Are Western democracies selling authoritarianism?

Quote:

---

Iranian Nobel laureate urges focus on rights

By Harvey Morris in New York

The United Nations should focus on pressing the Tehran regime to restore democracy and human rights rather than imposing economic sanctions on Iran for its nuclear programme, says Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian opposition activist.

“A military attack or economic sanctions would be to the detriment of the people of Iran,” she said, adding that the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad had ways to circumvent further economic measures and their unintended impact might be to rally people behind the regime.

She called, however, for action against western companies that she said were supporting actively the censorship and repression of the opposition movement.

The UN Security Council should focus not only on the nuclear programme “but also put human rights and democracy on your agenda. Non-democratic countries can be as dangerous to world peace as an atomic bomb.”

Ms Ebadi’s comments came as the US and other western governments struggled to secure consensus on a fourth round of sanctions at the UN in the face of Chinese insistence that diplomacy be given more time.

The US has circulated proposals on tougher restrictions on relations with Iran but has yet to present a draft resolution, and a vote at the council could be months away.

Before that, the US Congress might adopt its own sanctions package, banning US contracts with foreign companies that do business with Iran, which diplomats concede could complicate efforts to secure consensus at the UN.

Brazil and Turkey, temporary members of the 15-member council, are opposed to a new round of sanctions. A resolution that failed to win a near majority would undermine the western case that Iran was facing a united international front.

From the western perspective, the worst outcome would be a weak package of measures that failed to win near unanimity.

Ms Ebadi, who has been travelling abroad since leaving Iran for a conference on the eve of last year’s presidential election, said western states should put as much effort towards restricting companies that help the regime repress the opposition as they do into tracking down banks doing business with Iran.

Tehran should be obliged to abide by international obligations to protect human rights as well as by its nuclear commitments, said Ms Ebadi. “Assuming Iran agrees on the nuclear programme, will the west worry about what happens to the people of Iran?” she asked.

The human rights lawyer, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, named Nokia-Siemens and France’s Eutelsat as among a number of companies she said were helping the regime. A Nokia-Siemens spokeswoman was quoted last week as denying opposition claims that telecoms technology it supplied to Iran could be used to monitor internet traffic.

Ms Ebadi said Eutelsat was continuing to supply satellite communications to Iranian government broadcasters while cutting services to western organisations broadcasting into Iran, including the BBC, that were being jammed by the Iranian authorities.

As the US Senate and House of Representatives prepared to discuss combining their own legislation on Iran sanctions, the US Government Accountability Office last week criticised flaws in US statistics that are intended to keep track of trade with Iran.

It noted inadequacies in the Treasury’s filings and said: “Treasury’s information systems weaken the ability of the government to assess compliance with Iran sanctions.”

---

While Nobel peace prize winners can be absolute ding-bats, I am intrigued by the idea this one's bringing up here. Namely, the interaction between corporations of Western democracies and dictatorships. Nokia here (which is why this was in the local paper, I assume), and then Google and China are also having their little tiff.

Do Western democracies have a moral imperative to not aid oppressive regimes? I'm not sure, but I think Patria (the Finnish weapons manufacturer) has customers in dubious nations. Information technology is obviously a key component of a totalitarian regime, both to curtail the flow of information among the populace and to gather information on the populace. And we sure love IT here in the West.

And if we do have some moral obligation to try and stop the fruits of our hedonistic labours from being used as tools of terror, how could we possibly implement that? What could a state, even a very social democrat one, do to corporations who turn around to profiteer on suffering?

So she wants the West to pressure Iran to democratize, but yet thinks the West shouldn't use or even threaten the use of any coercive tactics to bring that about? Are we just going to go into a room with Iranian leaders and persuade them the merits of democracy? I really don't understand people who claim to want a certain end, but refuse to use any means that actually has a chance of achieving that end.

Her suggestions are little more than an attempt to use Iranian nationalism to get support for her views without crossing the kind of red lines that will get her arrested. She can't seriously believe that Iran will magically become any more democratic if these Western companies leave. That doesn't make what those companies do any more moral, but her suggestions seem no better than putting a bandage on someone who has a 10-inch hole in their body.

How do we stop companies from "helping the regime repress the opposition" without a sanctions program? What is the legal basis for doing so? I don't see how you can do it without those companies simply ceasing to do business there, which Ms. Ebadi finds objectionable.

Free market is the cause of lack of democracy.
So if you cut free market and impose sanctions, democracy will be restored in Iran.
Sounds silly? Well, this is what they are doing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ar81

Free market is the cause of lack of democracy.
So if you cut free market and impose sanctions, democracy will be restored in Iran.
Sounds silly? Well, this is what they are doing...

---

Did someone take a bunch of words, and just regurgitate them into a post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So she wants the West to pressure Iran to democratize, but yet thinks the West shouldn't use or even threaten the use of any coercive tactics to bring that about? Are we just going to go into a room with Iranian leaders and persuade them the merits of democracy? I really don't understand people who claim to want a certain end, but refuse to use any means that actually has a chance of achieving that end.

Her suggestions are little more than an attempt to use Iranian nationalism to get support for her views without crossing the kind of red lines that will get her arrested. She can't seriously believe that Iran will magically become any more democratic if these Western companies leave. That doesn't make what those companies do any more moral, but her suggestions seem no better than putting a bandage on someone who has a 10-inch hole in their body.

---

Focusing on restoring democracy rather than the nuclear issue has a point though, though you would need sanctions to achieve that too. Without these technologies it will be a lot harder for them to suppress the opposition. A less authoritarian regime might also be more willing to negotiate on the nuclear issues too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Focusing on restoring democracy rather than the nuclear issue has a point though, though you would need sanctions to achieve that too. Without these technologies it will be a lot harder for them to suppress the opposition. A less authoritarian regime might also be more willing to negotiate on the nuclear issues too.

---

If countries push each other, I just wonder where sovereignity lies.
I recall I watched an exCIA field agent talking in the HardTalk TV show on BBC.
He did not see any nuclear threat from Iran, for he said Iran president is not really the guy in command but the council of elders behind him.
And he talked about field agents being killed, and still he said there he did not see them as a threat, because he considered that the regime had evolved since the old days.
He said the only source of intel in Iraq were US soldiers who were a poor intel source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Focusing on restoring democracy rather than the nuclear issue has a point though, though you would need sanctions to achieve that too. Without these technologies it will be a lot harder for them to suppress the opposition. A less authoritarian regime might also be more willing to negotiate on the nuclear issues too.

---

We can't get Iran to budge on a foreign policy issue, and you can think we can get them to budge on a domestic politics issue? Hint: countries are far more resistant to the latter. Without these technologies, they will use Chinese technologies or simply repress more violently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

We can't get Iran to budge on a foreign policy issue, and you can think we can get them to budge on a domestic politics issue? Hint: countries are far more resistant to the latter. Without these technologies, they will use Chinese technologies or simply repress more violently.

---

I honestly doubt we can, but you can at least make it harder, as a matter of principle. Limiting their choices will always have some negative impact on their abilities to censure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

I honestly doubt we can, but you can at least make it harder, as a matter of principle. Limiting their choices will always have some negative impact on their abilities to censure.

---

Limiting their ability to censor non-violently just increases their willingness to censor violently. Either way, this doesn't make democracy any more likely in Iran, so I'm not quite sure what Ebadi's point is other than invoking some kind of Persian nationalism.

To me it seems that what Ebadi is trying to promote is a policy in which a democratic removal of the present regime is the solution for Iran's other problems, amongst which the nucleair program. She advocates western states taking a stance that make it hard for the Iranian government to control society rather than punish Iranian society with the sledgehammer of sanctions.

I think the road western countries could take to that effect would be to declare more technologie than it does at present as technology that may not be sold to Iran. It's no surprise to me that Siemens and Nokia were mentioned in the article as they - in the very least - seem to have provided the regime with the means to crack down on the information coming out of Iran with regards of the protests after the presidential elections. Part of the success in the suppression of the revolts were a near complete news (not just media) black out by the regime.

What would stop Iran from inviting Chinese censorship experts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

What would stop Iran from inviting Chinese censorship experts?

---

Little, but without the help of Siemens or Nokia censoring what messages went through the equipment they delivered would be a lot harder. Of course, in theory Iran could forego western technology altogether, but it would be a bit of a burden to scrap their present infrastructure just so that the Chinese can take them in another stranglehold.

I doubt by the way Iran is as attractive as it used to be to China now that Iraq is getting back on its feet.

Iran has managed to repress its people just fine even before this technology was available. I really don't see it making a tangible difference. At most, it wouldn't be able to prevent some large rallies without it, but it could suppress those rallies with force anyway.

Speaking specifically of the communications companies, I think they do if they have equipment that's specifically used to hamper communication. EG Nokia seems like an odd target considering that I imagine their phones are used by tons of people, opposition and authoritarian. But if they sell some kind of blocking equipment or are building their phones to be "bricked" by a regime, I think there is an ethical issue.*

It's also a simple issue of long term business strategy. You're selling yourself down the river if you make communications equipment and tools to inhibit communication.

But I think technology has more of an effect than Loki does. When people can send messages, act out, take cellphone pictures of repression/murder, etc, it does help build momentum against those in charge. Repressive regimes always have an incentive to limit communications.

As my dad used to say, one of the best ways to win the Cold War sooner would have been to airlift and dump piles of American consumer catalogs all across the USSR so they could just see the pictures and look past the propaganda. Of course it's not literally true or really reasonable, but media and instantaneous/cheap communications does have a habit of cutting through power structures. Sometimes it's not good (signal:noise issues), but repressive regimes always have an incentive to limit communications.


* I do realize that many companies build their phones to be bricked, so I do think this is a potentially wider ethical problem they are boxed-into by Western legal requirements.

Nokia provides blocking equipment, AFAIK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Do Western democracies have a moral imperative to not aid oppressive regimes? I'm not sure, but I think Patria (the Finnish weapons manufacturer) has customers in dubious nations. Information technology is obviously a key component of a totalitarian regime, both to curtail the flow of information among the populace and to gather information on the populace. And we sure love IT here in the West.

And if we do have some moral obligation to try and stop the fruits of our hedonistic labours from being used as tools of terror, how could we possibly implement that? What could a state, even a very social democrat one, do to corporations who turn around to profiteer on suffering?

---

The problem I see though is that the same companies who engage in behavior such as this also provide us with equipment, and services, and can wield this as power against us. Corporations are growing large enough to become the new oppressors of society, and some of them would willingly and happily take the opportunity to do so. In addition, there are people, such as Lewk, who allow corporations to engage in actions which they would label as oppressive if done by a government, but squeal with delight and defend when its a corporation doing so. So in essence the problem we face are both companies who, in greed, do not care about the side effects of the operation of their business besides the monetary, and those short-sighted, self interested individuals who additionally defend them. So consider this sombering thought...what would it take to convince Lewk to take action against these corporations? Then consider what it would take to convince a corporation solely concerned with money not to make more of it. :sour:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

The problem I see though is that the same companies who engage in behavior such as this also provide us with equipment, and services, and can wield this as power against us. Corporations are growing large enough to become the new oppressors of society, and some of them would willingly and happily take the opportunity to do so. In addition, there are people, such as Lewk, who allow corporations to engage in actions which they would label as oppressive if done by a government, but squeal with delight and defend when its a corporation doing so. So in essence the problem we face are both companies who, in greed, do not care about the side effects of the operation of their business besides the monetary, and those short-sighted, self interested individuals who additionally defend them. So consider this sombering thought...what would it take to convince Lewk to take action against these corporations? Then consider what it would take to convince a corporation solely concerned with money not to make more of it. :sour:

---

I think this is the problem. First, corporations are mostly too huge to have any national identity any more. Second, corporations do not have ethics, because they function on an evolutionary/Darwinist model, which doesn't have ethics. Fact is, many CEOs would lose their jobs if their directors thought them so faint-hearted as to put ethic before profits (well, that would be the case of boards of directors HAD any power over CEOs anymore.)

So IMO it is preposterous to expect corporations to pay attention to ANYTHING but the bottom line. And I'd argue that it's debatable whether governments should try to enforce that. First, if corporations are multi-national, which most are, they can doubtlessly find a subsidiary to engage in the "unwanted" activity. Second, the corporation can just go elsewhere. Few of them are particularly rooted to one country anymore, or at least not after they've been bought up by the giants, which inevitably happens to those which are successful. Third, they can just sell their product through a middleman in another country, and thus avoid the responsibility.

So it's pretty silly to impose ethics on an entity that doesn't have them. BTW, it is this very feature of corporations that makes many people leery of them. Munny boosters, like, say, Loki, are fond of painting such people as "anti-capitalist socialists," but that's very dishonest. Recognizing the inherently draconian nature of corporations is not anti-capitalist. It's just a common sense awareness of the laws of nature.

Thanks for the a priori strawman. Saved me the trouble of writing something and then having you attack a strawman. :up:

OK, I'll cede to you as the expert in playing BS straw man games.

Only you did once accuse me of "anti-corporatist socialism" for making exactly this point about what is an almost essential feature of corporations. Of course, you have also called me a rapist, a racist, and a Husseinist, so maybe I should just recognize you as a rabid hack and ignore you.

No, I haven't, but feel free to continue believing that if that makes you happier about your Manichean views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

But I think technology has more of an effect than Loki does. When people can send messages, act out, take cellphone pictures of repression/murder, etc, it does help build momentum against those in charge. Repressive regimes always have an incentive to limit communications.

---

The would-be Iranian revolution was bloody Twittered, wasn't it :) It did help the Iranians trying to organize protests, and it definitely provided an embarrassing view for the Western world right into the shame of Iran's leaders. But did it change something? The revolution never materialized. And now the administration has to realize how dangerous comm tech is for their regime.

I agree with you that it at least could have an effect. But, an atomic weapon is a good weapon, but it can be pointed both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

The problem I see though is that the same companies who engage in behavior such as this also provide us with equipment, and services, and can wield this as power against us. Corporations are growing large enough to become the new oppressors of society, and some of them would willingly and happily take the opportunity to do so. In addition, there are people, such as Lewk, who allow corporations to engage in actions which they would label as oppressive if done by a government, but squeal with delight and defend when its a corporation doing so. So in essence the problem we face are both companies who, in greed, do not care about the side effects of the operation of their business besides the monetary, and those short-sighted, self interested individuals who additionally defend them. So consider this sombering thought...what would it take to convince Lewk to take action against these corporations? Then consider what it would take to convince a corporation solely concerned with money not to make more of it. :sour:

---

Corporate controlled dystopias are a common theme. It's a bit of a cliche, but corporations do represent crypto-fascist interests in most modern nations, and that's the most dangerous part. We don't know, we can't know what they're up to, and often they control the information channels as well as political interests. I don't know what could be done about this that wouldn't cause "zomg socialist" outrage, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I think this is the problem. First, corporations are mostly too huge to have any national identity any more. Second, corporations do not have ethics, because they function on an evolutionary/Darwinist model, which doesn't have ethics. Fact is, many CEOs would lose their jobs if their directors thought them so faint-hearted as to put ethic before profits (well, that would be the case of boards of directors HAD any power over CEOs anymore.)

So IMO it is preposterous to expect corporations to pay attention to ANYTHING but the bottom line. And I'd argue that it's debatable whether governments should try to enforce that. First, if corporations are multi-national, which most are, they can doubtlessly find a subsidiary to engage in the "unwanted" activity. Second, the corporation can just go elsewhere. Few of them are particularly rooted to one country anymore, or at least not after they've been bought up by the giants, which inevitably happens to those which are successful. Third, they can just sell their product through a middleman in another country, and thus avoid the responsibility.

So it's pretty silly to impose ethics on an entity that doesn't have them. BTW, it is this very feature of corporations that makes many people leery of them. Munny boosters, like, say, Loki, are fond of painting such people as "anti-capitalist socialists," but that's very dishonest. Recognizing the inherently draconian nature of corporations is not anti-capitalist. It's just a common sense awareness of the laws of nature.

---

Obviously the trans-national bit is what disturbs me most :D, but modern Western democracies don't really have the tools to combat that, because personal liberties even for companies are so integral to the value base.

e:

Quote:

---

your Manichean views.

---

:mad: My line!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

No, I haven't, but feel free to continue believing that if that makes you happier about your Manichean views.

---

Really? You're going to deny calling me these things? How rich! Are you really so obtuse as to think most of the people here don't remember that crap? That they won't recognize your BS revisionism? Very Orwellian. You learned more things in your Soviet upbringing than I imagined!

Oh wait, I forgot. Loki is now the reasonable statesman in this BS forum where one posts sophisticated-yet-not international relations essays. Yes, feel free to pose as the Great Man, Loki. Maybe you can sustain this illusion you are trying to create, and sweep your past indiscretions under the rug. But don't expect me to facilitate it, asshole.

I don't disagree with the substance of that post, so I find it very hard to believe that I'd insult you over the points you made in it. There's also the fact that I never used the phrase in question.

That's what we've been missing! This open hostility and rabid belligerence will really add to the atmosphere here and help encourage a reasonable exchanges of ideas. Good thing Tear's back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I think this is the problem. First, corporations are mostly too huge to have any national identity any more. Second, corporations do not have ethics, because they function on an evolutionary/Darwinist model, which doesn't have ethics. Fact is, many CEOs would lose their jobs if their directors thought them so faint-hearted as to put ethic before profits (well, that would be the case of boards of directors HAD any power over CEOs anymore.)

---

Eh? Corporations have the generally have the national identity of their operating managers. They are based in a certain company and decisions flow from that place. I've seen a lot of ethical conversations in the workplace. The reason is simple: corporations are amalgamations of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

The would-be Iranian revolution was bloody Twittered, wasn't it :) It did help the Iranians trying to organize protests, and it definitely provided an embarrassing view for the Western world right into the shame of Iran's leaders. But did it change something? The revolution never materialized. And now the administration has to realize how dangerous comm tech is for their regime.

---

But it was never going to materialize overnight. Part of what those tools did was finally jar awake the Iranians who were sleeping. The people who always passively believed the state propaganda about Western meddling and perniciousness in Iranian affairs. And the protests went on longer than any time since before the Shah was deposed.

As you say, it shamed the regime. And that will lay the seeds for something. But I don't think there was ever going to be an overnight revolution. Even if that's a neo-con/Zio-con wet dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

That's what we've been missing! This open hostility and rabid belligerence will really add to the atmosphere here and help encourage a reasonable exchanges of ideas. Good thing Tear's back.

---

Agreed, moar Tear pls. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I don't disagree with the substance of that post, so I find it very hard to believe that I'd insult you over the points you made in it. There's also the fact that I never used the phrase in question.

---

What, you used "ist" instead of "ism?"

Typical Prince of Lies.

"Anti-capitalist socialist" is a truism. Would be rather pointless to use it. I also don't recall ever using the first term.

I expressed this exact sentiment before, and you called me a typical anti-corporate liberal, and a socialist. You do this all the time Loki. it is, ironically, a straw man. Which brings up point B, where you follow your typical pattern of accusing the opposition of using the tactics that you yourself abuse.

It's why you have called me a racist? And a rapist? And a Husseinst? Do you deny any of these? That's a yes or no question. And I will proudly and consistently call you a snake, the Prince of Lies, and other charming things. Why? because you do this kind of stuff to people with no compunction whatsoever. You are utterly unethical: winning your argument is ALL that matters to you. And you never backed off or apologized for any of these statements made in the total absence of any evidence.

The past is not erased by moving to a new forum, Loki. I am here, and I remember. You can try to pose as some sort of elegant statesmen here, with your 2nd year term papers from an average IR program masquerading as sophisticated analysis (which getting the pants beat off of you in quality by Wiggin), but the past is still there. I sure as hell won't forgive you for the mortal insults you have paid me.

Your criticism is rather amusing considering that I've yet to insult you in this forum, while you're insulting me even in threads where I don't post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

And a Husseinst?

---

That's not fair. In the past I called Loki as "husseinist" when we were discussing how Loki favored war but he did not enlist to go to fight.
Loki used to stay in the "politically correct" side at the time, backing Bush policies.
But if you see Bush administration, it destroyed capitalism.
War is government intervention that causes deficit.
He also granted the government socialist subsidy to banks that produce nothing.
Jobs were disappearing and Bush did nothing. People are the market, and without market capitalism can't survive.
So who is the socialist?

You know you make a valid argument when Alpha agrees with you. :up:

Ahem. He's agreeing with YOU, Loki. He said I wasn't being fair, which tells me I'm on the right track.