former State Dept official and Rene Redman, the executive director of the IHRDC do all seem to be quoted as interpreting the funding cut as speaking for itself, and is consistent with what seems to me to be the administration's appeasement policy towards the illegitimate Ahmadinejad regime and consistent with its lack of support for the opposition movement in Iran following the stolen election. The explanation that the "Bush administration's vocal support for democracy activists made them targets in Iran and stirred up fears of regime change" seems ludicrous, as well as condescending towards the opposition forces in Iran which didn't seem to have required vocal support from the Obma administration to have been nonetheless brutally repressed, shot, tortured and imprisoned for their efforts after the election.

The other thing is, that aside from the principles involved, in terms of interests, if the long term future of Iran is with the opposition, then the Obama administration is making the same long term mistake in betting on Ahmadinejad regime's longevity and stability as the Carter administration made in betting on the Shah's. If they eventually win, they will long remember.

If you start using the word "appeasement," b, it seems to me you have already reached a conclusion on fairly thin grounds. At the moment, negotiations between the U.S. and Iran have only just begun (and essentially no bilateral ones as yet), and nothing much has happened to justify calling it either appeasement or confrontation (in fact, the Qom nuclear site discovery has wrong-footed the Iranians). However, if you regard any engagement with the Iranian regime as "appeasement," then obviously we have radically different starting-points for this issue.

In any case, as noted above, the lack of funding for the IHRDC says nothing about what other groups or organizations did receive funding (again there was a much larger sum to disburse). At the moment, while I agree that the implications of the decision are worrying, we have nothing more to go on other than the perfectly understandable protests of a group that has been defunded.

Irony,

Yep, I think I have already reached a conclusion. I'd like to be wrong on it. But, with a history of nothing but rude rebuffs from Ahmadinejad, no talk of or deadline for unilateral US sanctions or multilateral sanctions if UN ones aren't on (we live and hope, but I ain't holding my breath) it sure looks like appeasement to me.

b, check out this Plank posting from a few days ago -- it's odd that it didn't start a thread but people seem to have migrated over here in recent times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR200910...

It would be interesting if we had found some way . . . or if they think we've found some way but they aren't sure.

Stockman describes Edwards' comments as non-explanatory, but then offers possible explanations for the decision. My point is that, where there are plausible explanations other than antipathy or indifference toward human rights and democracy, it is unfair to assume away the other plausible explanations. Lieberman et al. are not interpreting the decision as "speaking for itself." They are merely interpreting it. Other interpretations are plausible, such as those suggested by Stockman.

Now, I suppose "antipathy toward human rights and democracy" is hyperbole for what you are calling "appeasement." Fair enough, but that word I think inhibits dialogue because it evokes making territorial or other substantive concessions merely to avoid a confrontation, ala the appeasement of Hitler. "Engagement" and "negotiation" are more accurate words for the situation with Iran. There can be a legitimate debate about whether that is good policy. But that debate will be more productive, in my view, if we try to avoid inflammatory epithets.

Irony,

Thanks for the link. That's indeed interesting. I wonder how or if it plays with this WP story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/16/AR200910...

Irony,

I read Ignatius's article the other day. But I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "found some way."

dhurt,

"...There can be a legitimate debate about whether that is good policy. But that debate will be more productive, in my view, if we try to avoid inflammatory epithets."

You're absolutely right. When everyone shouts, no one listens. I was trying to use the word "appeasement" in the sense of "avoiding conflict by accession" e.g. avoiding confrontation with with the Ahmadinejad regime on its electoral fraud, in seemingly reducing or eliminating funding to the IHRDC, and on the nuclear file.

b -- that other article would in some ways suggest the opposite of the Ignatius piece.

dhurt -- around a year ago there was a story floating around that, as part of their efforts to pacify the Israelis (who had wanted overflight rights over Iraq), the Bush administration revealed that it had ok'd a highly covert operation to basically sabotage a crucial element of the Iranian nuclear enrichment process. Nobody confirmed or denied it, as one might expect, but it did raise the notion that either we had genuinely managed to do that, or the Iranians were puzzled over some failures in their project and were getting paranoid about the possibility that we might have caused them.

Interesting Irony. As to any tenstion between Ignatius' article and the other article, I read the former not as saying that Iran does not want nuclear weapons capability, but that it might be much further away from it then we had thought.

b -- The problem speaking out against the alleged electoral fraud was that, at least at the time, there was no factual basis for actually concluding that the election was fraudulent. Obama did speak out against the mullahs' response to the protests. I am not sure what more he could have done under the circumstances. The IHRDC funding issue is probably a matter of not wanting to give the Iranian regime ammunition to say the US is actively undermining it, but I don't know. I am somewhat agnostic about whether that is good policy, but if there is any chance at all of bring international pressure to bear on Iran, then it may be good policy. I don't know what the "nculear file" refers to.

dhurt,

The 'nuclear file" is Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. I fear that the lack of talk of or deadline for unilateral US sanctions or multilateral sanctions if UN ones aren't on represent tacit US acceptance of a nuclear Iran.