Dear President Lula, Again

Dear President Lula,

I wrote to you in the spring, deeply concerned about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's scheduled visit to Brasilia on May 6.

Thankfully, that visit did not take place.

Sadly, it is now slated to occur next month.

Mr. President, please reconsider.

You are a widely admired political leader. Brazil, under your guidance, has rapidly emerged on the world stage, to quote you, as a "first-rate citizen" of the international community.

Why would you wish to confer your considerable prestige on Ahmadinejad, who craves it but surely does not deserve it?

And why would Brazil, today a towering bastion of democratic values, seek closer ties with Iran, your polar opposite?

Mr. President, you spoke passionately at the UN a few weeks ago about the kind of world you seek to build.

You called for the preservation and expansion of human rights. Under the current regime, however, Iran has trampled on human rights -jo- flagrantly, brutally, repeatedly.

You expressed support for disarmament and non-proliferation. Under the current regime, however, Iran is rapidly arming and is violating binding UN Security Council resolutions and International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines on nuclear proliferation.

You appealed for a confrontation with terrorism "without stigmatizing ethnic groups and religions." Under the current regime, however, Iran actively promotes and funds terrorism and has targeted specific ethnic groups and religions, including the Jewish community in your own backyard, South America.

And you articulated a vision of a two-state solution, a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. Under the current regime, however, Iran seeks a world without Israel, pure and simple.

In other words, Mr. President, not only does Iran not share your core views, it actively opposes them.

You will perhaps assert that dialogue between nations can change minds. At times, yes, absolutely.

But many have already tried that kind of dialogue with Iran, each claiming they could find the key to usher in a promising new era with Tehran.

The results prove the contrary. Iranian leaders have only hardened their stance over the years, while seeking to exploit the diplomatic and commercial opportunities they have been afforded in visits to capitals from Ankara to Moscow, from Kuala Lumpur to New Delhi.

Now, as you know, there is a new dialogue with Iran, but this one is meant to be different.

Earlier this month, representatives of six nations, the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany, met with Iranian officials to tell them that patience is quickly wearing thin with Tehran's all-too-familiar pattern of denial and deceit regarding its nuclear program.

For now, at least, these talks hold out the best hope for diverting Iran from its dangerous course. Why the need to host President Ahmadinejad, when the effect, however unintended, could be to complicate the negotiations still further?

Mr. President, last spring when I wrote to you, the case against Ahmadinejad's Iran was already compelling. In the ensuing months, it has only become more so.

Consider the June 12th elections in Iran. It is clear there was massive tampering and vote-rigging.

Or the aftermath. How many Iranians who took to the streets in protest have been arrested, beaten, tortured, and killed? Recall the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan, who came to symbolize the regime's violence against its own people.

Consider the fate of seven Baha'i leaders, members of a long persecuted community, who were seized on trumped-up charges and face the death penalty. The trial is scheduled for this month, having been postponed from August, since their attorney was thrown in prison after the elections.

Consider Ahmadinejad's hateful speech on Al-Quds Day, September 18th. Once again, he called the Holocaust a fabrication.

Consider his UN remarks a few days later, in which he accused Jews of all sorts of nefarious crimes, prompting a walkout from the General Assembly of many European and Latin American delegations, though, regrettably, Mr. President, not yours.

Consider Iran's trumpeted launch of Shabab-3 and Sejil-2 missiles the same month. Are these symbols of Iran's commitment to peaceful coexistence with its neighbors?

And then, of course, there was Qum. Despite Iran's effort to "spin" the story of its undeclared enrichment facility, it is clear that Iran was caught red-handed in a grand deception. How many other such undeclared facilities might there be in Iran? And what is their purpose if not to advance Iran's quest for nuclear-weapons capability?

Mr. President, do the right thing.

For the sake of your commitment to human rights and democratic values, do the right thing.

For the sake of your pursuit of non-proliferation and peaceful coexistence, do the right thing.

For the sake of the brave Iranians who have risked their lives, in some cases paid with their lives, to challenge the regime's abuse of power, do the right thing.

For the sake of all those in Brazil and beyond outraged by Iran's treatment of women, gays, religious minorities, independent journalists, student activists, and labor union organizers, do the right thing.

For the sake of Brazil's conscience and its example to the world, do the right thing.

Or, next month, will it be the red carpet, the extended hand, the captivating smile, the warm embrace, the signed deals, and the promise of closer ties with Iran?

Mr. President, while there is still time, I urge you to reconsider -- and do the right thing.

 

 

Comments

[S1m0n]

Why?

1. Oil
2. Diversity in egg-baskets.
3. Business is business. It's nothing personal.
4. Neither the US nor Israel can claim any particular commitment to democracy at the expense of their interests, or they wouldn't have fomented Mahmoud Abbas' coup in Palestine, after his faction, Fatah, lost an election and refused to step down. Which is exactly what Ahmadinejad stands accused of doing, it's worth noting. Those tears you weep for the pitiful, scorned figure of Democracy are crocodile's tears.

[BiBiJan]

President Lula is hosting someone with a public profile.

According to an early 2008 Survey by WorldPubli­cOpinion.o­rg and Terror Free Tomorrow:

"66% approved of "the way President Ahmadinejad is handling his job as president"
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/527.php

According to a May 2009 Survey by Terror Free Tomorrow and New America Foundation Ahmadinejad was forcasted to best his nearest rival 2 to 1.

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf

According to Aug 2009 survey by University of Maryland's WorldPubli­cOpinion.o­rg:
"Most Iranians express acceptance of the outcome of the Presidential election. Eighty-one percent say they consider Ahmadinejad to be Iran's legitimate president, and 62 percent say they have a lot of confidence in the declared election results, while 21 percent say they have some confidence. Just 13 percent say they do not have much confidence or no confidence in the results. In general, eight in 10 (81%) say they are satisfied with the process by which authorities are elected, but only half that number (40%) say they are very satisfied."
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb=

For more see http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/

[wereeverywhere]

Further critique of the phone poll conducted while political dissidents were hauled off to Evin for daring to speak out.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48510 points out:

Some Iran specialists here suggested that the high approval and confidence in the government and the elections expressed in the survey could be explained by fear of retaliation, particularly in light of the regime's harsh crackdown against the opposition throughout the summer.

"If I were in Iran and someone called me to ask those direct questions, I would be leery of answering them honestly or directly," said Farideh Farhi, an Iran scholar at the University of Hawaii. "I have to ask whether fear may have been a factor in the results."

Indeed, as noted by PIPA's director, Stephen Kull, the refusal of one out of four respondents to say whom they voted for in the election was an "extremely high number" and "...suggests that people have some discomfort with this topic". Given that discomfort, he said, "the findings on voting preference are not a solid basis for estimating the actual vote".

[BiBiJan]

Sure! "WorldPubl­icOpinion.­org (WPO), a project of the highly respected Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the University of Maryland" and the Emmy award winning KA Europe SPRL with extensive experience in scientific polling in the Middle East would publish survey results on a red hot Iran topic and expose their hard-earned reputation to the gastrointestinal processes of "some specialists here" espousing gut feelings. OoooooK.

For my money, Iran would have been starved, bombed and then invaded yesterday if a majority of Iranians feared their government.

[S1m0n]

I don't know enough about polling in Iran to know if this poll, and the election result, are plausible or not. however, I *did* notice that western bloggers covering the protests tended to get more and more certain that the government had cheated as the week progressed, when there didn't seem to be a solid reasoin for that increasing certainty, apart from the obvious fervour of the Iranians we were watching protest.

I'd put a lot of weight on what the people think, and none of what I did see looked faked or insincere. However, what we were watching wasn't all of Iran; it was a fairly thin slice of what are likely to have been Iran's most cosmopolitan, urban, and educated citizens. I don't know to what extent the conviction they obviously demonstrated was reflected, or not, in the rest of Iran. I don't think the bloggers we were following knew that, either, but I think that in the excitement some forgot that they didn't know, either, and by now the 'Ahmadinejad stole the election' meme is firmly established, for good or ill.

[wereeverywhere]

That terrorfree poll has been deconstructed a long time ago; its details have it unravel. It was weeks before the election, had a lot of abstentions, and the undecideds had a preponderance for wanting change. I can get details from Juan Cole's Informed Comment url if you persist. Here's another poll for you. As I don't put much weight on a single poll I'm just offer it to show not 'all' polls said anything.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-shahryar/stand-your-ground-obama_b_276781.html?show_comment_id=30362374#comment_30362374

Many polls were held before the election, and there were an equal number of them showing Mousavi as the winner. ILNA, the news agency linked to Rafsanjani - showed that just prior to June 4th, Mousavi was ahead with more than 54% of the vote to Ahmadinejad's 25%. Maziar Bahari - a Newsweek reporter who was arrested during the post-election turmoil - reported a week before the Election, that according to government-funded polls Newsweek observed, about 16 to 18 million Iranians stated that they intended to vote for Mousavi, while only 6-8 million said they planned on voting for Ahmadinejad.

[AndreMachado]

Im a Brazilian and we receive Ahmadinejad with open arms, you know why ? Becase we are good hosts.

If our presidents want to talk let em talk, who are you to say who Lula should and should not talk ?

[piul05]

Muito bem dito, André.

[Kaviraj]

fanned.

[Fireslayer]

Mr. Harris,

While I can agree with some of what you say and share your low opinion of Ahmadinejad, your basic thrust is profoundly myopic.

Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around the goochey-poochey feelings of that cute little pseudo-democracy, Israel nor do many thinking people have anything but scorn for their current ultra-right wing leadership.

Only in the United States and certain Africaner refugee settlements is there any significant amount of sympathy for a country that calls itself a democracy and yet denies basic human rights and basic decency to a great many of the inhabitants in the lands they occupy. Real democracies don't behave like Israel. Israel is a Ethnocentric Garrison State.

What Israel calls "self defense" is a fiery smokescreen for continued land and water theft. The ballyhoo about Iran is just more smoke and mirrors diverting from the real tale of war crimes and injustice to the Palestinians..

Support Peace Now, elect Amos Oz leader of Israel and maybe Israel can rejoin the civilized world. And maybe the hardliners in Iran will lose their whipping boy and fall from power.

[Marc Ginsburg]

Dear Mr. Harris:
Although everything you say about the Iranian leader is true, on one point, you and I have a fundamental difference. I believe that dialogue is always the best path while in war, even one innocent dying is one too many. The best way to avoid war is the path of dialogue. Dialogue doesn't mean acquiescence. It means boldly facing the other person with honesty while at the same time giving him or her your full attention. This softens hearts and enables us, beneath the hard exterior of a despot to find the human being wanting a better world, however misguided his belief in how to get there. Maybe he isn't even aware that he shares with all other human beings this desire, but all human beings have it and remarkable results are always achieved by talking instead of turning the back. If President Lula were to use this meeting as a point of compromise in his belief in democracy, that would be something I would not support. But so long as he is just opening his door to give Ahmadinejad a chance to hear the stern voice of fairness, humanism and respect for democracy from a friend (instead of it being yelled behind closed doors by an enemy, as too often occurs fruitlessly in human affairs), I fully support this endeavor to bring peace to the world because I know it is the wiser course.

[mariofleck]

Brazilians of good faith should also strongly manifest oposition to president Lula's stand. There is no reason to receive a personality so dangerous that is threatening openly another country - in the case Israel, one of the only true democracies in the region.

[nhbr]

President Lula is now backed by 80% of Brazilian population (with just 5% of rejection) and I can tell you, for sure, that these 8 in each 10 Brazilians are nothing less than good faith people.
As a people, we Brazilians believe in dialogged. We believe we must listen to every people, find common ground where they are and construct cooperative and respectful solutions where the disagreements exist. How do you expect to change things in Iran if you do not bring them to the negotiation desk?
Our president may has said that Brazil have been promoted to a "first-rate citizen" in the international stage ... but it absolutely does not mean that Brazil should deal with other countries as they were second-rate ones.
Compromise must be construct on the basis of respect, always.

[Americana]

China is and has been actively engaged in Latin America. Mandarin is being taught alongside English. So, how different is Iran from China? Iran has an Israeli problem and China does not. Unlike the US, Latin Americans are not tied at the hip to Israel, therefore the differences between Iran and Israel are of no concern to them or their governments, and they are free to pursue policies that they consider beneficial to their own countries.

[Javani]

Why cannot Lula do what Obama tried, and tried, and tried to do with Iran?

Lula will be more sucessful because the Khomeinist regime does not need Brazil as the bogeyman to justify their rule and anti-modernisation. That is what America serves for.

[LMPE]

Doesn't almost every country cooperate with the US, which Martin Luther King called "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world"?

[arvay]

So I suppose Mr. Harris will also call for the US to break relations with China, which is not exactly a paragon of democratic values.

Only in the minds of the easily led lives the delusion that nations fashion their geopolitical strategies on the basis of evangelism. Ahmadinejad stole the election and embarrasses a sophisticated and cultured nation, but he's the guy in charge right now.

It's likely that Lula is looking past this particular individual toward economic ties that will benefit both nations. Ahmadinejad certainly has more to offer than our mayor of Kabul, Karzai, installed also via massive fraud, plus an occupation force.

I suspect the real issue here isn't democracy but rather Iran's vocal opposition to Israel and its support for Hizbollah and Hamas.

[piul05]

Exactly.

And both Brazil an Iran have a common trajectory - both had democratic leaders overthrown by CIA-backed agents because they wanted to implement some degree of wealth distribution (land reform in one case, nationalization in the other); both have a young population; both are natural leaders in their region and both have enough oil reserves to worry about the grubby hands of transnational economic powers.

The people of Iran will only benefit by trading with Brazil - but then, I suppose that nothing less than having Iran down on its knee (even if that spells another decade of hunger and hardship for Iranians) will satisfy some people.

[holeybuybull]

Perhaps Pres. Lula doesn't see Iran through US colored glasses and understands the history of South America. Iran hasn't meddled in South America, deposing legitimate democratic governments and using the World Bank and IMF to enslave the people. Can't say the same for the US.

[Dnietz]

correct

[HMDMSR]

Yes, and one of those governments was in Brazil in 1964.

[piul05]

In a nutshell.

And AIPAC and its lackeys don't like it - tough.

[angler]

Not all countries cave in to pro-Israel pressure, at their own expense, as does the U.S. The Brazilians will have the good sense to act in their own best interest.

[wereeverywhere]

Is it so much to ask that a statesman representing progressive values (Lula) not endorse a lethal, right wing, election stealing, opportunist who is very similar to the model of reactionary coup leaders that have plagued the region? If the left/ progressives drops their stance on human rights in the name of realpolitik we've lost a major battle and conceded a major weapon.

[WorkingClass]

Perhaps Lula is more concerned with Brazil than with Zionism.

[wereeverywhere]

Perhaps Lula will be even more concerned with human rights and refuse. This is hardly a choice between Zionism or theocratic dictatorship.

[Dnietz]

I believe you are misunderstanding the situation. I don't think any _s_a_n_e_ person condones those _e_x_t_r_e_m_i_s_t_ statements coming from Iran. But to the majority of the world (not USA, not EU, not Japan, etc...) the primary motivation of their leaders and the primary desires of their people are to avoid imperialism.

Unless you have lived abroad for an extended period of time, an American simply will have difficulty with the significance of this concept. It is the primary driving force of many and most nations. They are used to difficulties, poverty, lack of military strength, lack of freedom and democracy and they are willing to sacrifice and work to make those things better as much as they can on their own over time.

But what they will not tolerate and accept anymore, is a lack of self determination. Twentieth Century Americana is no longer an acceptable option for almost everyone no matter what form of government, democracy or freedom (or lack of) they have.

So, when you see people collaborate, it is simply to build up relations and gather strength in response to American imperialism. All else become secondary. This is the price we now pay for a century of our deeds - deep rooted, fundamental, and intense h8red of our presence and influence.