Thomas Friedman is upset in his New York Times column today (5/26/10) because Brazilian President Lula da Silva negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran. Asks Friedman, “Is there anything uglier than watching democrats sell out other democrats to a Holocaust-denying, vote-stealing Iranian thug just to tweak the U.S. and show that they, too, can play at the big power table?” And he answers himself: “No, that’s about as ugly as it gets.”
Friedman quotes a source complaining that Iran had just executed “political prisoners who were tortured into confessions,” but Lula “didn’t mention a word about human rights.” Friedman presumably is aware that the U.S., too, has prisoners that it has tortured into confessions, and that it maintains the right to execute such captives. Should Lula have said a word about those human rights issues as well, or would that just be an attempt to “tweak the U.S.”?
Friedman has another expert who accuses Lula of “the thwarting of democracy across Latin America.” Friedman’s evidence: “He regularly praises Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, the Cuban dictator…while denouncing Colombia, one of the great democratic success stories, because it let U.S. planes use Colombian airfields to fight narco-traffickers.”
“One of the great democratic success stories”? Here’s some excerpts from Amnesty International’s latest annual report on Colombia’s human rights record:
At least 296 people were extrajudicially executed by the security forces in the 12-month period ending in June 2008, compared to 287 in the previous 12-month period…. Paramilitaries continued to kill civilians and to commit other human rights violations, sometimes with the support or acquiescence of the security forces. Some 461 killings were attributed to paramilitaries in the 12-month period ending in June 2008, compared to 233 in the previous 12-month period…. At least 46 trade union members were killed in 2008, compared to 39 in 2007. Some 12 human rights defenders were killed in 2008, similar to the figure recorded in 2007.
Funny, most “democratic success stories” don’t involve quite so much murdering of civilians. But then, most of them don’t star a president whose brother helped organize death squads, as reported in the Washington Post on Monday (5/24/10).
So, to summarize Friedman, Lula should criticize the torture of prisoners by Iran–but presumably not by his fellow democrats in the United States. And he should promote democracy by praising a government that continues to murder hundreds of civilians a year as a democratic success story.
No, it doesn’t get much uglier than that.
Not to mention that Hugo Chavez is one of the great SUCCESSES of democracy in Latin America, having been elected and supported by the people in various votes far more than anyone in Colombia (or Lula for that matter), and also not to mention that Fidel Castro is no longer even the President of Cuba, much less the “dictator.”
Has Friedman ever called Hamid Karzai a “vote-stealing thug”? Because the evidence for voting fraud in the recent Afghan election is FAR stronger than the “evidence” (essentially non-existent) of fraud in the Iranian election.
Ironically, only one day after Brazil and Turkey concluded an agreement with Iran designed to ratchet down international tensions about Iran’s nuclear program, the US claimed Russia and China as allies to do the exact opposite (putting aside whether Russia and China did in fact sign up for this). Does Friedman approve of Russia and China’s human rights records?
Friedman “convienently”forgets Israels nuclear weapons, its illegal occupation of Palestine, and its repressive government that denies the human rights of Palestinians, Christian & Muslim. Friedman is exposed as the hypocrit that he is. Iran is not a threat to peace but the US and Israeli Gov. are.
This is the kind of attitude that shuts some people off to Liberalism cold.
Comparing the US to Iran … well, you either get it or you don’t. I suppose there
is room to disagree, although the last year has really shown what Iran is all about
and still some here defend Iran. The problem is not your opinion, the problem
is taking for granted that all people who are Liberal feel anywhere near the same
way as you do about it, and publishing headlines like this.
Just like the fact that Palestinians live in Israeli society, and that Israel accepts
them and gives them representation in the government as opposed to a
Palestinian group that wants Israel destroyed, works towards that goal, and
in any case would not allow Jews to live in or have representation in any
Palestinian state.
The sick world view of some Liberals is even more upsetting to me that the
absurdities of radical conservatives. At least the conservatives have something
to gain personally and it is understandable that they are stupid or selfish.
The defense of Iran seems to me a wholly misplaced reality, along with the
name calling of Liberals who oppose Iran and those who would support Iran.
The Great Mustache of Bloviating does it again. Friedman’s uncritical fondness for Israel…well-known for its “democratic” treatment of Palestinians, use of torture and extrajudical murder, and invocation of “Holocaust” and “anti-Semitism” against any critic of its governmental wrong-doing…apparently blinds him once again to his own hypocritical ranting.
No doubt, having cheerled for an illegal, immoral war, he’s scurrying to buff up his human rights badge.
I guess Friedman has already forgotten all about his making a complete fool of himself leading up to Iraq.
Thomas Friedman is a blind supporter of Israel and it’s disgusting human rights record. His double standards have been evident for a long time, so this is no surprise. Mandela said to Friedman in his memo on Palestine:
“Thomas, I’m not abandoning Mideast diplomacy. But I’m not going to indulge you the way your supporters do. If you want peace and democracy, I will support you. If you want formal apartheid, we will not support you. If you want to support racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, we will oppose you. When you figure out what you’re about, give me a call.”
Although it is quite reasonable to infer that Iran wants to have a nuclear weapon, if the Israelis did not have a nuclear weapon, just maybe Iran would not be so determined to get its own nuclear bomb.
And once a country has a nuclear bomb it may realize if they actually use it-the whole neighborhood will become uninhabitable. All these are conjectures0but so are the grave consequences foreseen if they get these weapons.
brucek, you said one thing I agree with: you either get it, or you don’t.
Brucek: No one is defending Iran. That should be obvious from the blog post. You might want to reread it. If anything is being implicitly defended, it’s the right for governments to independently set their own foreign policy
“Comparing the US to Iran â┚¬Ã‚¦ well, you either get it or you don’t.”
You’re right, there is no reasonable comparison. The US has a far worse international record on almost any conceivable issue than Iran.
“…Palestinians live in Israeli society… Israel accepts them and gives them representation in the government, as opposed to a Palestinian group that wants Israel destroyed, works towards that goal, and in any case would not allow Jews to live in or have representation in any Palestinian state.”
Palestinians don’t live in Israeli society, they live in several isolated cantons, patrolled and occupied by the Israeli military. Israel “accepts” them as long as they continue to live in these Bantustan-style open-air prison camps. Palestinians are not represented in Israel’s government. Even the most radical of Palestinian groups recognize Israel; “working to destroy Israel” is a non-sequitur given the power balance involved. The rights of Jews in a theoretical Palestinian state isn’t an issue ever addressed by such groups that I’m aware of, except insofar as illegal settlers would not be allowed there, obviously, as condition any independent state would insist upon.
“The defense of Iran seems to me a wholly misplaced reality, along with the name calling of Liberals who oppose Iran and those who would support Iran.”
The defense of the Iranian people against unprovoked US and Israeli aggression is the only moral and reasonable position for any human being to take, liberal or conservative. It is “sick” to advocate any other position, IMO.
Friedman is just grumbling because he wants to bomb Iran but he can’t because a) the US is no longer as ascendant as it once was and those days are over, and b) there are now other players on the world stage.
Thomas Friedman’s credibility in the aftermath of the Iraq mess is rather overrated. In fact, Friedman is quite overrated as it is.
At this point, Tom Friedman represents to me the epitome of “inconsistent raving” in the NY times like so many other reactionaries who are privileged to access the public in other spheres. The Times seems to like to represent itself as intelligent and superior journalism while at the same time it insults the intelligence of its readers. You can’t have it both ways.
Thomas Friedman appears locked in an echo-chamber fishbowl, of his own design. Really it is the design of right-wing politicos. Thank God people live for 80 years, and not 800.
It’s true being rich doesn’t make you happier, just ask Friedman.
Friedman was always overrated.
p.s. brucek, since when is living under conditions of apartheid the same as being “accepted” by the “Israeli” state (which if you haven’t noticed has for some time been occupying land belonging to other people.) The Palestinians lived there for hundreds of years before the modern Israeli state was ever dreamed up. How democratic of Israel to “accept” them.
There are representatives for Palestinians in the Israeli governent, and there are Palestinians who live and own buisnesses in Israel.
That is so different than the Palestinians whose Charter or Constitution – whatever you want to call it demands the destruction of the state of Israel, and they act on that ever day. While you airheads are talking about negotiating.
I cannot believe the absolute ignorance in the face of facts. You people give Liberalism a bad name, you disgust me. Most of you are so stupid it should be just laughable. No wonder people are suspicious of Liberals.
I never use this argument but the one guy up there that thinks Iran has a better record that US might want to consider leaving the country it must be so bad for him.
I just take comfort in knowing that most of you are just terrorists trying to take advantage of soft-headed Liberals like Rush does the same with unthinking Republicans.
last post, yes, Palestinians lived in the area. They used to go on pograms, raids into the jewish areas so they jews would not take over.
Do any of you know that the Palestinian society will beat and drag someone to their death as a collaborator for just expressing the idea that maybe Palestine should make peace with Israel. This is common in the whole Islamic world. In bangladesh a few years back a guy who ran a small newspaper was arrested and sentence to death for just expressing the idea of making peace.
How can any of you have the pretense of being liberals and humanitarians for supporting this kind of a culture.
Sure, criticize the US, make it better. Calling the US worse than Iran is not productive and just stupid.
Anyway, most of you have minds so closed you rival the followers of Glen Beck – go choke on your ignorance.
Bruce, baby, calm down…take a chill pill. Were your Wheaties too soggy this morning or are you always this way…choking on your own ignorance? Childishly ranting against FAIR readers, whether liberal or not, is (in your own words) “not productive and just stupid”.
Oh this sets me off all over again reading this, he has so many other short comings too! While his ideas on a market-oriented reforms are interesting they tend to disregard the most important factor of economics, supply and demand. Neoliberalism may have some merit when not being used by academic radicals as a catchphrase to suggest that neoclassical only works to neglect wider social issues. However, I still can’t get behind it because the policies that it produces create inequality and deterioration in living standards without the improvements in efficiency which it claims it will facilitate and it screws urban citizens over, who in turn become powerless under the policies it is rolling out. He was a complete lack of awareness when it comes to the changes that have and are taking place within neoclassical ideals as it mainstreams. Just because he married into money he thinks he is such an expert on the economy and if he is so worried about “wider social issues” why doesn’t he give away some of this billions of dollars to help with the bigger issues he is so worried about. He supports the war?!?! To that I say WTF…How he has what three Pulitzer Prizes now, I may never know.
Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is great blog. A great read. I’ll certainly be back.
Hello I Like Your wordpress blog can not say I come here often but im liking what i c so far..