Lessons from Iran
The dangers of appeasement
There are lessons to be learned from what has happened to and in Iran. Without doubt there is more to be learned, and more will become apparent in the days, weeks, months, and years to come. One such lesson has been taught through history but is forgotten more often than remembered.
Appeasement, the attempt to avoid conflict and to maintain or restore peace, may sometimes be a virtue but is frequently capitulation to evil actors. Those who have the power but, for whatever reason, lack the inclination to stand up for what is right often find that visions of peace are a mere illusion or fabrication of the mind. They may find that the goodwill they thought to buy through appeasement is rewarded with aggression and the sacrifice of innocent victims to the whims of persons of authoritarian temperament who now have totalitarian power.
The international community ignored the subjugation of the Iranian people to the ideology of the mullahs, allowing the mullahs to increase their hold within the country’s institutions and to use them to brutalize those who voice opposition. Absence of any meaningful action over nearly 50 years has allowed the regime not only to trample on the human rights of the people but also to increase its military might to a point perceived to be an existential threat to Israel and the US itself. Only at this point has action has been taken and then not for the truly moral reason of stopping the human rights abuses but for fear of lethal aggression.
Had human rights been to the forefront, action would have been taken decades ago and, as an indirect consequence of asserting the rights of the Iranian people to their human rights, the threat to other nations would not have materialized.
The eyes of the world are now focused on Iran and the Gulf region. Too late for all those who have already died, and for those dying in the present conflagration, the world started to become more aware of the regime’s barbaric nature when in January reports started filtering out of tens of thousands being murdered in the streets. Seeking to be free from despotic demands for conformity with clerical edicts, and fearful for their economic and social wellbeing, protestors took to the streets and paid the ultimate price.
A far cry from New Zealand, without a doubt, but for too long, we in New Zealand have been putting our heads in the sand and ignoring the insidious infiltration of our institutions by idealogues who wish to create a ghetto where only their own voices are heard and contrary views are silenced.
If stands are not taken, the outcomes may eventually become dire. We already have zealots who consider it acceptable to deprive people of their livelihoods if they do not obey their demands for ‘education’ in matters of thought, conscience, religion and belief and in areas of contested opinion.
Iran is a terrible example of what can happen when a stand against evil is not taken. Evil can take various forms, and one thing may lead to another. We should guard against being seduced by our own decency, by our reluctance to accept that some of us may really want to curtail our freedom with impositions of authoritarian government and dictatorial demands.
Which leads me to National could signal its support for democracy where I said
Leadership is needed. We need a Prime Minister who will say loudly and clearly what English said in 2003, expressing with strength of character and personality that it is the expectation of all members of the coalition government that all elements of the bureaucracy and other parts of government both central and local will cease undermining our democracy.
Whatever may be behind National’s reluctance to take a stand, its failure to do so is appeasement of those who are prepared to destroy our way of life -- in some cases, they may wish to do so -- by undermining the governmental structures which protect freedom and democracy.
You are so right about appeasement Gary, which in NZ is typified by avoidance of necessary confrontation. How quick people are to declare "all good" when it isn't, and "it is what it is", when really it is what we make it.
National's failure to stand up for democracy is projected into stark relief by its rejection of the Treaty Principles Bill, which was really just a reiteration of what was written in and intended by the 1840 Treaty. In setting the Bill to one side with no explanation, National was effectively signalling its support for the activist's unwritten neo-Treaty based around fabricated, key principles, active protection, co-governance partnership and self-determination. Also, although Luxon clearly ruled out co-governance at a national level, the implication was that it is ok at a local level, a far cry from the basis on which the Coalition Government was elected. Whilst that could be said to be a policy of "appeasement" to me there is a significant aspect of ideological "agreement".
Well spoken. Unfortuantely 80 years of realitive peace 'in our time' has created a false perception of what it takes to defend our freedoms. In addition we have Universities and (sadly) schools who want to teach the evils of western civlisation. To engage in self hatred is a luxury we cannot afford. Politicians and civic leaders who grasp this are few and far between.