UN and U.S. Double Standards: Egypt vs. Iran
After an initial United Nations response to the mass uprising in Egypt of … well, not much… Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has jumped into the fray. On Wednesday and again on Thursday he called for a transition “now.” He wants it to be “very peaceful and orderly” but he wants it to be “done now.” CBS News reports that in his consultation with assorted political leaders, Ban appears to be “building an international alliance to assist Egypt to do so.”
Question: Where was this UN zeal for transition when the people of Iran, braving a regime far more horrific and malign than the dictatorship of Egypt, were bleeding and dying in the streets in June of 2009? When Iran erupted in revolt, Ban faded into the woodwork. As I noted in a column in late June, 2009, “Where’s the UN on Iran?”, Ban first told reporters he was “closely following the situation.” As the carnage continued, with demonstrators denouncing the rigged presidential reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Iranian security forces beating and shooting and arresting them, Ban did not question the legitimacy of the regime. On the contrary, by implication, he supported it, saying that he had “taken note of the instruction by the religious leaders that there should be an investigation into this issue.”
The weekend that the video went viral on the web of Neda Soltan bleeding to death in the street, Ban was not huddled with international leaders discussing how to bring about immediate regime change in Iran. Ban was in Birmingham, England, accepting an award at a Rotary International Convention.
So why, in Ban Ki-Moon’s books, do mass protests in Egypt require an immediate transition of power, while the demands of mass protests in Iran are to be satisfied with promises by the regime that it will inquire into the reasons for the protests?
One might well ask a similar question about the policies of the Obama administration, which was content during the Iranian uprising to “bear witness,” but is now reported to be working flat-out to ensure Egyptian officials kick start a transition. Actually, one could ask a lot of questions. Does China’s President Hu Jintao represent a regime any less brutal than that of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt? Yet, just last month, President Obama hosted a state dinner for Hu at the White House. So, is the chief distinction, then, that despots who receive U.S. aid are ripe for removal, but despots who are U.S. creditors are feted by the president?
Complete consistency in these matters is probably beyond the reach of any UN project, and any U.S. foreign policy. But there’s a lot of room here for our current global bigwigs to begin displaying any consistency whatsoever. In tumultuous and dangerous times, it would be awfully good to hear our intrepid leaders spell out, as clearly as they possibly can, exactly what standards really do apply. In countries where votes really count, that might help the voters decide whether the current standards, and the leaders applying them, are — to borrow the lingo of diplomacy — even remotely “acceptable.”
One other question: How many people who want Mubarak removed because of the rough treatment meted out on the Muslim Brotherhood by the Mubarak government, are silent when people get away with meting out rough treatment on Christians in Egypt?
Looks like we have another double standard.
The real question is-if human rights abuses are so abhorrent in Egypt, that Obama (etc) are calling for ‘transition NOW’, why in heavens name did he go to Cairo in 2009, not only extolling the nation(nary a word about its leadership’s abuses)but also stated,’no one has a right to overturn the leadership of another nation’ or something to that effect.Look up his speech in Cairo and the truth shall emerge.
Therefore, what is going on now that all of a sudden human rights in Egypt are so imperative?Clearly the MB understood that a wink and a nod was coming their way.While Obama reps meet regularly with MB leaders in the Middle East AND in Washington, activists from the MB came to Washington for ‘training’ in ‘democratic change’.
The fact of the matter is that Obama stage managed this crisis from beginning to end.Whereas Obama understood that the Iranian protesters were mostly seeking true freedom from the boots of the Islamists at their throat, he made it known that he would NOT side with them, telling the leadership that he will stand by the ‘elected’ regime.HOWEVER, he also recognizes that the MB in Egypt is primed like a tiger to finally ! win power, and Mubarak, autocrat that he is, stands in the way of an ISLAMIST takeover.Herein lies the dichotomy AND the call for his ouster.
You hit basically all the nails on the head, I in fact just read an article by (Conseritive) Tammy Bruce who used to be a Liber/Progressive until Obama was elected and who is now taking the lead to have Obama impeached on the charge of working with the MB who are guilty of facilitating this regime take-over we are now witnessing !!! Word has it Obama has been working on this since before he was inaugurated our POTUS and anyone who follows politics knows this regi e takeover doesn’t just happen over night or over the course of several days and escalate to the heights we’ve been witnessing.
couple that with his administration refusing to adhere to several Federal Judges rulings that over turned his excutive orders to stop drilling in the gulf and most recently to stop implementing his Obamacare both of which is is and has now been found in contempt but still charges on full steam ahead with his orders but not so much as a peep from the MSM or FNC for that matter nor the leadership of the Republican party. Now we have “My Friends” John McCain who appears to be Obama’s right hand man to help Obama drive his agenda from the right side of the Political sphere !!! This is serious business and more people around the Globe and here at home need to start paying attention to what the he’ll is happening in broad daylight for God only knows what the F#%^ is happening behind closed door’s !!!!
I had the same thought as Tammy Bruce. Basically treasonous behavior, but not limited to BHO.
This wise comment should be frontpage news throughout the “free” world.
Claudia: as much as I disagree with you, as an Iranian I am wondering the exact same thing. why Egypt and not Iran? it is disturbing.
m
Read my post below. It’s about reading the situation and doing the right thing.
Obama could have said anything he liked, and it wouldn’t have mattered squat to the outcome of the iranian election (you might have missed it, but the US isn’t all that big in iran as a moral leader). But he MIGHT have got a lot more people killed. I don’t personally see how that would be an admirable strategy.
Obama didn’t say much about egypt until it appeared that the protests were going to succeed. That’s the first requirement – if the existing regime isn’t in any danger, it’s just quixotic to make a bit noise about it. But if that regime is SHOOTING at people, maybe that’s not the right time to be playing for ratings back home.
In both cases, we had media-savvy regimes who know how to use propaganda.
I think he did the right thing in both cases.
Matthew
“Why bother?”
February 3, 2011 – 8:46 pm
Ah yes Divine, it’s all about image and short term gain. Any notion that does not cause that instant gratification rush of bring “right” for the minute is not to be “bothered” with as it may cause righteous “irritation”. Mr. President has learned well. Fear of Iranian thugs? Did you take one of his classes?
Matthew
“I’ve started to wonder why I bother.”
“It’s also quite irritating …”
February 2, 2011 – 3:58 pm
Yeah Divine, this sums it up –
Matthew
“*shrug*”
February 4, 2011 – 5:36 pm
Pass the cake please. Did you get your fill? Was that your head rolling by? Oh no, that’s someone else’s Iranian head.
“*shrug*” Can you *yawn* too? Very *good*!
But he’s dedicated
To having his own way…
Are you even interested in the topic of the thread?
Any way you look at it, or spin it, Obama will be responsible for the overthrow of a foreign government. Will this scare other regimes and dictators? Not hardly. The powers fomenting the demonstrations know the United States has lost it’s global influence under Obama.
The circumstances for Egypt to emerge as a center of local power, and befriend the United States, is very remote.
Goodbye Egypt. God speed.
I disagree with the title of the piece.
It isn’t the US’s double standard. It’s little lenin’s standard, not the US’s, and he hasn’t changed the standard one bit. He supports the parties that promise to create the most chaos in the world and to be the most diametricly opposed to the interests of the US.
He doesn’t represent the country’s standard, he represents the ruling class/marxist standard.
I am heartened by Egyptian Christians protecting Muslims from “pro-Mubarak” thugs. One has to wonder how many of the “pro-Mubarak” thugs are actually Muslim Brotherhood in disguise. A give-away is when they threaten to behead someone, as there have never been complaints in 30 years of Mubarak’s people beheading anybody. How can we get to the young people and instruct them to petition their government with their demands, so they have a concrete platform for reform? That is something we can do.
Historic interview on Israel National Radio: reconciling ancient history and what actually is Islam?
http://www.marcrubin.com/judean-eve.ivnu
Most people in the US probably do not know that dictators Mubarak and Ben Ali with their parties were highly valued members of the Socialist International until last week. These “social democratic leaders” and their parties were ousted only after the present popular uprisings. That says something about the “progressive” socialist brotherhood!
More on this here:
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/02/mubaraks-and-ben-alis-parties-were.html
Banky ?
Didn’t I read that many South Koreans themselves are embarrassed by this guy ?
He gets his 7 year stint as sec’y general following Kofi’s 7 year stint.
He’s big into AGW, too, attending conferences, making pronouncements, you know the drill.
These guys get some visibility as sec’y general of “The UN” and feel like it’s a license to wag their tongues and push some brain dead agendas.
I guess no one smart wants the job.
“So why, in Ban Ki-Moon’s books, do mass protests in Egypt require an immediate transition of power, while the demands of mass protests in Iran are to be satisfied with promises by the regime that it will inquire into the reasons for the protests?”
Allies of the US must be brought down and enemies must be protected, by the UN and apparently the left. Where was the left’s zeal for Democracy in Iraq?
“Where was the left’s zeal for Democracy in Iraq?”
Where’s the democracy?
TO: All
RE: I Suggest….
….that the only thing US pays the UN for is to move Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to North Korea. AND KEEP HIM THERE!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Evil has many faces. And it seems that Ban Ki-Moon wears one of them.]
There is one major reason why both Obama and the United Nations did NOTHING about the Iranian revolt. It was because of Iraq. I’m convinced of it. The Iranians probably threatened both Obama and the United Nations with outright war in Iraq if we meddled in their internal affairs. So Obama, wanting to get out of Iraq as soon as possible and not wanting anything to interfere with this year’s final withdrawal date, kept his mouth shut. The UN, not wanting yet another major war in the Middle East, kept its mouth shut too. So Obama probably ended up throwing all of the Iranian protesters under the bus so that we could complete our “peaceful” withdrawal from Iraq. Also, you never know if the Iranians paid a number of UN diplomats to keep their mouths shut about the protests as well. Nope, if the Iranian people want freedom, they’re on their own.
Among the chattering classes, not only has deviancy been defined down, but cowardice has been elevated to a virtue.
But, but, but .. Iran is a member of the UN Womens’ Rights Council whereas Egypt is not (as far as I know). No double standard here surely – Iran is clearly civilized, Egypt is not. Besides, whoever said the UN has a General Ban on commenting about revolutions?
I’m surprised the question has to be posed but the answer is obvious: If the regime in question is pro-American or at least somewhat pro-western, then its opponents are by definition righteous.
It is at this moment that not supporting the “Green Movement” in Iran last year bites us in the a**. The Iranian theocracy will use it’s assets which are already in place in most if not all the countries experiencing upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East.
If O’Sputnik had spoken out against the blatantly fraudulent election in 09, instead of pretending that the will of the people had spoken. If he had supported the demonstrators who opposed a radical Islamic state and devoted as much covert assistance as possible and while still maintaining the thinnest of veils covering our involvement, we would have looked like the strong horse that is so respected in that part of the world. Even if the Greens had minimal successes and the conflict still raged the regime would be too busy trying to survive to be as influential as they are capable of now.
Suppose however the Green revolution had succeeded in overthrowing the Ayatollahs. Suppose the example of tyranny overthrown was the demise of an Islamic theocracy rather than an Autocracy opposed to radical Islamists.
Hmm.
I think 20th century history has proven beyond any doubt that your preferred way of doing business just doesn’t work.
Because Mubarak won’t put a Jihad on you. It’s typical of the weak willed, inefectual United Nations. There was no reason for it ever to have been started, didn’t we learn from the League of Nations, and there is no reason for it to continue. It is incapable of keeping the peace anywhere. It’s a VIP club for thugs and dictators to have a grand stage for their anti-Western venom. Mr. Obama, tear down the UN.
Rik you said exactly what was banging around in my head but could not get it into words.
I believe you’re correct.
This is not the answer Rosett was fishing for. But I believe it’s the right one. They are scared of the Mullahs. Mubarak not so much.
Spot on. See how many other people say this. The US and other military needs new excuses to remain funded. No one wants peace.
The answer to the question “why Egypt and not Iran” is very simple; The Iranian government is fanatically anti-Israel, the Egyptian government is not. So in the Orwellian world of the UN it’s “Iran good, Egypt bad.” Kindergarten stuff!
What???? Are you stating that there’s hypocrisy afoot in international affairs? Shocked! I tell you. Simply shocked that this is going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0
There is even a larger question that needs to be answered,which is;Why is it the same people who most often cry-out civil,and human rights accusations.Are the same most guilty of the same,and Are always the same who do,nothing,and say little,to the most consistantly vile abusers of the same.Such as Iran,venezuela,mexico,china,russia,cuba,brazil,etc.most of the time aligning themselves with the abusers,such as saddam hussein.The same want to be pals with the most aggregious offenders.But when those who actually put into action ways to deter,stop,and defeat Those who have no respect for the law,human life,human rights,human liberty,free will,individual,and religious freedom.They are called racist,sexist,and biggots.And ask this question?Why is it that these same civil rights activist.Always side with the worst offenders of civil,and human rights.And against the greatest defenders of civil,and human rights.Example;why do womens groups such as n.o.w.planned parenthood,etc.always choose sexual predators,perverts,and addicts to empower their cause.And turn a blind eye to those who are most abused.if they differ from them.Such as the women under islamic shari’a law.Hypocrites,cowards,Or idol worshhippers,of society predators?You make the call;I say Traces of all of the above,consume them.Jimmy Joe.”The Liarfryer”
$35 billion over 30 years in military aid and 220 F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood. Heck yeah! Let’s throw in the Suez Canal too. On May 5 2009, the Obama administration agreed to sell 24 new F-16s to Egypt. Now he backs a coup. Are we dealing with nuts or mashed potatoes here?
There is no big secret driving The UN and its Secretary General’s reaction. Follow the money, the guy with the bigger purse gets to dictate the UN’s behavior.
GDP (purchasing power parity)
Iran: $863.5 billion “What do you want me to do sir?”
Egypt: $500.9 billion “Get out of town you peasant!”
MUBARAK’S BRUTALIZATION OF THE MOSLEM BROTHERHOOD AND THE ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON SULEIMAN
Earlier this week in an interveiw on CNN security analyst Peter Bergen sounding like the lying weasal Mohamad El Baradei (“the Brotherhood isn’t extremist”) assured the world that “the Moslem Brotherhood was not that danergous any more and that they renounced violence many years ago and moderated.” True, the Brothers laid down the sword and renounced violence in the 1990s. True, they have outwardly moderated themselves and became more law abiding and peaceful. But this was only a half truth. What Bergen didn’t say and was hiding was the reason for their moderation. What he didn’t say is that the Brothers (who support Hamas’s use of terror and violence against Israel) had the violence literally beaten out of them. What he didn’t say is that after the Brothers tried to assassinate Mubarak in 1987 he gave them an ultimatum: either stop the violence and terror against my regime, the people of Egypt and foreigners or perish. This warning was ignored. When Mubarak cracked down on the Brotherhood it was horrific. He unleashed the hounds of hell and utterly brutalized them. Not only did he arrest, torture and execute members of the Brotherhood he also went after their wives and children; he also justifiably killed and tortured them. Justifiably because it was a last resort to stop their murders, bombings and terrorist plots. The Brotherhood left Mubarak with little choice but to kill innocents to stop the killing of innocents and save Egypt from a Brotherhood takeover which would have been a catastrophe for Egypt, peace with Israel and the stability of the region. The Brotherhood, as Krauthammer says, are the Sunni equivalent of the Islamo-Nazi terror masters of Iran; they are savage, medieval supremacists who only respect one thing: FORCE. And Mubarak won their respect by mercilessly using it….
Click my name to continue reading article.
That MSM does not pick up on this comparison is deeply disturbing. The fact that Joe Public seems content to allow this contravention of reality (double standards is a phrase that has become curiously devalued) to go ahead is even more disturbing.
We are living beyond the looking glass and no one seems to really notice. I mean REALLY notice, so they do something that effectively exposes the utter lie, that stops the contravention of reality. (Sorry, I know PJM tries, but events just carry on as normal.)
It seems that, being forced to live beyond the glass, we are content to do so.
Such clear, competent and detailed contravention of reality could not be achieved without great aforethought attention to detail, and unwavering purpose by people with the funds (power?) to implement such an agenda.
Without going one tiny bit conspiracy theorist, can someone explain why this is happening?
can someone explain why this is happening?
discoverthenetworks dot org
George Soros
Shadow party
Manchurian Prez
Islamofascist-International Communist Party alliances
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/arianna-huffingtons-insulting-treatment-of-minorities/#comment-868870
When one worships one’s self as god, then supporting Marxism, and those who follow Mohammad is natural. In the New Age one can do whatever feels good.
Placing limits on one’s self like morality is extreme. Marxism, and false religions like Islam are more comfortable as both lead individuals away from the G-d of Noah, Abraham, and Moses. There is no god in Marxism, and one can never know the god called Allah.
All that bowing down and appeasing Obama has done for NOTHING.
I wouldn’t expect Ban Ki Moon to act any differently than the double boutrosed Galli. But what about John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, those realists? Are they realistically advocating that Mubarak stay in power or have they become idealist advocates fof Democracy for Egypt? It would be interesting to find out.
Actually, I think you’re misunderstanding what realism means in the context of international relations. It’s not “realpolitik”, it’s a set of beliefs about the structure of the international system.
Wiki seems to be classifying walt and mearsheimer as “neorealists” along with kenneth waltz – that’s news to me. I had them pegged as “classical realists” (I’m a neorealist, myself). In any case, the issue of “realism” as understood by IR doesn’t have very much to do with the internal affairs of states, instead it’s concerned with the motives and interactions BETWEEN states. The moment you start thinking about the role of democracy, you’re almost by definition moting into the “liberal” schools of IR.
But I doubt very much that either of them is against democracy.
Divine, is your “expertise” in political circus thought?
He’s sophisticated
My head’s fit to bust
Cause he’s so complicated
bottom line is simple. the UN will take whatever position is unfavorable to the US and others who believe in Western values. Unfortunately, the US now has a president who shares the UN’s sympathies and objectives. Heaven help us, because the current administration certainly never will.
narcissism is not a sound foreign policy. obama was more interested in pursuing dialogue with the mullahs than supporting their opposition. today is the 100th birthday of a president who believed in doing what is right for America. now we have a poser who believes in nothing but his own media adulation. only in crisis does foreign policy determine presidential elections. obama, the president from affirmative action, may yet create the crisis that will be his undoing.
One of the dynamics which we do not tend to speak about is that many people, both foreign and domestic, believe the “wrong side” won the Cold War. And they are very bitter about it to this day.
Their hated rival got the girl and married her, and they can’t wait for each and any opportunity to exact revenge, however petty or extreme.
And have you MET any of these people? Coz I sure haven’t.
Thousands protest the gov’t in Egypt and Obama says “Listen to their voice” Thousands prtest the gov’t in America ans Obama says “I don’t hear you” Millions get their internet tampered with in Egypt and Obama says “Give them access” Millions get their internet tampered with in the US and Obama says ” I took away your access” Obama says let the Muslem Brotherhood speak, but the Tea Party should shut up. About the only thing he’s consistant with is he throws friends under the bus . IN Egypt it’s Mubarack,in the US it’s his Preacher Wright.
Erm …
“Thousands prtest the gov’t in America ans Obama says “I don’t hear you””
Get out in the streets and start setting fire to things and chucking rocks – I reckon you’ll get a response. You might not like it, though.
“Millions get their internet tampered with in the US and Obama says ” I took away your access””
Whose internet access did obama take away?
“Obama says let the Muslem Brotherhood speak, but the Tea Party should shut up.”
When did obama tell the tea party to shut up?
“About the only thing he’s consistant with is he throws friends under the bus . IN Egypt it’s Mubarack,in the US it’s his Preacher Wright.”
Are you saying he should SUPPORT mubarak? Really? Why not just let the egyptians hold an election?
Wright made his own bed. Why should anyone have to keep supporting a guy who was behaving the way he was? And it’s not exactly clear to me how anyone was “thrown under the bus”. Obama criticised him and quit the church. Wright later retired, and he keeps saying ridiculous stuff, as he’s free to do. So … what sanctions are you suggesting were imposed?
Get a grip. You’re comparing mubarak and obama. That’s ridiculous. “Tyranny” is not defined as “not getting your way all of the time”.
I seem to keep hitting a link limit or something. I’ll have to pare down the list, but it should suffice to point out that (from the front page)
Is just flat-out wrong.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/iran-accuses-un-chief-ban-ki-moon-of-meddling-1.278642
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,COUNTRYNEWS,,IRN,4a41e1025,0.html
There’s also an important difference between the two situations – and it comes down the likelihood of simply getting more protesters killed:
Pretty much all responsible western voices were careful in what they said when the egypt protests started. They wisely limited themselves to “urging peace”. To do more than that would (a) send a false message to protesters that they can rely on support (see RFE’s role in the 56 hungarian riots), and (b) allow the regime to paint the protests as western-backed. It was only once it became apparent that the protests had a chance of success – partly demonstrated by mubarak’s public statements, and the army’s visible unwillingness to attack the protesters – that outside leaders upped the rhetoric to favor regime change.
The protests in iran were nowhere near the stage of being likely to succeed. Even if they had forced ahmedinejad out of office (against the wishes of the mad mullahs), he’s not actually the one ultimately calling the shots anyway. To add to that, anything that the US says at all in that situation would have simply been grist to the iranian propaganda mill. Taking a mouthy stand against the mullahs in favor of the protesters would have given the nasties an open and shut case to slaughter them as pro-american traitors. The US is one of a list of countries (including britain) which pretty much HAS to stay out of iranian domestic politics if they don’t want to just make things worse. At least, that’s how it seems to me.
It’s one thing to play to the crowd back home, but it’s entirely another thing to get people killed. I think obama and clinton have handled both situations pretty well.
It’s also treading a fine line for the secretary general to get involved in the domestic politics of any country. He doesn’t have that legal authority. He doesn’t ultimately speak for anyone but himself without some sort of vote happening first. The UN isn’t the world police, and he’s not the sheriff.
It’s also interesting that all of this is happening after oby’s cairo speech. Makes you wonder if the neo-cons could have just waited a decade and got their democratic outbreak without resorting to shock and awe. A bit uncomfortable to think about, eh?
Gee Hugh, how come our GDP (and UN contributions) is so big and our influence is so small?