He followed up on his previous assessment of Iran’s election candidates, this time focussing on the winner, Ahmadnejad. It’s almost as though he were trying to bolster his argument that we should have been hoping for a Rafsanjani win.
But I was struck by his characterisation of America’s view of Iran:
‘Abroad, the Americans were the least surprised by the result. They assume anyway that Iran is a country seething with hatred for the US and determined to dominate the region by threat and undercover terrorism.’
Well, certainly they often take that view of Iran’s ruling class, but it seems to me a very ingrate sort of comment given that the US offers succour to all manner of dissidents from Iran. Since they’re not as infamous as Iraqi counterparts such as the tarred Chalabi, perhaps we can still find sympathy for them and interest in the views of those for whom the US has provided refuge.The point here is that the US rather assumes that under the dead weight of the Mullahs there are many people lying powerless who have no animus against the US and see them instead as a flickering lantern of hope.
Simpson goes on to say ‘Iranian politics are as complex and sophisticated as any I have observed around the world.’
Now, I could accept ‘complex’, and can understand a columnist’s desire for snappy duplicates to make his sentences sing, but ‘sophisticated’?
When was the last time the US’s politics was described by the BBC as ‘sophisticated’? (a challenge for fans of Justin Webb, I feel. Funnily enough, in this by now quite well known article, he says that the US is complex- in its heart-, and… unsophisticated (-in many respects).
Examples of Iranian political sophistication, here.
I suppose I mention the US because some might say that, as both the US and Iran have the death penalty, that makes Iran as worthy of the ‘sophisticated’ epithet as the US. Even granting that point, which I wouldn’t, still only leaves us with ‘as worthy as’– a slight problem for the Justin Webb fraternity (or the John Simpson one– ed– and by the way this doesn’t mean all Beeboids should think alike, but that the use of totemic language should be minimised and strictly weighted by factual evidence– also ed). Indeed, if I opposed the death penalty and considered all governments who allowed for its maintainance to be cause for branding a country unsophisticated (which I don’t), it still leaves the ticklish problem of how one squares Simpson’s view with the reality that as a proportion of their population, the Iranians (officially) execute far more people (in public, too) than does the US.
And, of course, it’s what they execute them for which is often horriffic…
Finally, Simpson says that ‘The best the British, French and Germans can do is persuade Iran to be more cautious and tactful in following its nuclear ambitions. Ayatollah Khamenei may see the sense of that.’ , which goes to reinforce the point that Simpson does not regard the Iranian desire for nuclear weapons as an extremist position.
He has foregrounded this comment by saying that ‘Iran believes it lives in a difficult neighbourhood, with Israel, China, Russia, India and Pakistan’– which seems on the face of it a fair enough point. But which of these exactly threatens Iran in a nuclear fashion? Who has an interest in nuking or invading Iran? Answer, none- and again he ignores the Israeli issue, which, if Rafsanjani is a moderate, makes you almost tremblingly curious as to what Ahmadnejad has in his locker (my own suspicion is they wanted a dog with a louder bark, who has a reputation for biting).
But, a country’s elite which flays its people, imprisons political opponents, executes many publicly, organises ‘interesting’ elections outside all scrutiny, and on top of all this sees its salvation in the ultimate psycho’s wet dream, the nuclear option, is to be regarded as too sophisticated to bother except with diplomatic pillow talk?
That’s why the BBC remains a gift to the moonbat left, singing an incoherent lullaby of appeasement.
P.S
I haven’t searched this up following the discussion above. I saw an interview with Samura a couple of days ago on Dutch television and I agree with what he has to say, to paraphrase him: ” I almost hate the word ‘aid’. It solves things in the short term and when the money is used up, things go back to the way it was before. In a lot of cases aid gets not to where it should. Aid agencies are burocratic and waste a lot of unnecessary resources. What we Africans need is the west’s support and knowledge and not necessarily money. [As an example, he described the good work British volunteers have done in Liberia helping locals to self-govern democratically. Using their experience, the Brits made things better but as soon as they left things went back to ‘normal’ and the progress that was made stopped. thus..] “We Africans need long-term commintments from the West, long-term commitment and respectful exchange more than money and aid.”
P.P.S
One more, just to make it the longest BBBC’s comments thread ever. Da!
What I don’t understand is why on earth is it that the slavery that took place in the West so long ago is always blamed on the generations of people alive today that never had anything to do with it? None of us were born yet. That includes those who make up our government. That was 140 years ago. Those who condoned it are dead and gone. The institution of slavery died with them. So why should I or anyone else be to blame? Why should my tax dollars or anyone elses go to Africa out of guilt when we are not guilty? Especially, when African regimes are STILL guilty?
Besides, we’ve been giving aid to Africa for decades now and nothing there ever changes. How can we be expected to help Africa if Africa never helps itself?
Rod
Of course I talked about the Brit record rather than the French, Begians etc. This is Britain, remember. And the site is about the British broadcaster.
You confirm you know damn all about China’s malign influence in Africa. You don’t know they back the Sudanese and Darfur ?
http://www.marxist.com/Africa/darfur_crisis.htm
What about Chinese backing for many years for Mugabe ? What about Julius Nyere in Tanzania ?
There are lots of other instances, easy to find. Just Google “China Africa Dictators”.
You cearly know very little modern African history. So go learn some. Meanwhile stop preaching at us.
Great Article John.
Of course, now the BBC has just agreed a contract with the Chinese to broadcast there, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world…fic/1107470.stm
they only have good things to say about them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4318551.stm#graph We can be sure their future output on China will only be positive.
Rod
Seriously, just do the research. Russia and China and their buddy Cuba were up to their necks interfering in Africa – supporting tinpot dictators like Nyerere, backing rebel movements etc. Africa was where much of the Cold War was played out. Ruthlessly.
Don’t try blaming Britain for all this. Britain actually has a proud record for the most part in Africa. The only way forward is to cleanse the government structures there of corruption – Britain set up many of the structures, but did not seed the corruption.
If you want to prattle on about current slavery, address your stuff to the main culprits. Mostly in the norrthern part of the continent, especially Arabs. Again, not the Brits. Past slavery is past tense, and even senior African leaders don’t prattle about it.
Change the needle.
I wonder if the man on top of the Lagos/Accra/Nairobi/Lusaka/etc omnibus ever longs for a return to the “good old days” of London rule?
Yes, life in “Uncle Saddam’s” Iraq was pretty stable too,so I have read; but I’m sure that no British policy of mass-grave digging and filling was ever implemented in Uganda/Sierra Leone/Malawi et al.
You’re sure you’re on the correct website, Ron? I mean after all we come here to escape the radical left-wing shite the Beeb come up with and what are we left with? You! I’ve recommended it to John B.: Set up your own “Why I love my BBC / Pravda” Blog
That should have read Rod, not Ron (obviously).
We seem to be going round in circles on this Western guilt over slavery trip.
How about we get history into perspective.
The British Government didn’t actually ‘rule’ much of anything beyond it’s own coastline before the beginning of the 18th century and suprisingly little within. Even the concept of a national army only goes back to the English Civil War. Until the Industrial Revolution the Crown didn’t have the financial base to enforce it’s will on an international level. If the country went to war, taxes were raised or money borrowed to finance it. There wasn’t a ‘Defence Budget’ in anything like the modern sense. When the American colonists rebelled the Revolution was successful because the English Government just didn’t have the resources to resist it.
The idea that any European rulers had much influence over what individuals who were nominally their subjects did thousands of miles away is a modern fallacy. Likewise the concept that those rulers were in any way acting on behalf of their ‘people’ is another one. England was one of the more democratic countries in Europe but that ‘democracy’ was still restricted to a landowning elite.
The accusation that the modern UK bears a responsibility for slavery makes as much sense as saying it’s responsible for Hadrians Wall.
Denise W:-
“Those who condoned it are dead and gone. The institution of slavery died with them.”
That’s actually not quite true. Slavery is alive and well. As always, and awkwardly for the white guilt of the BBC and the rest of the liberal elite, Africans are still busily enslaving and selling each other to the highest bidder, like they’ve been doing for ever, really:-
“When a ship carrying hundreds of people was recently turned away from Benin, Africa, officials suspected that the children on board were human slaves…At this moment, millions of men, women, and children…are being held against their will as modern-day slaves.”
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html
Google “Africa slavery today” and you get 912,000 hits.
The Left doesn’t want to hear this, nor about the fact that the Arabs were the first large-scale foreign slavers into Africa in the ninth century. Blacks and Muslims are the Left’s clients, so such things cannot be admitted.
Rod,
…either the West did something wrong or it didn’t…
Leaving aside the fact that there wasn’t a ‘West’ at the time, the West indeed did nothing wrong by the standards of the day.
Now it may be that we are doing things today which in a few hundred years’ time will look utterly foolish and immoral. Perhaps our belief in, and actions against climate change will prove to be hideously ignorant. Perhaps in seeking to reduce global hydrocarbon consumption we are needlessly, cruelly, and — by the lights of future generations — immorally stunting the economies of developing countries.
So would it be appropriate in 200 years’ time that our descendants, including those of people who thought climate change was a load of old tosh, should be punished by paying reparations? On the grounds that our actions today, which many think deeply worthy and well-meant, look thoroughly immoral with hindsight?
Please don’t argue that the environmental lobby could never be seen as thoroughly vicious, ignorant, and evil. Pick a different example instead, if need be. The point is, are you prepared to write a blank cheque made payable to the conscience of future generations and drawn on your great-grandchildrens’ accounts?
I assume that you all like the presence of opponents on your site who are prepared to argue with you, otherwise you’d all be preaching to the choir! I can’t imagine there’s many on here as most would regard you as cranks. You should be grateful!
For more information on China’s record in Africa, much appreciated. It’s not to say I don’t know about modern African history JohnInLondon, but I would never claim to be an expert. I assume you’re not either. I couldn’t for instance name every single regime that the US had propped up.
I’m no defender of China though, their foreign policy stance on everything is without morals. They are an evil regime.
There’s an interesting point from Teddy Bear about BBC World getting new broadcast deals. I don’t know whether you’ve ever watched it abroad, but BBC World has advertising on it. It’s just the model of a commercial BBC that you would all love.
To suggest the BBC will be pandering to China however is the kind of cloud-cuckoo-land stuff that is going to have people thinking that you are a crank. The BBC was dropped from your beloved Rupert Murdoch’s Star TV service because it continued to cover Tiananmen Square and human rights-related stuff. The BBC News website is often blocked to Chinese users for the same reason.
And I suspect China’s thawing attitude to the BBC has more to do with the regime’s self-confidence during boomtime than it does with anything else.
If you want to find the number one appeasers of China in recent times, its the US and West, not any news organisations.
On the continuing slavery debate, I think we’ve boiled it down quite well. My position is this – I don’t care what Arabs or particular African tribes did. Slavery was not accepted at the time.
If the British had brought back French slaves from the Napoleonic Wars, it would have been regarded as unacceptable. It was only because these people were of another “inferior” race that it was acceptable. And there were many, many abolitionists and churchmen who pointed out the evil inherent in this view.
Remember there was a time when anti-Semitism was commonplace when the world was fighting Hitler, Jews were barred from some shops in America and blacks in the South were denied the right to vote.
Because it was a common view in central Europe that Jews were inferior, does not excuse what was done to them.
Nobody does anything that they themselves believe to be wrong.
And for the British the case is quite clear. They abolished the slave trade, knowing it to be wrong, in 1807. But they waited until 1833 to free the slaves.
During those intervening years at least, they knew they were doing
wrong.
As to the 140 year gap, that’s a principle no-one can argue with you. For myself I read those stories about WWII sex slaves still pursuing compensation 60 years on and say “a debt is not settled until it is repaid”. When people talk about the Romans having to make amends I just have to laugh.
And the issue remains because Africa suffers grinding poverty still. Whether its bad government, corruption, the after-effects of colonialism or an unfair trade system, I believe in helping my neighbour.
The fact that we invaded much of Africa and that we transported millions of slaves in appalling conditions is partly why the responsibility lies with us to help. But just our being able to help would oblige us in my world view.
Rod
Why should the Romans not make amends, they clearly exportd slaves from Britain. According to your ‘logic’, it is a very desserving case. The ‘victims’ were white, you made some point (I think) which I cannot follow about there being a big fuss if the slaves were white.
Using your view of the world, why exactly do you think that Italy should not make repayments. Is it because:
1) It was so long ago?
2) Britian does not need it?
Come on, this is your chance to display some logic….
PS: Or is it because it displays how stupid your argument is? Do you think only black people deserve to be given charity? Youre not racist are you?
Dateline London on BBC 24, which will be shown wordwide :
Chairman – Nik Gowing, well-known for accusing US troops of deliberately targeting journalists. The BBC’s Eason Jordan. Except that Eason Jordan was forced to resign for his lies.
Panel – all 4 opposed Bush. Including the fragrant Yasmin AlwaysRanting.
Topics put by Gowing allowed/steered the panel to bash Bush over climate warming and (Gowing’s word) “quagmire” in Iraq. Oh – and Britain got a bashing for holding commemorations for Trafalgar, plus blame for Africa.
“For myself I read those stories about WWII sex slaves still pursuing compensation 60 years on and say “a debt is not settled until it is repaid”.”
Indeed. But the crucial difference in this case is that it is the victims themselves trying to achieve justice.
In the case of the historical “Western” slave trade, who is to blame and who is to be compensated – today? Should descendants of slaves in the USA be made to contribute (via their taxes) to their government’s compensation to African states – the leaders of which are quite possibly descendants of the tribal leaders that sold the slaves in the first place?
Millions of white Europeans, including Britons, were kidnapped into slavery by North Africans. I feel aggrieved. Compensate me now.
.
Even the liberal Simon Jenkins questions all the tosh we have heard from the BBC about Live8/G8. And slushy Portillo says it has been wrong for the BBC to get so involved with the whole Africa bandwagon with stuff like Live8 and that awful play Girl in the Cafe, as it put itself in political alliance with Blair and Brown’s big initiative/distraction for 2005.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1678543,00.html
“On the continuing slavery debate, I think we’ve boiled it down quite well. My position is this – I don’t care what Arabs or particular African tribes did. Slavery was not accepted at the time.”
Yes it was. Opposition existed but was confined to a minority up to the 19th century. And the United States had a strong vocal minority defending the practice – including the enslavement of whites as I mentioned above.
And Europeans did *not* ‘invade’ Africa. They traded with African authorities who profited so handsomely that they even sent delegations to the US to argue against the outlawing of the African Slave trade.
That is, and remains my point. The West African chiefs and entrepreneurs who sold the slaves got their money. Their descendants are owed *nothing* on this account. Though come to think of it they might owe something to ‘African’ Americans and West Indians.
That’s a good point, Roxana! Why not pay some money to African Americans who actually suffered from being slaves. I happen to know that my Sweetie’s granny was born in slavery in the early 20s. Why not give some money to her?
“Why not pay some money to African Americans who actually suffered from being slaves. I happen to know that my Sweetie’s granny was born in slavery in the early 20s.”
Born in the 1820s, or not born in America?
.
She was born in the US in the 1920s
“She was born in the US in the 1920s”
So she wasn’t born into slavery then. Slavery was abolished in the USA in 1865.
.
Well, I didn’t actually mean to say that she was born a slave but she had to live with the after-effects. I got a lot of time for older black people who didn’t enjoy the same rights and possibilities younger generations have. Segregation (which is still a direct after-effect of slavery in my eyes) wasn’t abolished until the mid 1960s so there’s at least one reason why I’d rather pay some money towards a fund that looks after black OAPs.
Saudis Import Slaves to America
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 14, 2005
Homaidan Ali Al-Turki, 36, and his wife, Sarah Khonaizan, 35, appear to be a model immigrant couple. Having arrived in the United States in 2000, they live with their four children in an upscale Denver suburb. Al-Turki is a graduate student in linguistics at the University of Colorado, specializing
in Arabic intonation and focus prosody. He donates money to the Linguistic Society of America and is CEO of Al-Basheer Publications and Translations, a bookstore specializing in titles about Islam.
Last week, however, the FBI accused the couple of enslaving an Indonesian woman in her early 20s. For four years, reads the indictment, they created “a climate of fear and intimidation through rape and other means.” The slave
woman cooked, cleaned, took care of children, and more for little or no pay, fearing that if she did not obey, “she would suffer serious harm.”
The two Saudis face charges of forced labor, aggravated sexual abuse, document servitude, and harboring an alien. If found guilty, they could spend their remaining lives in prison. The government also wants to seize the couple’s Al-Basheer bank account to pay their former slave $92,700 in back wages.
It’s a shocking instance, especially for a graduate student and religious
bookstore owner • but not a particularly rare one. Here are other examples of enslavement, all involving Saudi royals or diplomats living in the United States.
In 1982, a Miami judge issued a warrant to search Prince Turki Bin Abdul Aziz’s 24th-floor penthouse to determine if he was holding Nadia Lutefi Mustafa, an Egyptian woman, against her will. Turki and his French bodyguards prevented a search from taking place, then won retroactive diplomatic immunity to forestall any legal unpleasantness.
In 1988, the Saudi defense attaché in Washington, Col. Abdulrahman S.
Al-Banyan, employed a Thai domestic, Mariam Roungprach, until she escaped
his house by crawling out a window. She later told how she had been
imprisoned there, did not get enough food, and was not paid. Interestingly, her work contract specified that she could not leave the house or make telephone calls without her employer’s permission.
In 1991, Prince Saad Bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud and his wife, Princess Noora, lived on two floors of the Ritz-Carlton Houston. Two of their servants, Josephine Alicog of the Philippines and Sriyani Marian Fernando of Sri Lanka, filed a suit against the prince, alleging they were for five months held against their will, “by means of unlawful threats, intimidation and physical force,” they were only partially paid, denied medical treatment,
and suffered mental and physical abuse.
In March 2005, a wife of Saudi Prince Mohamed Bin Turki Alsaud, Hana Al Jader, 39, was arrested at her home outside of Boston on charges of forced labor, domestic servitude, falsifying records, visa fraud, and harboring aliens. Al Jader stands accused of compelling two Indonesian women to work for her by making them believe “that if they did not perform such labor, they would suffer serious harm.” If convicted, Al Jader faces up to 140
years in jail and $2.5 million in fines.
There are many other similar instances, for example, the Orlando escapades of Saudi princesses Maha al-Sudairi and Buniah al-Saud. Joel Mowbray tells of twelve female domestics “trapped and abused” in the households of Saudi dignitaries or diplomats.
Why is this problem so acute when it comes to affluent Saudis? Four reasons come to mind. Although slavery was abolished in the kingdom in 1962, the practice still flourishes there. Ranking Saudi religious authorities endorse
slavery; for example, Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan insisted recently that “Slavery is a part of Islam” and whoever wants it abolished he called “an infidel.”
The U.S. State Department knows about the forced servitude in Saudi
households and laws exist to combat this scourge but, as Mowbray argues, it “refuses to take measures to combat it.” Finally, Saudis know they can get away with nearly any misbehavior. Their embassy provides funds, letters of support, lawyers, retroactive diplomatic immunity, former U.S. ambassadors as troubleshooters, and even aircraft out of the country; it also keeps
pesky witnesses away.
Given the U.S. government’s louche attitude toward the Saudis, slavery in Denver, Miami, Washington, Houston, Boston, and Orlando hardly comes as a surprise. Only when Washington more robustly represents American interests will Saudi behavior improve.
To suggest the BBC will be pandering to China however is the kind of cloud-cuckoo-land stuff that is going to have people thinking that you are a crank. The BBC was dropped from your beloved Rupert Murdoch’s Star TV service because it continued to cover Tiananmen Square and human rights-related stuff. The BBC News website is often blocked to Chinese users for the same reason.
And I suspect China’s thawing attitude to the BBC has more to do with the regime’s self-confidence during boomtime than it does with anything else.
Rod Bishop | 03.07.05 – 9:18 am |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4318551.stm#graph
There are none so blind as those that WILL NOT SEE. 8)
Teddy Bear,
I really don’t think you should have opened this particular box.
Your comment got me to to try searching the BBC site for a similar poll relating to America and to find this little gem, another version of the same story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413913.stm . According to this the US has a 47% disapproval rating second only to Russia on the worlds hate list.”France emerged as the single country with the best reputation abroad”
Of course the survey was conducted by GlobeScan http://www.cbsr.bc.ca/membership/globescan.htm which is the sort of research organisation that any respectable left wing opinion former would want to provide the statistical back-up for it’s propaganda. According to the survey even the British returned a majority favourable to French world influence!
I wonder why I get the feeling that their UK polling was restricted to the patrons of a vegetarian restaurant and tantric healing co-operative in Camden Town?
I’m increasingly regarding any consultation of the BBC website as being remarkably similar to repeatedly banging ones head against a concrete block. An overwhelming sense of relief when you stop.
I know the feeling dog, although one is still left with a nauseous after-effect.
I notice on the poll you posted, and this one on giving the UN greater power http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4362709.stm
they have the identical 23,518 number of people in 23 countries. They left out one of these countries in the poll on China, but all were run at over the same time period.
Notice how every one of them immediately demeans the US in their main headline. If the question was really Does France have a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world? as their poll indicates, and which doesn’t make their poll results so surprising, but how from that do they arrive at
French influence seems more welcome abroad than that of the US
Europe – and France in particular – are seen as benevolent forces in a world largely scornful of US influence, a poll taken in 23 countries suggests.?
Soooo….what exactly has France done for any of these 23 countries – not only lately but ever?
If France is the world’s most trusted power this planet is in deep do-do! (BTW, since when is France a world power???)
Compliments to the ursine contributor but……….
As usual a close examination of the BBC article shows the usual credibility gaps. The text clearly states over 23,500 people questioned. Click on the link where you can “Read key findings and see graphs about the BBC World Service poll on UN reform” ‘At a-glance’ and you find the
sample size was 11,045.
Sloppy BBC cut & paste journalism?
On the other hand maybe GlobeScan just left out the 12,455 people whose responses didn’t agree with the result that they were trying to come up with.
Who knows?
Who cares?
Entering the world of BBC reporting is like Alice in Wonderland on bad acid.
(I’ve posted an item to your blogsite as an example of the response you get when you complain.)
Roxana,
Well it has provided a convenient doormat for Germany three times in the last century & a half…….
Yes… and let me say that as well (even though non-PC): Hail Lord Nelson and the British Navy for the victory at Trafalgar.
And re. VE Day… What did we (West Ham Supporters) sing when we went over to Metz for the Intertoto Cup Final a few years ago): “If it weren’t for the Brits you’d be Krauts”
OT: According to this piece (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4647383.stm) – quote: “On the other major issue to be discussed at the summit, African aid and debt relief, he (Bush) signalled he was ready to abandon US farm subsidies, which have unfairly distorted the market for African farmers”
No more US farm subsidies? Who’s going to make all the wheat going to Africa and the rest of the Third World then I wonder?
Joerg, aren’t you German? The concept of a German supporting West Ham and singing songs about “Krauts” is one of the most amusing things I’ve heard for a long time.
Thanks for your contribution dog, I enjoyed the Tesco reference.
Cockney, the fact that I’m German (I rather say I’ve got a German passport) doesn’t mean I feel any particular (national) pride for this country. I’d much rather sit outside my house in Ohio laptop on my lap whilst drinking a long-drink and staring at my swimming-pool.
You’ll also be surprised to hear that I attach my Cross of St. George flag to the window whenever there’s a big sporting event (World Cup 2006 here we come) 😉
P.S.: I don’t own a house in Ohio yet. Just a bit of wishful thinking.
“Hundreds of Iraqis have died in attacks by militants opposed to the US presence and a Shia-led government that took charge in Baghdad earlier this year.”
Al Qa’eda/Saddamite terrorists murder 20 or so Iraqi children while US soldiers hand out sweets and they are not terrorists? Not also how the BBC report tries to vindicate such terrorism by making out the Iraqi Government is appointed and not elected. The terrorists of Bin Laden and Saddam are opposed to democracy in Iraq and they can depend on the BBC to spin for them. What truly evil people work for the BBC.
The link to above
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678207.stm