Dare to cross the ‘party line’ without the gun?!

IIPM Best B-School

Aggressive militarism is not the final solution for the state to secure peace for their countrymen

Noam Chomsky, Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

IN crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed, and it must be obeyed, or else. What you believe is your own business, of lesser concern.

In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is not proclaimed. Rather, it is presupposed, and then vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The crude system leads to natural disbelief. The sophisticated variant gives the impression of openness and freedom, and serves to instill the Party Line as beyond question, even beyond thought, like the air we breathe.

In the ever more precarious standoff between Washington and Tehran, one Party Line confronts another. Among the well-known immediate victims are the Iranian- American detainees Parnaz Azima, Haleh Esfandiari, Ali Shakeri and Kian Tajbakhsh. But the whole world is held hostage to the US-Iran conflict, where, after all, the stakes are nuclear.

Unsurprisingly, President Bush’s announcement of a “surge” in Iraq – in reaction to the call of most Americans for steps toward withdrawal, and the even stronger demands of the (irrelevant) Iraqis – was accompanied by ominous leaks about Iranian- based fighters and Iranian made IEDS in Iraq aimed at disrupting Washington’s mission to gain victory, which is (by definition) noble.

Then followed the predictable debate: The hawks say we have to take violent measures against such outside interference in Iraq. The doves counter that we must make sure the evidence is compelling. The entire debate can proceed without absurdity only on the tacit assumption that we own the world. Therefore interference is limited to those who impede our objectives in a nation that we openly invade and occupy...

What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the United States? Reports of threatening, off -the-record statements by staffers for Vice President Cheney have heightened fears of an expanded war. “You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say, ‘Let’s go and bomb Iran,”’ Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the BBC last month. “I wake up every morning and see 100 Iraqis, innocent civilians, are dying.”

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, as against the ‘new crazies’, is supposedly pursuing the diplomatic track with Tehran. But the Party Line holds, unchanged. In April, Rice spoke about what she would say if she encountered her Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki at the international conference on Iraq at Sharm el Sheikh. “What do we need to do? It’s quite obvious,” Rice said. “Stop the flow of arms to foreign fighters; stop the flow of foreign fighters across the borders.” She is referring, of course, to Iranian fighters and arms. US fighters and arms are not “foreign” in Iraq. The tacit premise underlying her comment, and virtually all public discussion about Iraq (and beyond) is that we own the world. Do we not have the right to invade and destroy a foreign country? Of course we do. That’s a given. The only question is: Will the surge work?

Doubtless Tehran merits harsh condemnation, certainly for severe domestic repression and the inflammatory rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who has little to do with foreign affairs). It is, however, useful to ask how Washington would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, overthrown the governments there, slaughtered scores of thousands of people, deployed major naval forces in the Caribbean and issued credible threats to destroy the US if it did not terminate its nuclear energy programmes (and weapons). Would we watch quietly?

We can improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail withdrawing the threats that are a gift to the Iranian hardliners and are bitterly condemned for that reason by Iranians concerned with democracy. We can act to open some space for those who are seeking to overthrow the reactionary and repressive theocracy from within, instead of undermining their efforts by threats.

For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article

Source : IIPM Editorial, 2007

An IIPM and Professor Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist) Initiative

For More IIPM Info, Visit Below....
ARINDAM CHAUDHURI’S 4 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD CHOOS...IIPM :- Cicero's Challenge is going global
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (I...
After CDMA, will nokia miss the 3G bus ?
Time for Awards at IIPM
STUDENTS AGAINST CORRUPTION & KICKBACKS : SACK
HRIC :- Human Resource Intelligence Cell
Heavy dut(t)y stress Sanjay Dutt Bollywood Actor
The Business of B-School Rankings & The Big Farce
36TH Full Time Programme In Planning & Entrepreneu...
Courtney to quit courting cigarettes!