The leading contenders for a major Islamic award were showing their form this weekend. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan alike are showing why they are the best at what they do--bitch, complain and moan. They are both so far ahead of the competition that there is no question about the outcome in the competition for the Annual Award For Creative Sniveling conferred by the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
One of the two Islamic Republics will win. Unless the judges announce a tie.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has "urged the UN to take action" against Israel for "its outrageous and highly alarming remarks, before they endanger global peace and stability." Assuming that PRESS TV is not stumbling over the English language, the Iranian Ambassador has argued (presumably with a straight face) in a letter to the UN Secretary General that remarks by the Israeli Transport Minister, Sha'ul Mofaz, constitute an "explicit threat" to Iran's peace and safety. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=59123§ionid=351020101
In the same letter Ambassador Mohammad Khazaei averred (again with a presumptively straight face) that Iran has "never threatened to wage war against Israel."
Right. Sure. Can we say, "a distinction without a difference?"
It is true that Tehran has never threatened war, per se. Of course, Iranian President Ahmedinejad has made himself (in)famous for predicting the removal of Israel from the map and similar give-peace-a-chance sentiments.
The comment of Mofaz has been given international importance because he has been both Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff in the past. Overlooked whether intentionally or not by the Iranian Ambassador and government as well as by many other observers is the comment was made for domestic political goals. The Olmert government is shaky to say the least with much shoulder bumping and posturing by Israeli politicians who would like the Prime Minister's job. Mofaz's comment to the effect that Israel would have little choice beyond unilateral action against Iran's nuclear program if the international sanction and diplomacy effort failed has been widely blamed for the record spike in world oil prices last Friday.
People, whether speculators looking for an excuse to hedge in oil or journalists after a great headline, can be excused for overlooking the domestic political orientation of the comment. For the Iranians to use the Mofaz's statement as an excuse to assert as Ambassador Khazaei did is both ironic and cynical.
Check it out for yourself.
"Such a dangerous threat against a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations constitutes a manifest violation of international law and contravenes the most fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and, thus, requires a resolute and clear response on the part of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council." (Quote taken from the JTA http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/108972.html.)
Perhaps the calculated whine is not so much cynical or ironic as it is in keeping with the wrinkle of Shia belief holding it alright to lie in order to protect the Believers and the Belief.
The new government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is sending a very high level delegation to the headquarters of the European Union.
Its mission?
Let's let a Pakistani source tell us. "Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday." http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C08%5Cstory_8-6-2008_pg7_14
Wow!
A few cartoons, some of which are quite funny, and a short video available only on the web and the Pakistanis want the West to undo five centuries of struggle for free expression! Talk about chutzpah!
The six "high-level officials" from the Foreign, Law and Interior ministries are going to tell the Europeans where things are at.
More to the point they are going to make a threat. Let's listen in---
"They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out."
Now that is a threat which is directed against the very foundations of the international community to say nothing of each and every "sovereign state" (to quote the Iranian UN Ambassador) in the European Union--and beyond. Perhaps the Eurocrats should echo this moan to the United Nations.
Embassies, as the Pakistani government well knows, constitute sovereign soil of the nation they represent. The host state has an obligation under numerous international conventions to protect those embassies against violence and threats of violence. Pakistan is a subscriber to all the relevant treaties and conventions.
To put it to the Paks bluntly: It is your responsibility, your obligation solely to act in a manner which will protect the lives, persons and property of foreign embassies. Period. You may not like it. But that's life in the real world.
The Pakistani bid for supremacy in the Organization of the Islamic Conference for First Prize in Creative Sniveling seems to the Geek to outdo the Iranian. For sheer, unmitigated effrontery it is hard to beat the proposition that unless the EU suppresses free speech, the Pakistani government and by implication other Islamic governments either cannot or will not live up to international agreements.
Really, really, Eurocrats, we good, peace loving Muslims cannot assure that some among us will not act out their rage and frustration by car-bombing your embassies or slitting the throats of your diplomats.
Yeah. Right.
Even the Pakistanis with a very large army, a very large paramilitary, a very large constabulary can't protect embassies. That's a stretch.
They can. But they won't. That's the bottom line in this piece of whine, bitch and moan.
The Pakistanis have shown unwillingness to protect embassies in the past. The US compound has been the focus of "popular" rage in the past. The same has occurred with respect to other nation's missions--not simply the Danish.
It might be worth recalling that Iran set the model back in 1979. "Students" apparently outraged and frustrated by past American support for the Shah took over the embassy and seized personnel. The new Revolutionary Republican government stood by with its collective clerical arms folded.
Add to the recollection the new information that twenty-six year old future president Ahmedinejad was involved in the planning and oversight of the illegal takeover.
Come to think of it, that might hurt Iran's chances of edging out Pakistan in the race for the Creative Sniveler of the Year Award.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
And then there's this:
Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad orders banks to move assets to beat EU
By Con Coughlin Dated: 08/06/2008
The president of Iran has ordered the country's leading banks to transfer billions of dollars of assets from Europe to the Central Bank to prevent them being frozen by international sanctions, according to Western diplomats.
The funds are being moved to Tehran through a secret network of "front" companies set up in Gulf states such as Dubai.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the move amid growing concern that Iranian banks would soon be subject to strengthened European Union-level sanctions. But his action has caused friction with Tahmaseb Mazaheri, the governor of the Central Bank. The Iranian press has reported that he may resign over the issue.
This would constitute a serious blow to Mr Ahmadinejad's already battered reputation for economic competence. Mr Mazaheri has only been in the job nine months after he replaced Ibrahim Sheibani, who resigned over the Iranian president's attempts to control the activities of the state's banks.
The link is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2095636/Iran%27s-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-orders-banks-to-move-assets-to-beat-EU.html
Now, I'm not the brightest knife in the drawer, but this looks like a really short sighted move. Here's why:
1) What this move does positive for Iran is two-fold:
1(a) Moves money (assets) out of EU banks and into direct Iranian controlled financial environments.
1(b) Brings more financial resources into Iran's Central Banking network, thereby IN THEORY "reducing" the inflationary pressures at work inside Iran.
Remember, they have drastically increased money supply over the last few years without having a corresponding increase in financial 'assets' in Iran's Central Bank. If you move all these outside assets into the Central Bank, you (again, in theory) increase the strength of your currency.
So, looks like a good move, right?
2) Well, maybe not - Here's a couple of the potential downsides:
2(a)You just gave the West (in particular, Treasury) a complete road map to your (Iran's) "direct Iranian controlled financial environments", thereby leading to the possibility of more US Treasury sanctions against Iranian influenced financial institutions. In effect, Iran would be assisting the West (US in particular) in unraveling their financial "currency laundering" environment.
2(b) Iran makes their oil harder to sell. Here's why (been a while, but don't think the process has changed that much).
When you are buying and/or selling large quantities of oil, both sides have to have appropriate fiscal protections in place before the transaction (shipment) ever occurs.
Particularly with these big money deals, where you are talking about a constant flow of maybe 100k Bbl. per day, every single day (and that could be a small to middling size deal). Think of these as being financial assets put into place in financial brokering institutions as "collateral" until the transaction is completed. Once completed, more money is moved into the financial accounts, and part/all of the income from the transaction is moved to the provider of the oil (Iran, in this example). But the "collateral" pretty much stays in place. Now, in a normal business environment, no big deal. But with Iran's situation, it's a whole lot harder, and complexity of the deal is much greater. It's all about those damned Western sanctions!!
You've got to keep the "collateral" in place (like in the EU) to facilitate the ongoing oil trades, but it can't be too obvious, otherwise the nation(s) buying your oil are going to find their lives becoming even more difficult. Very few countries actively look forward to getting on the bad side of the US government over trading with Iran.
By reducing/eliminating the "collateral" base currently existing in the EU, not only have you (Iran) made your buyer's lives harder (less opaque, and more transparent - not a good thing if you are buying Iranian oil), but you have also made their ability to make payment (to Iran) that much more difficult.
This action by Iran looks to be a really short-sighted move, and honestly, I'm surprised at this. They are usually a lot better at this game. Tells me they are either getting arrogant, or they are getting desperate.
Thoughts?
The Geek saw the same article and chuckled. The move is--as you properly term it--short sighted. As to the arrogance-desperation dyad, the Geek is of the view that the weight falls on the second option. The Geek (no surprise here) has further thoughts on the evolving state of play in Iran, but this is my hot wash response to your very thoughtful assessment.
Post a Comment