Esta desafortunada definición del Imperio soviético no es propia (para mi desgracia) sino de un político inexplicablemente exitoso: Ronald Reagan, actor de segunda fila, gobernador de California y presidente de los EE.UU., durante dos mandatos.

El desmoronamiento de la URSS coincidió, parcialmente, con Reagan y con Bush padre en el poder. Sin embargo, fue George Bush padre, quien como presidente de los EE.UU., asistió a dicho hito histórico.

En clase hemos visto reiteradas veces cómo el imperio soviético daba señales alarmantes de desmoronamiento desde los años setenta, pero fue la guerra de Afganistán entre 1978 y 1988 y la llegada de Mihail Gorbachov al poder los que desencadenarían la caída definitiva.

Para este post he escogido una serie de vídeos que os van a ayudar a poner cara a los líderes soviéticos (y rusos) de esos últimos años: Mihail Gorbachov y Boris Yeltsin. Como he dicho muchas veces en clase pensad por un momento que, durante ocho años, éste último fue el presidente de la Federación Rusa y, por tanto, responsable último y garante de las armas nucleares rusas (muchas).

Gorbachov ha sido un líder poco respetado por la historia, especialmente por la de su país, y ello a pesar de haber obtenido el Premio Nobel de la Paz en 1990. En los vídeos que mostramos a continuación podréis ver, en primer lugar, una entrevista realizada por Bernardo Neustadt, presentador de TV argentino, en 1992, poco después de dejar su cargo como presidente de la URSS.

Después de eso, la carrera política de Gorbachov quedó completamente parada, no es extraño que aceptase rodar anuncios para recaudar fondos para su Fundación (Foundation for Social, Economic and Political Research).

No obstante, sin duda, si alguien quiere conocer una “versión española” de Gorbachov tendrá que ver estos dos vídeos:

En este último Gorbachov es protagonista de una canción bastante lamentable, pero bueno, ahí queda.

Boris Yeltsin, oportunista político donde los haya, supo aprovechar el golpe de Estado contra Gorbachov y sus reformas políticas para encumbrase a lo más alto del poder en Rusia y contribuir a la liquidación definitiva de la URSS.

Ya hemos mostrado lo que quedó de Gorbachov después de estos actos, en los que estos líderes liquidaron lo que parecía que iba a ser un imperio eterno. El curriculum de Boris Yeltsin, bebedor consumado, está lleno de “espectáculos” como los que recogen estos vídeos:

En el caso de este otro no hace falta entender ruso para comprender qué le pasa al Presidente de Rusia

No obstante, quizás sea esta la imagen internacional más recordada de Boris Yeltsin

Yuri Felshtinsky: Where I see the main problem, of course, is that the government hoodwinks the people and the people go along with it. In other words, the people have no objection in principle to such an approach. I personally don’t like it, but on the other hand I find myself imagining someone who fell asleep in 1988, say, during perestroika, waking up in 2001 or 2008, under Putin, anyway. And this person had slept through the whole of the Yeltsin era, slept and didn’t even know that the Yeltsin era had ever existed. Imagine newsreels where someone just took a pair of scissors and cut out all the Yeltsin-era material from 1990 to 2000. And actually, let’s be honest, the picture we see today is absolutely wonderful, if we compare it with the Soviet era, or the period  of 1988-89-90. There’s no Communist Party, or at least, the CP exists only as one of numerous political parties. There’s no ideology. There’s a market economy, there’s freedom to travel abroad. The elections can’t really be called elections, of course, but that’s only if we compare them with elections in France, or America, or Britain. And if we compare them with the elections there were in the Soviet Union, the elections in Russia nowadays are simply beyond one’s wildest dreams. Both at a local and at a national level.

There is absolutely no freedom of speech, of course, let’s be frank about that. Nevertheless, there is a sort of opposition press, there’s Novaya Gazeta, there are some journalists, there’s Latynina. Yes, journalist are killed from time to time. But even so, we’re not talking about the millions of people who lost their lives in the purges of the Stalin era – we can speak, we can have different opinions, these statistics are always sad, and some of the people who’ve been killed were my very close friends, Anya Politkovskaya, for example (that was a personal loss) but we are nevertheless talking about 200-300 journalists being killed,  not about total political control.

And while there is absolutely no question that some politicians have been murdered, there is no global political terror of the kind there was in the former Soviet Union.

So you know, it all depends on how we compare those different eras. And perhaps we really need to agree that yes, Russia is not capable – at this point in history, at least. and we’re not talking about 10-30 or even 50 years – Russia is not capable of becoming some European, civilized, democratic country, it’s not ready to become that yet.

Russia is still trying to find its place in history and its path in history. Another thing is that, as history shows, Russians must constantly pay for this quest. Russia’s search for its path in history is an expensive venture in the world of today. Of course, I would prefer it if Russia and the Russian people, or the Russians, would calm down and realize that they don’t have a path of their own in history.

Mikhail Sokolov: A special one.

Yuri Felshtinsky: They have no special path.

http://felshtinsky.livejournal.com/2434.html

The 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall falls on Monday, Nov 9th. While Berlin was arguably the key to the cold war and the collapse, and 1989 marked some pretty significant developments across the Soviet Union and noted some giant strides towards the end of the Cold War, I have chosen to highlight 1991: the year it actually happened.

For reasons that I cannot even begin to understand, Soviet history fascinates me. From the 1917 Bolshevik Revolutions through the end of the Cold War (and, presently as the Russian Federation and former Soviet states rebuild and recover) there is nothing that isn’t supremely interesting. I mean, look at a map of the world and see how huge Russia is. I think it would be scary to be anything other than fascinated by and interested in something that gigantic. Russia also produces some pretty fantastic gymnasts, but that’s a story for another day.

It would be completely impossible to do the Collapse of the USSR (or, CCCP) any sort of justice in anything less than a 10 page paper, and even then it would be a feeble attempt.

The Soviet Union existed as basically a large, enclosed area of stifled potential for many, many years. The West kept them in check, and the people inside only wanted out. West Berlin, a haven of freedom enclosed inside Soviet land (formed as the result of the Potsdam Agreement). People were treated poorly, there was severe rationing of even the most essential goods, and eventually, enough was enough. Inevitably the Soviet states would uprise and leave the Union.

The Collapse of the Wall, was, of course, undeniably significant. The domino that set it all in unstoppable motion.

The crumbling of the Soviet Union was and very well may remain the most significant political global event of my lifetime. It marked the end of a war that lasted 50 years, and opened up my generation to the possibility of thinking of communism as anything other than innately evil. After all, having entered the public school system in 1991, I was a member of the first class since the 1940’s that did not need to be indoctrinated with the idea that communism was the work of the devil in order to feed popular support of a war.

While 1989 was the official point of no-return, 1991 was the year in which it all came to and end. Revolutions began; a slew of States voted on the issue and declared independence from the state; Boris Yeltsin, a radical reformist, was voted president of the Russian SFSR; Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as head of state of the USSR; and finally the Commonwealth of Independent States was formed, and the Soviet Union was formally dissolved on December 26, 1991.

The USSR has an amazing and interesting history. The Soviets tried to create an entirely new and different way of life, and as a result they left us with some incredibly interesting architecture and art. From the role they played in both World Wars, to the rise of Stalin, to the GULAG, and the Cold War and finally the collapse, Soviet history is undoubtedly worth checking out.

In light of the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, I invite you investigate at least some of this history for yourself.

Why Berlin Mattered

The Wall and the End of History

It Was Never Just a Wall

Gorbachev: The Man Who Prevented World War III?

Don’t Gloss Over Stalin’s Crimes

It’s all over the news right now. Just check it out.

Bueno de Mesquita on Reagan, Yeltsin, and the Strategy of Political Campaigning
EconTalk

Who’s ruining Russian democracy? Stephen F. Cohen has long been arguing that Gorbachev was the real democrat and it all went to anti-democratic hell with Yeltsin, long before Putin turned up, or Medvedev followed.

A recent interesting media analysis by William Dunkerley, media business analyst and consultant, points to a similar argument. The media scandal, says Dunkerley is “the Western press’ inexplicably lenient treatment of the Yeltsin presidency, especially in comparison to his successors”. Some extracts:

[The Yeltsin Scandal begins with a drunken Boris Yeltsin hailing a cab in his underwear across from the White House in Washington. But that’s just the beginning. This story includes murder, unthinkable acts of military aggression, and journalistic malfeasance. At its heart, it’s really a story about the media and how they have bungled the coverage of Yeltsin and his successors. You’ll never look at media reportage of Russia in the same way!]

Over the years, Yeltsin has been characterized variously as a hero who brought down communism, as the foremost proponent of Russia’s transformation to democracy and a market economy, and as a stalwart of Russia’s free press.

Beyond that popular imagery, however, there was a less attractive side. Yeltsin presided over a looting of state assets that created a circle of newly-minted tycoons that helped to protect Yeltsin. In addition, acting against the constitution, Yeltsin dismissed the duly elected parliament. And when the members refused to go, he brought in tanks to shell the parliament building in a confrontation that ultimately claimed approximately 150 lives. Somehow he was able to win reelection in a contest where he held roughly a 5 percent approval rating going into the election season. Ultimately, Yeltsin led the country into a financial collapse near the end of his presidency.

A Closer Look at Yeltsin

As a case-in-point, I examined the New York Times coverage of Yeltsin’s shelling of the parliament in 1993. That was one of Yeltsin’s most egregious acts. The Times ran a story entitled “SHOWDOWN IN MOSCOW: Tactics; Yeltsin Attack Strategy: Bursts Followed by Lulls.” Here are some excerpts illustrating how the Times covered the story:

“The assault on the Russian Parliament building today was a textbook example of the decisive application of military power…

“And as the daylong assault went on, it was clear that Mr. Yeltsin’s commanders had decided on gradualism…

“The Russian troops were looking for Bolshoi Devyatinsky lane … where the defiant lawmakers had maintained their headquarters…

“With the outcome of the battle never in doubt, the clear preference of the military was to scare the anti-Yeltsin demonstrators into surrendering and to limit casualties…

“The only question was the number of lives that would be lost. And that was largely left up to the rebels as they were alternately bombarded with shells and appeals to surrender.”

Just note how soft this coverage is. I’m not taking sides on whether Yeltsin’s actions were appropriate or not. But, the Yeltsin side is characterized as valiant and measured. The other side is characterized as defiant and to blame for its own fate. The story has a factual basis. The president really did launch a tank assault on the parliament. However, the circumstances clearly seem to be spun in a way that tempers that stark reality.

I stab man in rib cage last year in Coney Island.

Only stab, in and out, no twist.

He say “Yeltsin no throw dogs against walls” and I say “Oh yes?” and stab him and say “This is dog against wall.”

Mitjan setmana arriba el dimecres i, amb ell, el programa 407 d’El crepuscle encén estels · IB3 Ràdio, 21:00 · en el qual ens visita el periodista LLIBERT FERRI, autor de Memòria del fred, un brillant retrat de la Rússia postsoviètica. Hem trobat a la Xarxa unes dades macroeconòmiques d’aquell país referides al 2006 –precisament l’any de publicació d’aquest llibre– que assenyalen que, aleshores, la taxa d’atur havia baixat fins el 7 % de la població activa, la pensió mitjana era d’uns 2.300 rubles, i el salari mitjà nominal havia arribat –segons les estadístiques oficials– als 10.728 rubles, uns …407 dòlars

…407, precisament, com Crepuscles comptam fins el dia d’avui.

· IB3 ràdio en directe · http://streaming01.ib3radio.com:8000/ib3radio.mp3

Foto de pfaff segundo licença CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0

Em Setembro de 1999, uma série de explosões em vários blocos de apartamentos nas cidades de Moscovo (9 e 13 de Setembro), Buynaksk (4 de Setembro) e Volgodonsk (16 de Setembro), mataram cerca de 300 pessoas e feriram mais de 1000. As explosões, em conjunto com a invasão do Daguestão pelas forças chechenas, lideradas por Shamil Basayev, criaram uma onde de choque e medo, bem como fortes sentimentos de patriotismo e de vingança por toda a Rússia. O Estado, através do então Primeiro-Ministro, Vladímir Putin (ex-KGB), intensifica a guerra na Chechénia, o que faz disparar a popularidade do chefe de governo. Putin torna-se rapidamente o novo herói da Rússia, um país que estava farto da liderança de um Boris Yeltsin constantemente alcoolizado.

Nesse mesmo mês, Setembro, aparece o Partido Unidade, que apoia Vladímir Putin como candidato às eleições presidenciais de 2000. Yeltsin tinha arranjado o seu sucessor. Boris Berezovsky, empresário russo que tinha colocado Putin no círculo familiar de Yeltsin, acusa Putin e o então Director do FSB, Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev e German Ugryumov, Chefe do Departamento Militar de Contra-Inteligência Naval do FSB, de estarem por detrás dos atentados. Esta teoria era defendida por Yury Shchekochikhin, jornalista de investigação assassinado a 3 de Julho de 2003, e igualmente partilhada pelo antigo espião russo, o Tenente-Coronel Alexander Litvinenko, envenenado a 1 de Novembro de 2006 em Londres, e pela activista Anna Politkovskaya, assassinada a 7 de Outubro de 2006 em Moscovo. Em 31 de Dezembro de 1999, com a resignação de Boris Yeltsin, Vladímir Putin torna-se Presidente da Federação Russa. Em apenas alguns meses tinha alcançado o poder total.

Oficialmente os atentados foram levados a cabo por um grupo de operacionais coordenados por Achemez Gochiyayev, um cidadão russo, a mando de Ibn Al-Khattab, guerrilheiro checheno morto em combate em Março de 2002, e Abu Omar al-Saif, guerrilheiro islâmico, morto em combate em Dezembro de 2005. O grupo teria sido treinado por Abu Umar e Abu Djafarb, dois guerrilheiros árabes, em campos campos de treino da resistência chechena situados nas vilas de Serzhen-Yurt e Urus-Martan. Embora seja esta a versão oficial, muitos russos acreditam que os atentados foram levados a cabo por operacionais do Exército de Libertação do Daguestão.

O grupo era, alegadamente, segundo a Rússia e o FSB, composto por Isa Zainutdinov (62, condenado a prisão perpétua), Alisultan Salikhov (35, condenado a prisão perpétua), Adam Dekkushev (?, condenado a prisão perpétua), Yusuf Krymshakhalov (?, condenado a prisão perpétua), Abdulkadyr Abdulkadyrov (41, condenado a 9 anos de prisão), Magomed Magomedov (45, condenado a 9 anos de prisão), Denis Saitakov (?, morto em 2000), Ravil Akhmyarov (?, morto em 2000), Khakim Abayev (?, morto em 2004), Stanislav Lyubichev (?, condenado a 4 anos de prisão), Ziyavudin Ziyavudinov (?, condenado a 24 anos de prisão), e os irmãos Zaur Batchayev (?, morto em 2000) e Timur Batchayev (?, morto em 2002). Os que foram detidos, afirmaram sempre em tribunal que foram enganados por um oficial do FSB que se faz passar por comandante da resistência chechena.

A confusão na própria russa continua. Esta semana, que assinala o 10.º aniversário dos atentados, fica entretanto marcada pelas declarações à imprensa russa do proeminente activista russo dos direitos humanos, Sergey Kovalev, que lidera a Comissão de inquérito sobre os atentados. Sergey Kovalev, conhecido crítico das políticas de Boris Yeltsin e Vladímir Putin, afirmou que não acredita que os atentados de 1999 tenham sido orquestrados directamente pelos serviços de segurança russos, mas que após as suas investigações, que não foram vistas com bons olhos pelo FSB, ficou com a impressão que os atentados tinham o objectivo político de tornar Putin presidente, o que de facto veio a suceder.

Parlavo di recente con un tipo russo (ok, era una bionda da urlo ma cercate di capire…) tra una vodka e l’altra, quasi in confidenza, seppure ci conoscessimo poco e niente. Parlavo e ascoltavo, e mi si materializzavano sempre più davanti agli occhi le grosse lettere in stampatello, tridimensionali, della parola RELATIVITÁ. No, non c’era lsd nella vodka e no, Einstein o altri meno famosi cervelli emigrati non c’entrano nulla. I russi sono diversi, sapete? Distanti da noi, davvero. Non è il nostro mondo. Sì, hanno auto fottutamente moderne e altrettanto odiose, adorano l’ostentazione, pagano in dollari, comprano più vestiti dei giapponesi ecc.. ma non pensano come noi. Vedono le cose da un altro punto di vista. Oltre cortina? Forse. Ma non (solo) la cara vecchia cortina sovietica, bensì quella mentalità retaggio della loro gloriosa e controversa storia, dei popoli, dei fatti, dei luoghi, della pura geografia. Della distanza dall’occidente, dei mancati chewing gum distribuiti alla popolazione nel dopoguerra, dell’innata allergia all’America, a Hollywood e mille altre cose. E’ strano parlare con un russo delle cose che succedono. La pensa spesso all’opposto rispetto a come la pensi tu, eppure non lo ritieni un fesso o un pazzo criminale. Be’, su George W. Bush la pensavamo uguale, a dire il vero. Ma si sa, sulle ambulanze è inutile sparare.
- No, no, parlo d’altro. La pensa all’opposto ma alla fine la sua attitudine è come la nostra, italica. Il mondo ce l’ha con noi? E chi è il mondo per giudicare? Putin è un porco? Sarà mica un angelo Sarkozy o il Premier australiano (sono avanti: niente google, lascio così- Premier australiano)? La Yukos o la Gazprom sono imprese criminali? Ah! Mi viene da ridere… Devo forse fare qualche nome d’occidente o è più elegante glissare? E la democrazia, esiste? Funziona? I russi sono patriottici, dice il tipo. Non so se è la vodka o che cosa, ma ci credo. D’altronde anch’io, all’estero, mi sono trovato a volte a decantare lodi italiche che manco fossi un ministro dell’attuale governo. E non era la vodka.
- E come funziona allora? Funziona che i saputelli internazionali spesso e volentieri sono a dir poco odiosi, e funziona che come al solito nessuno guarda l’orto di casa propria ed è pronto a distruggere quello altrui. Penso alle meravigliose performance dei nostri impavidi caschi blu nei Balcani, tanto per fare un esempio. Chi siamo noi per giudicare? E soprattutto, chi decide chi giudica, e in base a che cosa? E come si passa dal giudizio ai cacciabombardieri? Parliamone. Ho conversato qualche tempo prima anche con un tipo serbo (giuro, è vero) e lui mi ha buttato sul tavolo, uno dopo l’altro, una serie di sassolini di dimensioni non valide per il vezzeggiativo che aveva nelle scarpe circa i fatti della Serbia, del Kosovo, dell’occidente che esporta democrazia e così via. Aveva torto, forse, ma chi ha ragione?
Prospettiva, quindi.
Coerenza.
Buon senso.
Relatività storica e geografica, magari.
Ipocrisia, vade retro.
- Il russo: ‘Dicono che la Russia è un paese corrotto. E gli altri?’
- ‘Be’, in certi paesi la cultura della corruzione non fa presa sulle persone. Posso assicurarti che è così.’
- ‘E allora? Invece in Russia tutto è corrotto. Ogni poliziotto per strada è corruttibile. Ma alla gente va bene così. – Anche a te andrebbe bene così, se ti fermano e al posto della multa potessi pagare solo un quarto o un terzo come mazzetta.’
- ‘Ma è sbagliato.’
- ‘Amico mio – salute – la lista delle cose sbagliate devono ancora pubblicarla, è in continuo aggiornamento. E, bada bene, alcune righe vengono addirittura tolte col tempo.’
Buona questa, ho pensato. Lui ha continuato: ‘E poi, fammi capire, gli altri paesi non sono corrotti? L’Italia?’ Si è corretto da solo: ‘Gli altri?’
- ‘Vedi tu, oggi a causa della crisi finanziaria più corrotta di sempre sono tutti in braghe di tela.’ Facevo lo spiritoso. Comunque, il fatto che per lui la corruzione non fosse un problema, DAVVERO mi colpiva molto. Mi ci incazzo praticamente ogni giorno, su ’sta cosa. Com’è possibile? Prospettiva? Modo di vivere? D’un tratto ho tirato fuori l’asso nella manica, il fiore all’occhiello dei giusti d’occidente. La causa con la C maiuscola.
- ‘Sì, però Anna Politkoskaja…’
Non so se è stata tattica, sbadataggine o cosa. ‘E’ una storia degli anni di Yeltsin, non ricordo bene.’
- ‘Che dici, amico? è morta 3 anni fa.’
- ‘Davvero?’ Sembrava sincero. Com’era possibile? Poi ha aggiunto: ‘Be’, non è sicuro che sia morta per la questione cecena, magari è stato qualcun altro, no?’
- ‘Non credo proprio. E non voglio dire niente altro che l’uccisione di un giornalista in quel modo è una cosa molto brutta. E che per me Putin è senza dubbio un maiale, in questo senso.’
- ‘Sono d’accordo. E’ uno pericoloso, era del kgb, un russo patriottico senza scrupolo.’ Ma non sembrava disturbato a riguardo. Ha aggiunto: ‘Ma scusa, è la prima volta che accade? Non ci sono giornalisti uccisi in altri paesi? A me suona come la storia più vecchia del mondo: il potere che schiaccia chi ne smaschera le nefandezze.’
- ‘Sì, certo, ma magari in altre epoche. Qualche decina di anni fa, nell’epoca delle ideologie, dei forti sconti sociali.’ Ho pensato a Mino Pecorelli, ma poi ho pensato al Messico di oggi, all’Iran, alla Cina. Forse si riusciva anche a vedere, che le mie certezze scricchiolavano.
- ‘Amico, cos’è qualche decina d’anni nella storia dell’uomo? Cosa crediamo di essere noi? Siamo solo una minuscola fase, un nulla nella scala del tempo. Crediamo di sapere e di poter controllare tutto, ma così pensavano anche quelli prima di noi, qualche decina d’anni fa. Certe cose fanno parte del mondo. Certe dinamiche esistono da sempre, e ovunque.’
- ‘Ma ammazzare una giornalista perchè parlava delle porcate russe in Cecenia è comunque uno schifo.’
- ‘Vero. Non dovrebbe succedere.’
Il tizio mi disarmava puntualmente. Io, cresciuto a pane e Amnesty, coraggioso (col culo al caldo sul mio divano europeo) e bello come il sole, non riuscivo a dimostrare che la Russia è pericolosa, l’Italia sì corrotta ma cambierà e il nord Europa un modello perfetto di società. Cominciavo a provare fastidio.
- ‘Giornalisti uccisi. Politici uccisi. Terrorismo. Attentati. Porcate di ogni tipo. Non succedono ovunque, e anche oggi? Non hanno mica ucciso per strada quel regista ad Amsterdam, nella tua Olanda?’
- ‘Sì, Theo van Gogh.’
- ‘E quel gruppo di bastardi non ha fatto mica saltare in aria mezza metropolitana come se fosse uno scherzetto, a Londra? La sicurezza dov’era? La polizia, l’ordine, la serenità sociale ecc…’
- ‘Non so.’
- ‘E l’11 settembre? Vogliamo parlarne? Chi ha fatto cosa? Un amico in Francia mi ha detto che un blogger piuttosto audace ha sparato a destra e a manca certe teorie ‘non allineate’ e il giorno dopo si è trovato la polizia a casa. Per idee espresse. In Francia.’
Relatività.
Simpatico, il russo. Gli ho sorriso. Altro bicchierino di vodka.

Na Zdorovie.

Ah, se avete tempo andate a rivedervi il GRANDIOSO dialogo tra Johnny e Boris in ‘Rapina a mano armata’  di Stanley Kubrick. Perchè? Per il magnifico accento russo dell’ex lottatore e per le sue perle di saggezza, a noi quasi incomprensibili.

June 3, 2009

By Yevgeny Kiselyov, of the Moscow Times

Read Here

June 9, 2009

Vladimir Rzyhkov, of the Moscow Times

Read Here

August 7, 2007

By Tom Fenton, of The World

Read Here

Update 6/22 at the end of this posting.

I know I am going to sound like a cold-hearted SOB, below. I am not so much cold-hearted as I am cool-headed, I hope.

The events in Iran: As of 6 PM California time (Sunday morning in Iran), I am seeing neither a revolution not a bloodbath in Iran.

Hundreds of thousands of young people no doubt believe that the extremist and simple-minded Ahmed the Camel stole the election. They are protesting accordingly, with sincere, heartfelt anger. The government is responding with water cannons and tear gas. (I got my information from the National Iranian-American Council that clearly supports the protesters. NIAC.) In riot situations, bloody rumors always circulate and get amplified. Again, I know this sounds callous but, as I write, the reports are about fewer than five killed. (NPR did say ten, eight hours later, with no details given.)That’s like a slow weekend in Oakland, California. Facts matter and so do proportions.

There are several layers to my skepticism. First, water cannons and tear gas are nothing we have not seen elsewhere, many times. I remember well several consecutive nights in Paris in May 1968 when the police used those same weapons and the rioters fought back with paving stones. I may be regretting this comment only a few hours from now but, in May 1968, fewer people died in France than in May 1967 or in May 1969.

There are many rumors of regime atrocities. None is verified although some are verifiable, in principle. The movements of western reporters are restricted but Al Jazeera is there and it has no sympathy for the Iranian regime.  (I am aware of the fact that Al Jazeera is primarily an Arabic-language network. Don’t patronize me, please. It’s used to cover Iranian affairs and it has Farsi speakers on staff.) There are tens of thousands of cell phones and other kinds of advanced electronics in private hands in Tehran. The government cannot possibly jam everything. Some, many messages and pictures must get through. NIAC did post videos on its website with running commentary in English. Some speak of atrocities; the videos I have seen as of now do show only one possible atrocity.

I am obviously not arguing that the Mad Camel and the regime around and above him are not capable of committing atrocities. They have assassinated journalists; in its early days, the Islamic Republic executed political opponents by the thousands. The last American-Iranian female journalist but one who was arrested in Iran died in prison. A brave Iranian doctor – who gave his name – reported that she had been raped while in prison.

This is a typical criminal fascist regime. I just think the regime does not feel fundamentally threatened. Here is why:

The urban, mostly young people demonstrating in Tehran are the fraction of the population culturally nearly indistinguishable from their European contemporaries. They are wired; they are connected through the Internet; they know very well what life is like elsewhere. They understand what they are missing living in the prudish, corrupt, economically constipated, and archaically religious Islamic Republic. They are precisely the people you would expect to want radical change. They have an alternative model of the good society: They want to live in a kind of Italy, where mosques would take the place of churches but where religion would be as pleasant and unobtrusive as it is in Milan.

That’s probably a small fraction of the population but the most visible. The American press is too lazy to look beyond the surface. If they did, journalists would find 40% farmers, mostly small farmers, in a countryside that’s a hundred years behind. They would find a young working class without much work and without cell-phones. They would also find a large number of semi-middle class older people, the kind of people who are averse to change everywhere. All of the above are religious in a way that Americans have not been for 150 years, and Europeans for 200 years. They are religious in an exclusivist, intolerant manner. And, their form of Islam celebrates martyrdom.

If American journalists tried harder, they would also discover that many Iranians profit, even if a little, from the oil money which does trickle down. That includes a large army, an even larger security apparatus. And, finally, let’s not forget that the other army, the army of mullahs, who also have families to feed, and give careers to.

I think most of these people probably support the theocracy, even if it does not make them very happy. I suspect they voted for Ahmed the Camel, not out of enthusiasm but out of fear of the unknown.

That’s what successful fascism does: It kills the wish to be free because freedom is hard work.

The government does not want a recount because it cannot allow any group to question its infallibility. Totalitarianism requires blind belief. If you let them count, you are admitting the possibility of error in general although that one count would reveal no error in this particular case.

The next layer of my skepticism has to do with the apparent leaders. I don’t like the ones we see and I am troubled about the ones we don’t hear. The latter first: This may sound strange but I would feel better if I could hear a clamor from an assortment of Iranian leftists of all breeds. Marxists and other people of the Left are students of revolution and they are usually political opportunists. If any of them thought this was the real thing, we would have heard it. They would have spoken in support, if only to gain their place in the successor system.

I would trust leftists more than anyone else if they took sides because the current theocracy has condemned them in advance. They would be in no position to turn around and compromise. They have been remarkable because of their silence, so far.

The apparent leader of the anti-regime movement is, of course, a pure product of Shiite Islamo-fascism himself. I think I remember from the 80s, that when he was in government, Musavi has the blood of political opponents on his hands. I could not find it on-line but my memory does not play this kind of trick: I forget; I don’t make up anything. Perhaps, a reader will help me with hard facts.

I made myself read the very bad translation of Musavi’s pleading message to the Ayatollahs. Even making allowances for what is, again, a bad translation, it’s redolent of the tenth century. It comes from a learned man of the Middle Ages, someone who knows nothing of Locke, Voltaire, or Thomas Jefferson. The simple idea of separation of Church and State is thousands of miles, or two hundred years, from his mind. This guy is not my long-lost cousin. If he were an American politician, I would oppose him vigorously.

No one, not even Iranian supporters of the movement living abroad where they are fairly safe, no one says: We want an ordinary democracy, be it like Switzerland’s, or like Norway’s, or like Israel, of course.

Astute American and European observers point to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and to the destruction of Soviet Communism firmly led by two old Communists, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. They mean to say that people change and sometimes recognize the error of their early ways. The parallel is deeply flawed. When those two brave men pushed the edifice down, it was rotten to the core. Soviet Communism had almost no defenders left. Everyone in the Soviet Union knew it did not work. The KGB in particular was very well informed about reality in the West and it did not lift a finger to save its communist employer. Similarly, elsewhere in the Eastern so-called bloc, except in Poland, communism disintegrated; it fell in from within.

Islamic fascism in Iran, by contrast, has many defenders, I think, as I argued above. Some actively want to die as martyrs. There were no such people in the communist countries of Europe. Communism was only the perverted son of western civilization. Its values were not much different from those of western democracies. The communist leaders had read Voltaire. They argued they were his true grandchildren.

Pres Obama couldn’t do much more than what he did. He reminded the Iranian dictators that the world is watching and that Iran had signed the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Remember that the US did not do that much more to help the Poles conquer their freedom. We sent them printing presses and photocopy machines. Let’s send thousands of satellite phones to Iran. That’s about it. A friend of mine who knows Iran well and who keeps informed in Farsi once suggested the US should flood the country with video CDs of porn. It makes a lot of sense to me. It wouldn’t happen. This administration has no imagination, just a slim play-book.

Here is what this country shouldn’t do. In the wake of the first Gulf War, President Bush (the first) seemed to encourage Iraq’s Shiites and its Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein’s rule. We did not follow through. Failed insurrections took place because of us. Mass graves were the only result. Those are on our heads.

Pres. Obama has much less stomach for a fight than did Bush the elder. Make no mistake, the mullahs will drown any real insurrection in blood, make arrest by the tens of thousands, shoot thousands.

If I am wrong and Iran does experience a velvet revolution, there will be time to extend a welcoming hand. And I will eat my hat in public (for the benefit of a charity of my choice).

I am wondering what the Israeli leadership is thinking, right now.

Update 6/22: I pay a lot of attention to what people say about themselves and their cause. I think few people can lie effectively and mass movements almost never do. So, I take literally the many images from inside Iran American media broadcast all weekend. All seem to come from movement supporters. I assume they are intended to illustrate the severity of the repression.

They still show security forces beating demonstrators with batons and throwing tear gas grenades. The death toll after one week of daily demonstrations seems to be at the level of a bad vacation weekend on the roads of France. The real repression has yet to begin. Eventually, if threatened, the mullahs will shoot bullets at crowds. More likely, the demonstrations will die down because rioting is tiring and even the young need to sleep.

Some of my skepticism is fed by the fact that most of the young women I see demonstrating against the Islamist tyranny are wearing hijab, the Muslim veil. That’s in the middle of tens of thousands of their freedom-seeking brothers. Symbols matter, what women wear is always signaling.

So far, only the late Shah’s son, the heir apparent, is asking for full, ordinary democracy.

It looks like I scooped Thomas Friedman last Saturday (this posting). He is the Middle-East expert who nevertheless writes for the NY Times. Today, he is saying pretty much the same things I said then. Too early to celebrate victory; don’t take victory for granted.

I hope he and I are dead wrong. I hope I will yet see ayatollahs hanging from the street lamps of Tehran.

I still think Pres. Obama is doing more or less the right thing. For once, he is not pretending to be the God-annointed.

For a powerful yet subtle commentary – as usual – read Fouad Ajami’s big column in today’s Wall Street Journal.

                               Cementerio Cristobal Colon,  Havana                                   

Geography question: How do you find the dead centre of a city?

Answer: Follow the signs to the cemetery.

Okay, I’ll admit that jokes like that could be the death of me, but cemeteries are often some of the most interesting places in any city and yet overlooked by many visitors – even though people are just dying to get in. (Sorry, couldn’t resist it). Although often filled with architectural masterpieces in the forms of monuments and mausoleums and tributes to some of that city’s most famous sons and daughters, their locations are often buried in most guidebooks (I promise, that was the last one…maybe!).

There are some famous cemeteries around the world that do feature on the tourist trail, however. Moscow’s Novodivechy is that city’s third most popular tourist attraction and is ‘home’ to Chekhov, Prokofiev, Schostakovich, Gogol and Eisenstein as well as cosmonauts and former presidents. London’s Highgate attracts so many visitors keen to see its beautiful monuments – not to mention the grave of famous Marx brother Karl – that they charge admission, even if you’re not in a wooden box!

Paris’s Cimetiere du Pere Lachaise has a steady line of visitors coming through its Doors to see Jim Morrison’s grave, while hundreds of thousands of people pay their respect to former teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa by visiting Giants Stadium each year.

Even if a cemetery doesn’t boast the rich and famous or its head stones are in an unintelligible script, they are still culturally and historically significant and well worth a visit. Cairo’s “Cities of the Dead” are home not only to the dead but also to the living who have moved into many of the vaults and turned the cemeteries into overcrowded neighbourhoods. Havana’s Cristobal Colon cemetery encapsulates the city’s history where cardinals rub shoulders with communists and even the country’s love of baseball is acknowledged.

If you want to visit a cemetery, first enquire if it is permitted to do so as different cultures have different traditions when it comes to their dead. Also check if there is a dress code, if it is allowed to take photographs, if you need a guide or even if it’s safe to go alone: some cemeteries are in less than desirable neighbourhoods where visitors and even mourners are known to fall victim to thieves. Most importantly, if you do visit a cemetery, always be respectful. 

And finally, if there’s a particular grave you’re looking for, make sure you obtain a map so that you don’t lose the plot (that’s the last one, I promise!).

The end.

Photo and post by:  Simon Vaughan