Thursday, June 10, 2010


Politically, I am not very charged up in discussing events and occurrences, as I find them hard to break apart and to decipher all the words and all the accusations into the truth. I am a truth seeker, wanting nothing more than justice to be served, but with issues that are so controversial, I think it takes a deliberate yearn to discover what we need to know. We are human where an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is just a basic, instinctual desire. However, a wise man once said that an eye for an eye will only make the world blind. And we are blind, so very blind. Where is the light and the truth?

As always, Iran is the center for all discussions and debates for nuclear proliferation, democracy, and poverty issues. Today, the New York Times ran an article about new sanctions for nuclear proliferation, approved by the United Nations. Here is the link to the  article. According to the it, 12 out of the 15 members voted for the sanctions, which are supposed to be the strictest yet. The three countries that did not vote in favor of the sanctions were Turkey, Brazil, and Lebanon (who abstained from voting at all). 

While it is imperative that we ensure the safety of all our people and nations, what is the importance of restricting and prohibiting three "high-risk" countries from having nuclear powers, while several more have access and abilities to make them? Iran as a whole isn't rich, and they say that they are developing nuclear programs to build up their country. Why are Americans and Brits not considered potential terrorists, but Iranians, Iraqis, and Koreans are? I think this stems from an issue of tolerance, respect, and courtesy rather than safety. However, I will talk about those qualities of virtue in another blog.  

Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, a representative from Brazil to the UN, believes that sanctions will not be effective towards limiting uranium enrichment. Personally, I think the same thing. Looking at it from an Iranian perspective, if someone were to restrict the United States from our potential to grow, we would be angry and retaliate--and have been known to do that. I find that the entire western world is full of hypocrisy because a "free world" that we live in shouldn't have hostages that are prevented from rising up in a capitalist approach to life. I know that many of you who will stumble across this blog will not agree. However, I am using my right to say what I want and have an opinion. I do not fully support nuclear proliferation because if we in power have the ability to limit and control others, who are we on a moral level, to do that? Philosophically speaking, who is right and who is wrong?

Let's go back to a simple moral code that most people can agree on. Murder and killing of another person--good or bad? Majority will say it is bad regardless of reason, except in extreme circumstances, but they must fit certain criteria, and even then it is almost guaranteed to be debated upon. It's almost as if we have a responsibility to each other to protect, save, and assist during the hardest of times. Perhaps it's something called compassion or human duty? 

What about the case of Neda? She was a peaceful protester during the election riots a year ago. She lost her life. Why? Watch this video: Neda's story. It changed my perspective on a lot of things. Regardless of the issue at hand, who murdered her, and the reasons, it was still murder. In this case, people are scared--people in power. They are afraid to lose that power or to lose their financial means in life. In their perspective, they are trying to regain a foothold in their economic status. When they were scared, they wanted others to be scared too. An eye for an eye, remember? They are blind; we are blind. We see only what we want to see, are comfortable seeing, or are taught to see. 

What it comes down to is that it costs people's livelihoods, human rights, and essentially their lives during a conflict over what is right. Neda had a mother, she had family and friends that loved her. They grieve over her death. She died believing in her right to protest. We all have human rights and when they are violated and restricted, what are we to do? Some say retaliate, others say to protest. What happens if a small group of people turns into a nation whose rights are violated...what then? Compromise and negotiation, respect, and understanding is where we need to start to resolve this. Love and compassion for other human beings. It's easy to hate what you are scared of. A nation is comprised of millions of individuals who are just as human as you and I. Do these individuals have a right to life, love, peace, shelter, freedom? These words are for everyone--you and I, world leaders, your neighbor. Remember Neda. She was the voice that we all have inside.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...