"...Anger and deadly violence in Iran escalate, despite tough warnings from the country's supreme leader. As the protests continue, what do reforminsts want exactly? What will become of their movement? And can they shake the foundations of the Islamic Revolution?"
Thursday 23 July 2009
Documentary: The battle between Moderate and Radical Islam
Since yesterday, I've been busy working on a briefing analysis that I need to present to a group of highly opinionated I.R. students. I need to present an analysis on the bi-lateral cooperation between Australia and Indonesia as a result of the Bali attacks on October 12, 2002.
Whilst researching for this topic, I came across the following documentary, by Al Jazeera, in all its entirety conveniently available on YouTube.
Note that Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. Contrary to the beliefs and actions that are often referred to as "Islam radicalism", Islam is actually a a religion of tolerance and peace. Members of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) interpret the teachings of radical Islamist ideology as reaffirmed in such radical "boarding schools" (such as the one that Abu Bakar Bashir is the principal of) and are consequently encouraged to idolise posters of prominent jihad leaders such as Osama bin Laden (its true, watch the doc below). Such schools of teaching are actually breeding grounds for "terrorism" (a Western concept) however, the students of such schools are really "soldiers of war". I think that Indonesia needs to really take a firmer stand against such institutions as the curriculum that they have encourage these kids to see the world in a "us vs them" paradigm. Even though Indonesia is a developing democracy (after the fall of Suharto), all its citizens have the freedom to worship what ever religion they choose. However, like the anti-Semitic movement that dominated Germany's Nazi Party which eventually lead to WWII, this 'jihad' against non-Muslims (The West predominantly) is escalating as we speak.
Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 1)
Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 2)
Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 3)
Whilst researching for this topic, I came across the following documentary, by Al Jazeera, in all its entirety conveniently available on YouTube.
Note that Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. Contrary to the beliefs and actions that are often referred to as "Islam radicalism", Islam is actually a a religion of tolerance and peace. Members of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) interpret the teachings of radical Islamist ideology as reaffirmed in such radical "boarding schools" (such as the one that Abu Bakar Bashir is the principal of) and are consequently encouraged to idolise posters of prominent jihad leaders such as Osama bin Laden (its true, watch the doc below). Such schools of teaching are actually breeding grounds for "terrorism" (a Western concept) however, the students of such schools are really "soldiers of war". I think that Indonesia needs to really take a firmer stand against such institutions as the curriculum that they have encourage these kids to see the world in a "us vs them" paradigm. Even though Indonesia is a developing democracy (after the fall of Suharto), all its citizens have the freedom to worship what ever religion they choose. However, like the anti-Semitic movement that dominated Germany's Nazi Party which eventually lead to WWII, this 'jihad' against non-Muslims (The West predominantly) is escalating as we speak.
Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 1)
Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 2)
Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 3)
Thursday 9 July 2009
Educate me
In an earlier post, "Revolution and Civil Rights - Are they mutually exclusive" I concluded that a large segment of the protestors in the current Iranian crisis has resulted in international pressure mounting especially from the United States.
However, at the commencement of the G8 Summit this week in L'Aquila it has been argued by Russia that the violence in Xinjiana and in Iran are 'internal matters' and therefore should not be considered as a matter of discussion at the G8 summit. However, this has been opposed by US President Barack Obama, as well as the leaders of both France and Britain who want to increase international pressure against Tehran.
In a statement on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared "We would ask the world to join us in imposing even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behaviour of the regime".
Clinton's statement reiterates similar sentiments made by President Barack Obama during his visit to Russia earlier this week in which he stated that the issue of Iran's capabilities need to be resolved through 'diplomatic means'. However, he also stressed something else important:
The perception of Iran as a perceived threat to the United States as a result of their nuclear weapons build-up is a highly complex issue. But I'm sure wondering whether the United States has really vital interests in Iran that are at stake? I mean, the perceived threats of North Korea's missile tests and now Iran? Are the current tensions on the streets of Tehran exercabating public perception of a possible intervention in Iran if other diplomatic channels fail?
Educate me.
Spowf.
Related news articles:
Obama urges Iran to 'stop all violent and unjust actions'
However, at the commencement of the G8 Summit this week in L'Aquila it has been argued by Russia that the violence in Xinjiana and in Iran are 'internal matters' and therefore should not be considered as a matter of discussion at the G8 summit. However, this has been opposed by US President Barack Obama, as well as the leaders of both France and Britain who want to increase international pressure against Tehran.
In a statement on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared "We would ask the world to join us in imposing even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behaviour of the regime".
Clinton's statement reiterates similar sentiments made by President Barack Obama during his visit to Russia earlier this week in which he stated that the issue of Iran's capabilities need to be resolved through 'diplomatic means'. However, he also stressed something else important:
"the United States reserve(s) the right, and I as commander-in-chief reserve the right, to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States."
The perception of Iran as a perceived threat to the United States as a result of their nuclear weapons build-up is a highly complex issue. But I'm sure wondering whether the United States has really vital interests in Iran that are at stake? I mean, the perceived threats of North Korea's missile tests and now Iran? Are the current tensions on the streets of Tehran exercabating public perception of a possible intervention in Iran if other diplomatic channels fail?
Educate me.
Spowf.
Related news articles:
Obama urges Iran to 'stop all violent and unjust actions'
Another day at the office for Ban Ki-Moon
There has been much debate (especially in my IR tutorial) regarding Ban Ki-Moon's performance so far into his five year tenure at Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Some have argued that he is trying to accomplish too much.
I think we can argue that he is trying to achieve too many things but we must also remember that this man is the Secretary of the United Nations. In his role, he doesn't have the 'privelege' to choose which issues he should choose to address and issues he can't put on the agenda and present it into a small, neat portfolio to the world. Unlike self-interested governments who focus predominantly on domestic national issues, the United Nations has a larger amount of transnational issues to raise public awareness about and help resolve. I think as the dominant international organisation, he is doing a great job by educating the global international community and reminding them of the plight of others around the world. If he failed to raise such issues through the media especially, as individuals, we may not be as educated and be as inquisitive into these issues if he completely failed to acknowledge them. Failing to acknowledge these issues, would undermine the strife and violations that are occuring and eventually we would even further marginalise the importance of these issues.
Put yourself in his shoes. What gives anyone the right to say that the genocide in Sudan is less important//more important than the economic global crisis for example. To argue one case against another, would create a lot of negative responses from all sides. As the lives of millions of people have been affected by both issues - the pool of poor and vulnerable people is just too large to not address.
It's just another day at the office for Ban Ki-Moon.
and to reiterate Ban Ki-Moon it can be either a "make it or break it year full of issues that aren't solved into a make it work year full of solutions."
:)
Some have argued that he is trying to accomplish too much.
I think we can argue that he is trying to achieve too many things but we must also remember that this man is the Secretary of the United Nations. In his role, he doesn't have the 'privelege' to choose which issues he should choose to address and issues he can't put on the agenda and present it into a small, neat portfolio to the world. Unlike self-interested governments who focus predominantly on domestic national issues, the United Nations has a larger amount of transnational issues to raise public awareness about and help resolve. I think as the dominant international organisation, he is doing a great job by educating the global international community and reminding them of the plight of others around the world. If he failed to raise such issues through the media especially, as individuals, we may not be as educated and be as inquisitive into these issues if he completely failed to acknowledge them. Failing to acknowledge these issues, would undermine the strife and violations that are occuring and eventually we would even further marginalise the importance of these issues.
Put yourself in his shoes. What gives anyone the right to say that the genocide in Sudan is less important//more important than the economic global crisis for example. To argue one case against another, would create a lot of negative responses from all sides. As the lives of millions of people have been affected by both issues - the pool of poor and vulnerable people is just too large to not address.
It's just another day at the office for Ban Ki-Moon.
and to reiterate Ban Ki-Moon it can be either a "make it or break it year full of issues that aren't solved into a make it work year full of solutions."
:)
Revolution and Civil Rights - Are they mutually exclusive?
In an interview on CNN's American Morning (June 22, 2009), John Roberts interviewed Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies based at Colombia University. Dabashi stated that Iranian protestors want civil rights not a revolution.
Read the transcript of the full interview here.
RGarcia posted the following comment:
Personally, I think that had President Ahmadenijad’s initially been smart enough to have predicted the possibility of riots on a large-scale such as this, and thus opted to have a re-election...the situation would never have exercabated. It would have been more 'democratic' to acknowledge the civil liberties of its citizens as opposed to suppressing their rights to freedom of speech by placing thousands of soldiers on the streets.
President Ahmadenijad seemingly undemocratic response therefore lives little faith in the majority of the Iranian population who now will opt for an overthrow of the current system of governance. What was initially an exercise of civil liberty through peaceful protests and gatherings (although highly emotive) has resulted now in a highly escalating situation that will inevitably either require a peaceful solution or international humanitarian intervention through the use of military force. Only God knows what'll happen then.
NOTE:
Despite his title, President Ahmadenijah does not hold the highest constitutional office in Iran. The highest constitutional office belogns to the Supreme Leader of Iran who is Ali Khamenei, also the commander in chief of the armed forces of Iran (as stipulated in Article 113 of the Constitution of Iran).
Read the transcript of the full interview here.
RGarcia posted the following comment:
Don’t listen to the “so-called” expert who says that this is not revolution being demanded. Listen instead to the voices on the ground in Tehran…the voices of those young brave men and women, the voices of those interviewed over the phone by cnn, like the young man pleading with the international community for support by vehemently pointing out that Ahmadenijad’s rule is now illegal and that a new “structure” of government is needed and that the structure of government with Ayatollahs has got to go; When we hear chants of “death to Khamenei ” [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei], and when we hear others like the son of the former late Shah of Iran who says that he sees now the biggest threat to the current regime since 1979….when we listen to all of these people, the result is quite clear – the people of Iran want nothing less than a revolution, which ovbviously INCLUDES civil rights for its people. Yes, the current Iran constitution provides for civil rights for its citizens, but the current system of government in which there is a ’supreme leader’ is very loudly being opposed. So, please pay little attention to this ‘expert’ (Hamid Dabashi). The people of Iran very obviously are showing that they want nothing less than a revolution which includes a system of government by the people and for the people (and this includes civil rights)…..Revolution and Civil Rights are not mutually exclusive….Rene from Dallas.
Personally, I think that had President Ahmadenijad’s initially been smart enough to have predicted the possibility of riots on a large-scale such as this, and thus opted to have a re-election...the situation would never have exercabated. It would have been more 'democratic' to acknowledge the civil liberties of its citizens as opposed to suppressing their rights to freedom of speech by placing thousands of soldiers on the streets.
President Ahmadenijad seemingly undemocratic response therefore lives little faith in the majority of the Iranian population who now will opt for an overthrow of the current system of governance. What was initially an exercise of civil liberty through peaceful protests and gatherings (although highly emotive) has resulted now in a highly escalating situation that will inevitably either require a peaceful solution or international humanitarian intervention through the use of military force. Only God knows what'll happen then.
NOTE:
Despite his title, President Ahmadenijah does not hold the highest constitutional office in Iran. The highest constitutional office belogns to the Supreme Leader of Iran who is Ali Khamenei, also the commander in chief of the armed forces of Iran (as stipulated in Article 113 of the Constitution of Iran).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)