Pro-democracy demonstrators in Pakistan, circa 2007.
While I'm happy that a lot of people in America are paying close attention to the student movement in Iran, I'm kind of frazzled by the double standards in play here. A friend and I discussed the fact that pro-democracy movements fighting rigged elections in countries like Pakistan, Mexico, Egypt, and other places are generally dismissed or not even discussed in the US media, while the Iranian demonstrators are being lionized and every little thing they do is being documented (largely rightfully, if I may add).
It seems that if you want to get the US government and media to pay attention to you as a pro-democracy protester, you really have to be facing off with a government that isn't fanatically pro-Washington. That seems to be the key.
1 comments:
I'm more bothered by the slant of the American media on the election coverage.
They're blowing up the Moussavi rallies to seem like the entire country is up in arms over the election when Ahmadinejad's supporters in southern Tehran and rural Iran are not protesting. They're hardly even interviewed. Had the election been entirely fair (which I doubt it was), I think he would still have the numbers, albeit close, to give him a victory.
Don't get me wrong; I think Ahmadinejad is the Iranian version of George W. Bush and I really hoped that the Iranian people could get rid of him. As much as I sympathize (I had the same feelings of anger in 2004), the Moussavi supporters are a large, angry minority that are just ticked that their horse lost. It's clear from the coverage we're getting that he was also the horse the American government wanted to win too.
In the end, Iran's "Green Machine" and the rest of the world should chalk this up as a loss and move on. I would rather respect the will of a nation, regardless of whether I like the person they choose.
Post a Comment