Iran: Now it makes sense

Now I understand why the US and others boycotted the UN conference on racism. Pondering this issue, I watched the TV news tonight to get my head around the narrative we are supposed to suck up unquestioningly.

As expected, on both TVNZ and TV3, we got a big "I told you so!" from the countries who boycotted the conference after the Iranian President reportedly had a go at Israel in his speech. From the reports, we have no idea what he actually said, but I did get the very clear message that whatever it was, it more than justified boycotting the conference....if you buy the argument that what a single leader *might* say about another country is reason enough for your country to boycott a major conference on an important issue. I don't buy it. That Canada felt the need to announce the boycott over a year ago makes it even more odd.

I've seen this kind of pantomime before and know very well there is a lot more going on here than some countries getting upset about insults in Israel's direction. That's why the reasons given made no sense to me.

As is too often the case, I had to use the Internet to find out what's REALLY going on. (Amended sentence follows) The major wires services (AP and Reuters) and NZ's TV news and most newspapers, too often are either lazily purveying some government's (country of origin) propaganda as news or actively participating in misleading us. It hardly matters which as the result is the same: we aren't told why things are really happening.

Guess what I found out in about 15 seconds?

Iran is having elections on June 12th (less than 8 weeks from now) and they include the presidency. Conservative incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hate-doll of the US and Israel, is standing against two reformers, pormer PM Mir-Hossein Mousavi and former speaker of the Majlis (legislature), Mehdi Karroubi. Both are reformers.

Now the boycott and theatre around it make sense....right down to the silly rainbow wig of the "protester" (I wonder who he really was?) thrown out of the conference venue during Ahmadinejad's speech. The US and others have a very real interest in making it very clear to Iranian voters that a vote for Ahmadinejad is a vote for more of the same lack of engagement with Iran and continued banking sanctions against Iran. The US and its allies (including NZ) want to see a reformer elected.

The Wikipedia article reports a poll taken in late March showing Mr. Mousavi on 52% and President Ahmadinejad on 36%.

It may well be that Ahmadinejad, running behind in the polls, had every intention of using his speech at the conference to play to a populist, America / Israel-hating home crowd and show he is able to stand up for Iran in before the world. Maybe this was the Iranian version of Bush's "Bring it on". A play to patriotism to win votes.

I don't like Ahmadinejad. He is divisive and negative. I hope he loses. But what a shame the 8 countries who didn't turn up at the UN Conference on Racism saw it as disposable in their wider game. Racism isn't a trivial issue and everyone could have sat quietly through Ahmadinejad's rant and got on with real, important work. That they chose not to is revealing by itself.