Natan Sharansky's take on Iranian Protests

Below is an excellent column from Natan Sharansky in the LA Times. Sharanksy is a former Soviet dissident and respected thinker (at least by me). As a former dissident, Sharansky analyzed the brewing protests in Iran and what it could mean for that country.

The prescience of protest

The West should listen to the dissidents in Iran craving freedom -- they can feel the future.

By Natan Sharansky

Once again, the world is amazed. As with the seemingly sudden appearance of the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s, or the gaudy, grand-scale collapse of the Soviet empire at the end of that decade, the massive revolt of Iranian citizens has elicited the unmitigated surprise of the free world's army of experts, pundits and commentators. Who would have known? Who could have predicted this eruption of protest in a system so highly repressed, where a generally quiescent populace lives under such a deeply entrenched revolutionary regime?

And yet, just as in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, there were those in Iran who did know all along, who foresaw and even foretold today's events. These were Iran's democratic dissidents, some at home, some in exile, some having served long sentences in Iranian prisons or on their way to those prisons right now.

At various Western conferences and forums in recent years, some of these dissidents even succeeded in gaining the ear of leaders of the free world. They were greeted with sincere expressions of sympathy and support -- but also with silent skepticism. Surely their assessments of the Iranian situation were unreliable at best. Heroic they undoubtedly were, but objective? After all, they lacked access to classified information, to satellite photography and the other tools of modern intelligence-gathering. They could not see the whole picture.

Now it turns out that, like their predecessors in the Soviet Union, they were right.

How is it that dissidents rotting in the gulag were able to predict, many years earlier, not only when but how the Soviet Union would collapse -- something that escaped all the world's scholars and intelligence agencies alike? Andrei Amalrik's book, "Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?," published underground in 1969, is only one of many examples of such predictions. How did the experts miss it? The reason is simple.

Every totalitarian society consists of three groups: true believers, double-thinkers and dissidents. In every totalitarian regime, no matter its cultural or geographical circumstances, the majority undergo a conversion over time from true belief in the revolutionary message into double-thinking. They no longer believe in the regime but are too scared to say so. Then there are the dissidents -- pioneers who dare to cross the line between double-thinking and everything that lies on the other side. In doing so, they first internalize, then articulate and finally act on the innermost feelings of the nation.

People in free societies watching massive military parades or vociferous displays of love for the leaders of totalitarian regimes often conclude, "Well, that's their mentality; there's nothing we can do about it." Thus they and their leaders miss what is readily grasped by local dissidents attuned to what is happening on the ground: the spectacle of a nation of double-thinkers slowly or rapidly approaching a condition of open dissent.

To see the telltale signs, sometimes it helps to have experienced totalitarianism firsthand. More than once in recent years, former Soviet citizens returning from a visit to Iran have told me how much Iranian society reminded them of the final stages of Soviet communism. Their testimony was what persuaded me to write almost five years ago that Iran was extraordinary for the speed with which, in the span of a single generation, a citizenry had made the transition from true belief in the revolutionary promise into disaffection and double-thinking. Could dissent be far behind?

This suggests another notable fact about present-day Iran. In Moscow in the 1970s, demonstrations organized by dissidents in an effort to attract the world's attention would often consist of no more than five to 10 individuals. Otherwise, the KGB would find out about the demonstrations in advance. They would last no more than five minutes. That was the longest we could last before the KGB would come, arrest us and ship the less fortunate to Siberia. Our main objective was to make certain that at least one foreign journalist was present so that, the next day, at least one Western news source would come out with a story that could in turn elicit a chain reaction of more and greater press attention and, we hoped, a vocal Western response.

This week, there were hundreds of thousands on the streets of Tehran, with the entire world following them in real time. My assistant, sitting in Jerusalem, received daily updates on Facebook from two dozen Iranian friends before they set out to demonstrate and again on their return. One can only hope that, in the White House and at 10 Downing Street, the leaders of the free world are as well connected as my assistant.

But will those leaders act? With all their sympathy for peoples striving for freedom, Western governments are fearful of imperiling actual or hoped-for relations with the world's ayatollahs, generals, general secretaries and other types of dictators -- partners, so it is thought, in maintaining political stability. But this is a fallacy. Democracy's allies in the struggle for peace and security are the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran who, with consummate bravery, have crossed the line between the world of double-think and the world of free men and women.

Listen to them, and you will hear nothing more, and nothing less, than what you your- self know to be the true hope of every human being on Earth. Listen to them and you may be amazed, but you will never again be surprised.

Natan Sharansky spent nine years in the Soviet gulag. He is chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

Mumbai Clarification

Something that I have become passionate about is the concept of language and the importance of ideas. With the horrendous actions in Mumbai and their immediate implications for the region, I feel that it is important to stress the need for clarifications. As I wrote in a previous post, "we must call cowardly acts like these what it is, murderous evil." The current trend within media outlets is to call the perpetrators by every name other than Muslim fundamentalists. The cowardly murderers are portrayed as "militants," "gunmen" or "practitioners." The evil that civilization (Western, Far-Eastern, Near-Eastern) faces is the threat from Radicalized Islam.

While American foreign policy does play a role in the tension between the clash, it is not the sole reason. While Deepak Chopra and others might blame America, these attacks were not solely based on American policy. Bali hardly was an extension of American Imperialism when it was bombed several years ago. Turkey stood up against America in the prelude to the 2003 Iraq War, yet it was hit by bombings in Istanbul. This threat touches moderate Islamic states and secular democracies alike, it is a global force that needs to be reckoned with. It is important to also note that this threat is not an easy puzzle that many of my fellow conservatives paint. The government of Iran, the finances of Saudi Arabia and the youth of Central Asia are not mobilized with similar goals or objectives, bonded together in a unified plot. Instead it is going to be a Long War and this war needs differing solutions for different problems. The implementation of Soft and Hard Power will be key.

The murderers in Mumbai attacked civilians and a Jewish center. They targeted a Rabbi purposefully. One of my favorite columnist wrote a brilliant piece that speaks to this issue powerfully. Mark Steyn wrote,

"In a well-planned attack on iconic Mumbai landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the "militants" nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city's poor in a nondescript building. If they were just "teenage gunmen" or "militants" in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Mumbai? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: 'Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.'"

Quite frankly, the populace of the West must be honest. We must be able to properly identify who the enemy is and what is their ideology. If we remain dishonest and merely call the perpetrators "teenage gunmen" we will forget the gravity of the situation. Clarification of the issue needs to be also met with restraint in our language as well. All Muslims are not terrorists and the "silent majority" must stand with the rest of the world. The problem is that these murderous thugs use the guise of Islam for their cowardice, thus implicating peace-loving Muslims. As Keith Pavlischek writes in First Things, "They do not appeal to Hindu or Buddhist texts, they do not justify their actions by appealing to Catholic encyclicals and papal pronouncements, they do not appeal to Protestant confessional creeds or to Jewish literature. They justify their resort to terrorist violence, rightly or wrongly, to Islamic canonical sources in the Koran and the Hadith." Moderate Muslims must remember that silence is acceptance. A reformation will only come from within Islamic society, it cannot be forced upon them. Peace loving Muslims must stand against the perverse terrorists, that is when true victory will occur. All that Westerners can do is stand with those vocal people and fight to eradicate the evil, through both word and deed.

Reemergence of Evil

In the past few months I have been focused on US politics. Debating Iraqi withdrawal strategies, economic plans and social issues have been hot topics in political circles and have preoccupied my mind. These topics, however, have shifted focus from one of the most important issues of our time- evil. There is evil in the world and it attacks defenseless people for the sole purpose of destruction. This evil has a face, and it is the face of twisted ideology. This ideology takes the words of a religion and uses it to enact destruction. These terrorists use the name of Islam to combat the infidels, and by that very definition every non-Muslim is a target. However, that narrow description has broadened, even fellow Muslims have become acceptable targets. Islamic fundamentalism is an anathema to the world, including the Muslim civilization. This anathema must be universally confronted.

The terrorists in Mumbai sought to destroy as many lives as possible, killing tourists and workers at random. These murderous beings also sought to target a Jewish cultural center. In a place that has an incredibly small Jewish population, these terrorists murdered a rabbi and his wife. Of course, we do not have to discuss the ancient belief in Jew hating (we can save that discussion for another day), but we should discuss the evil in the world. There are theories that these acts have been prompted by American foreign policy (which I agree, in part). However, US foreign policy can only provide so much room for excuse. Bali, Turkey, India, Jordan and other traditional non-Western nations have been targeted for retribution. As Fareed Zakaria said on CNN recently, we must place the blame first on the terrorists. Regardless if there were ties from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, the perpetrators deserve our full wrath. They are the ones who attacked defenseless tourists and civilians. They are the cowards and they are the root source of this evil.

In the remembrance of the murderous acts in Mumbai, we must regain vigilance against this evil. The Western, Muslim, Hindu and Far Eastern nations must stand against this evil and work to eradicate it. This will have to be a blend of military, economic and diplomatic solution. Hard Power must be joined with Soft Power to create a lasting solution. Our military might must be used with caution and our culturally based Soft Power should be deployed to its fullest extent. The first step that we must take is the realization that it exists and then work to counteract it. We must call cowardly acts like these what it is, murderous evil. If we do not achieve intellectual and moral clarity than we will never win.

Russia and the West (Part 2)

The United States has made a profound error in handling the current tension between Russia and the former Soviet satellites (Georgia and Poland). Of course, Poland has a right to pursue military cooperation with America and Ukraine can seek close ties with Western Europe, but the emotions of recent oppression can provoke the more aloof American diplomatic corps. There are three actions that the US ought to adopt. The US must support the integrity of the small, democratic state of Georgia. The US must oppose the aggression of Russia. The US must look at Russia's grievances with the former Eastern bloc and attempt to ratchet down the rhetoric between the factions. Russia is no longer the USSR, instead it is a nationalistic burgeoning country.

It is important to note that Georgia did provoke the fight that Russia longed for. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, seeking to bring the semi-autonomous region back under the control of Tbilisi. Russia was preparing for a possible attack and seized the moment like a starving bear (pardon the analogy). The US must include the perspectives of our old rival- to at least attempt to understand their point of view. The historical context and necessity of the situation demands it.

We must stop alienating the Russians and hand an olive branch to them. The two outcomes that will arise is we either end up with a friend or expose their ambitions.

----Update----

An excellent analysis of the reality of the recent Georgian-Russian conflict from Foreign Policy magazine

Georgia Without the Spin
It’s time for the West to realize that Mikheil Saakashvili is no saint and that Georgia is not quite an innocent victim.

Russia and the West

I feel as if the current administration is missing opportunities to foster better relations with Russia. Russia, of course, is aggressive and ambitious in its nationalistic goals. Within its historical context, Russia is trying to obtain esteem and international clout, something that was lost during the 1990's. The US diplomatic corps, led by Russian expert Secretary Rice, has been disappointing in regards to reaching out to their rival. Especially within the current Russian-Georgian war, historical context is essential. (For a detailed description of the recent conflict, see this LA Times article)

One of the great obstacles between the US and Russia is the proposed missile shield. The creation of the missile shield can be explored between the US and the Eastern European nations. However, that exploration is viewed by Russia as expansionistic and encroaching on the Russian sphere of influence. Historically, Russia sought to have a buffer between itself and its Western neighbors. Since the Russians view the missile bases (within close distance to its borders) as a threat and the US views the shield as a necessity, why not counteract that with signs of inclusion? Why not incorporate some of the territory of Russia's close neighbors into the system, even if it is more of a symbolic gesture?

Old rivalries and emotions are stirred up when new events occur. Conflict and passions flare up occasionally and the flames can begin to grow. As Gwynne Dyer (a London-based journalist) said in a recent column:

In those Eastern European countries that were so recently ruled from Moscow, the presence of Russian troops in Georgia has reawakened all the old fears. Poland hastily agreed last week to let the United States place anti-ballistic missile sites on its soil, on condition that there must also be a full-fledged U.S. military base in the country. Why? Because then, if Russia attacked Poland, the United States would automatically become involved.

Is NATO ready for a sustained conflict (hot or cold) with the resurgent Russian Bear? Hardly. Western Europe is uneasily content in the status quo while the Eastern European nations urge more confrontational approaches toward Russia. What can bridge the gap between the two opinions in Europe? Like most things, somewhere in between lies the solution. For this situation, historical context must be analyzed. The US is willing to confront the Russians in rhetoric but does not have the strategic "hard power" of military deterrents (thanks to two conflicts in Asia). President Reagan at least could talk firmly while carrying a large stick. President Bush, on the other hand, can only talk firmly since the military is stretched thin. With NATO split in terms of priorities and principles, the West can hardly act with a hammer. We ought to speak softly but firmly. Offer a compromise about the missile shield for Russia's promise to leave Georgia and to cool the rhetoric. It would call either expose their ambitions of resurgence or bring them into amiable ties with the West. It is certainly worth attempting.

All the sides within the European power structure have a story and arrive at the situation with tremendous amounts of baggage. We must view conflicts from another point of view and grasp motives. Without being relativistic, our reactions must be rooted in the truth that there are always points of views- good international relations depends upon that reality. It is time for diplomacy to take the upperhand. The US could be able to exit the standoff with some grace.

The Power of the Olympic Games

Games truly bring people together. Sporting events can bridge divides and can instill peace, even for a few moments. I believe that the big picture of the Olympics should be reached for, the dream of cooperation and common humanity ought to be sought and promoted.

World War I had some of the worst fighting in history, massive casualties ensued across Europe. However, even in the midst of carnage, Christmas Day bore witness to the common humanity on the Western Front. Central and Allied powers muted fighting for the day in one sector and came together. Ball games, feasting and laughter rang throughout the hellish landscape. In recent times, Cubans and Americans played against each other, the Koreans walked out together twice in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Georgia and Russia were fighting over a breakaway province thousands of miles away from Beijing, yet the two nations had athletes on the medal platform and competed in volleyball. While their armies were locked in conflict, the two athletes were embracing each other. For a few moments, belligerent nations were fellow humans and colleagues.

Of course, there were cases where Arab nations would not compete against an Israeli and boycotts trumped athletics. In this year's Beijing Olympics, North Korea refused to march behind South Korea. Competitive nations sometimes cannot be friendly on the court. Even with the negative examples, the positives outweigh the negatives by a wide margin.

The "Coming Together" of the world does not necessarily mean a New World Order. The realization of our common humanity and openness for dialogue is important. Of course there will be differences and hostilities. Post-nationalism will not occur this century. Its profound impact on nation-states will remain, but something that must grow is the understanding of others history. Cultural knowledge must come about and historical awareness must grow. Differences will continue, but striving to overcome can bring about incredible things. Just look back at Post-War Europe! France and Germany, once bitter enemies, are now friends. Sometimes the impossible is plausible.

Equality and equations.

I watched Senator Obama's rockstar speech yesterday. He called forth the proud German people to fight against intolerance and poverty. The last two brilliant speakers in Berlin mentioned the forces that the United States was up against. The Soviet Union was evil. Kennedy and Reagan understood that there was evil in the world. Sen. Obama seems to believe that intolerance and poverty are the true culprits of an unjust world. Intolerance can be a vehicle for evil and poverty can provoke evil, but evil is ultimately the thing that just people must fight against.

To say that the European people (as a whole) are waging war against Islamofascism is rather problematic. The front line of terror, as outlined by Sen. Obama, is in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the place that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are making their stand against the forces of freedom. As a military excursion by NATO, the full force of the West should be upon our enemies. However, only a handful of nations are in active combat roles. Germany does not engage, unless in self defense. At our present condition, Canadian forces are threatening to pull out of combat missions if there are no additional forces sent to the region. France, under President Sarkozy, could send additional troops to support the operation.

I applaud those nations that are fighting actively against evil. I implore our Western friends who are not actively confront evil to begin. Stand up against tyranny everywhere, foreign and domestic. I beg the governments that proclaim and instill liberty to live up to their ideals and stand with the oppressed. People of the West, stand as one!

American Exceptionalism

People all over the world are excited that Obama has been nominated for the presidency. People are genuinely excited that there is a black man on the ticket, someone who will transcend all of our hopes, fears and ambitions. He will lead the world into an era of peace, prosperity and happiness. Generally, it is viewed that Americans are finally sophisticated enough to nominate someone who is not white.

People who are not tolerant of others who are different (French, British, Indian, Chinese, etc.) all with giddiness and glee are more than obliged to point their finger at the lone Superpower. Americans are xenophobic and bigoted! Just read a clip from a Washington Post article:

"This is close to a miracle. I was certain that some things will not happen in my lifetime," said Sunila Patel, 62, a widow encountered on the streets of New Delhi. "A black president of the U.S. will mean that there will be more American tolerance for people around the world who are different."

America is a place that has a blood stained and horrific past. Slavery, indentured servitude and discrimination all have occurred in our past. European immigrants all faced significant ladders to climb. The Irish were absolutely discriminated against. European countries, on the other hand, have not had a good record on assimilation. Trips to any major city on the continent will bring the realities of segregation to light. India, hardly the bastion of equality, is a long way away from any sort of resemblance of tolerance.

America's rich immigrant history has aided the tolerance of society. For all of our faults (and there are many), America is a bastion of freedom and it is prolific in its plurality of people groups. The ascendancy of Barack Obama, a son of mixed heritage, has shown that perhaps this place is a bastion of freedom and plurality. As Freedom House stated, "today’s American is quite free."

Soft Power

When I visited the library the other day I rented several books. One of those books was entitled Soft Power by Joseph Nye, Jr. Soft Power is a book concerning foreign policy. Nye argues that all nations have two types of power- soft and hard. The former deals with military and economic policies (along the lines of coercion and inducements. The latter examples deals with values and cultures, seeking to stoke attraction and cooperation.

I have leaned towards the emphasis on cultural ties and the push for diplomacy. Military action is obviously an important tool of the state, but it must never become the sole tool of the state. The current president has used hard power in many circumstances and it has shown fruitful in a few instances. The destruction of the Iraqi state in 2003 brought about the disarmament of Libyan WMD production and their cooperation with the Western nations. The Iraq War also, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, helped remove the Iranian nuclear programs in 2003. These two instances were very encouraging to the USA; however, it also has led to larger resentment of the USA in many circles, both Arab and Western. While we are already deeply intimate with the conflict within the Middle East, I must say that the United States need to push for more cultural exchanges and proactive public relations.

Soft power is slower to develop relationships than hard power, but soft power is incredibly more positive and longer lasting (not to mention generally less riskier). It is incredibly important to push for increased emphasis on Voice of America and student exchanges. We must integrate our profound strength with our strong founding, emphasizing equality and man's inherent rights. Within the Muslim nations it would be an incredible statement to proliferate the airwaves with messages of all men and women are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights. I think that it would make a huge difference by competing with the Jihadists for the minds of the youth. As Nye points out, the Muslim world has some basics for growth in a democratic sense. The Turks and Moroccans are slowly realizing the bountiful fruits of a secular government. If only we could take the quest even further and start bringing up friendships with the youth.

The government must be able to help promulgate the American ideals to the wider world. Is this nation building? Not really. Nation building would be through coercion and forced persuasion through economic and military means. Although hard power is an important tool. the strength of soft power would help enlighten other nations and provide them with answers to the American quest. America is much more than pop music and Coca-Cola. American companies and our popular culture are byproducts of our foundation. Our foundation is liberty and openness within society. Although we have our faults (and Lord knows there are many), we have much strength. By training our youth and also exposing others to our society out of hostile environments (like we did within the Cold War) we will help make our future less certain. Soft power is the strength of our foreign policy and I advocate to fully harness that tool.

Failed Worldviews

I have held onto a spirit of biopartisanship for sometime now. I think that it is incredibly important to have two strong parties, yet now I am rather frightened. One party hates this war at the expense of the country and the other is not doing enough to win. Below is my scathing remarks of three candidates.

John Edwards believes that "The War on Terror" is not serious, but merely a bumper-sticker slogan. Well Mr. Edwards, do you mean that Islamists are not real? That they don't want to kill us? I am so sorry, but there is historical hatred by the Islamofascists. WWIII is here. You sir, would not make a good Commander-in-Chief. Al-Qaeda wants to kill you!!! Islamofascists would love to do anything destructive to you, as seen in this newly found file (warning, it is pretty graphic).

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, you both are disgraces. You are for the troops and against the war? I would wager a guess that you are against the troops and against the war. You two voted against funding the war because you hate the war. I do not mind that you are against the war (even though I then think that you have no historical perspective), but the fact that you would withhold material from our brave men and women is utterly insane! You two care more about the Moveon.org than the survival of this country. I cannot believe that you also promised to give money to the troops. Timetables are one thing, but withholding funding flatout? It looks like you broke your promise.

People in France voted for a conservative because they wanted change. President Sarkozy is actually funding those disgruntled immigrants to leave. I cannot emphasis this enough, but we are in a war of survival!! People want to kill you! They would want nothing less but to destroy everything you hold dear- liberal or conservative. Even Moderate Muslims who speak out are routinely called sell-outs and "Islamophobes." It seems like the French are getting the picture. The Dutch and Germans are also moving towards realistic policies. Maybe the West is waking up... Sadly, many Christian Serbs are facing the wrath of Islamists, this historical emnity is nothing new!