| Daily Times - Site Edition | Wednesday, January 04, 2006 |
|
|
COMMENT: Who is more civilised: Iran or the West? —Ijaz Hussain
As for why the EU should condemn Ahmadinejad’s remarks as uncivilised, the answer is that dominant civilisations always feel entitled to fix the norms of international behaviour. That explains why the Romans considered the non-Romans as “barbarians” and why the Americans today look upon those who do not go along with their worldview of international peace and security as “rogue”, “evil” or “terrorist”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president has a remarkable knack of shooting himself in the foot. He did so last October by calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. This led to an uproar in the West against Iran. The dust had hardly settled when he did it again, describing the Nazi Holocaust during World War II as a “myth”. He also proposed relocation of the Jewish state to Europe, the US, Canada or Alaska. The Western countries described the statement variously as “outrageous”, “perverse “ and “shocking”.
Of these comments, the one made by the EU stands out because in addition to traditional denunciation of the Iranian president’s remarks as “totally unacceptable” it suggested that they “have no place in civilised political debate”. In a tit for tat spirit Teheran riposted: “The European response... has no place in the civilised world and is totally emotional and illogical”. Why was the Western reaction so strong?
To comprehend the Western reaction, we need to understand the significance of the Holocaust to the West. “Holocaust” is the name given to the systematic and planned massacre of about six million Jews by Nazis during World War II. The claim of six million fatalities owes its origin to the Nuremberg trials where it was asserted for the first time. The Holocaust was not an isolated event. It was a culmination of persecution and pogrom to which the European Jews were periodically subjected throughout the ages by the Western societies. Today it symbolises the collective Western guilt for what the Europeans did to the Jews.
After the war Holocaust was accepted as an undeniable historical fact. However, after a while some individuals started questioning it. A group of Trotskyites and anarchists led by Paul Rassinier, for example, dismissed the evidence of genocide. Nor did Holocaust denial remain limited to individuals. Towards the end of the 1970s there was an organised movement and Willis Carto, founder of Liberty Lobby, established the Institute of Historical Review (IHR). Over the years it attracted many adherents of whom the leading activists include Mark Weber, Bradley Smith and Fred Leuchter (US), Ernst Zundel (Canada), David Irving (England), Robert Faurisson (France), Carlo Mattogno (Italy) and Ahmed Rami (Sweden).
Most Western governments looked askance at the Holocaust denial but some of them enacted laws to make a punishable offence. Today publicly disputing the official version is a crime in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland and several other European countries. The situation is somewhat different in the US because of the first amendment, which guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of its political content.
Over the years a number of individuals have been fined, imprisoned or forced into exile from Canada and Western Europe under racial defamation or hate crime laws. Prominent among them include Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Juergen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland and Guerter Decket, Hans Schmidt and Fredrick Toben in Germany. Some are currently being tried or are awaiting trial. Ernst Zundel, for example, went on trial in Germany on November 8, 2005. Earlier, he had remained in solitary confinement in Canada without a conviction. David Irving, apprehended last November in Austria — where he had gone to address a group of students — will be tried soon.
Bruno Gollnisch, a professor at Lyon University, deputy leader of the extreme right French party, National Front, and a member of the European parliament is facing charges before a French court for Holocaust revisionism. The charges relate to comments made in October 2004 suggesting the existence of Nazi gas chambers was “up to historians to decide”.
The French anti-racist organisations are also planning to sue head of the National Front, Jean Marie le Pen, for having dismissed in a recent interview on the BBC’s Hardtalk the Nazi gas chambers as a “detail”. A similar comment he made in 1987 had caused a great uproar.
It appears thus that we live in an age of mandatory belief in the Holocaust. Anyone expressing doubt is liable to be rounded up and tried. Liberals contend that this is a violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stipulates: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”. They also believe that this is incompatible with the fundamental norms of Western societies.
According to Holocaust protagonists the laws are important because Holocaust deniers give “legitimacy to a view that is beyond the bounds of decent public discourse, and provides a forum for hate”. The real reason may be the efforts by some Western governments to keep a lid on what they did to the Jews. In other words, the gag laws are a kind of shield. The desire for atonement partly explains why the West helped establish Israel in Palestine and why it is committed to its continued existence by going to the extent of letting it acquire and maintain nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad’s statement that “since the Westerners committed the big crime, they rather than the oppressed Palestinian nation should pay the price” needs to be seen in this backdrop. Frankly speaking, it is no use offering the advice because it will not be heeded. The Jews could have been easily settled in Australia, Canada or the US where there is a lot of land without people. Instead the perfidious Albion tried to settle them in Uganda. If ultimately Palestinians were made to pay the price it was because the Jews refused to accept the Uganda offer and insisted on Palestine.
Despite the obvious injustice to the Palestinians by the West, Ahmadinejad’s advice is flawed on two counts. First, it is too late to undo what has been done. What the West can and should do now to expiate its sins against the Palestinians is to help them establish a viable state of their own. Second, since the Palestinians have accepted the Jewish state, Ahmadinejad’s rejection smacks of insincerity.
As for why the EU should condemn Ahmadinejad’s remarks as uncivilised, the answer is that dominant civilisations always feel entitled to fix the norms of international behaviour. That explains why the Romans considered the non-Romans as “barbarians” and why the Americans today look upon those who do not go along with their worldview of international peace and security as “rogue”, “evil” or “terrorist”. Therefore, the EU’s description of Ahmadinejad’s statement as being “outside civilised political debate” is hardly surprising. Else, as far as history and rationality go, Ahmadinejad clearly has better of the debate.
The writer, a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University, is an independent political and legal analyst