| [F]our independent nations – Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan – emerged in place of the former USSR. Since then, the five littoral states have squabbled over how much of the Caspian territory they deserve. At first sight, Ahmadinejad’s position seems reasonable. He argues that the landlocked sea should be divided equally, with each country receiving a fifth. What makes that position grossly unjust is that Iran has by far the shortest coastline of all – only some thirteen percent. Understandably, then, the other nations do not like Ahmadinejad’s proposal. They call for a different division, one in which each country would receive a share in proportion to the length of its shoreline. It is a reasonable solution to the controversial territory, one normally used in disputes of this nature. Ahmadinejad, however, strongly opposes such a compromise. He insists that Iran be granted one fifth of the disputed territory -- a land grab that far exceeds Iran’s defensible claims. In essence, Ahmadinejad is demanding fifty percent more than he is entitled to. Under most circumstances, this kind of international insolence would be laughed out of the conference hall. (... ) [A]t today’s record energy prices, Iran’s takeover would amount to the most brazen instance of international thievery in recent memory. But the full extent of Ahmadinejad’s nastiness will only become obvious when we learn whom he intends to rob. At thirty-three thousand squares miles, Azerbaijan is smaller than Maine and ranks 114 in the world by territory. With barely five million people, Turkmenistan has fewer inhabitants than Wisconsin and places 113 globally in terms of population. It is this diminutive, Shiite Muslim nation that Iran would dispossess of a critical natural resource. Ahmadinejad’s attempted theft is made more unseemly by the fact that Azerbaijan’s and Turkmenistan’s Caspian field are these countries’ primary source of natural wealth. For Iran, on the other hand, the Caspian is only one of several revenue sources. A large country situated in an oil-soaked corner of the globe, Iran has a number of extensive deposits within its boundaries. Its most valuable happen to be opposite the Caspian in the Persian Gulf. Presiding over one of the world’s resource-richest nations, Ahmadinejad is trying to rob his two tiny neighbors of a portion of their comparatively modest resources. To put this into perspective, Iran’s territory is nearly twenty times that of Azerbaijan while its population exceeds that of Turkmenistan by a factor of fourteen. |
'Twas the unenchanted eye of GOP neocomrade V. Kohlmayer[1] that detected this stealthy assault upon Western Civistan and all decent BigManagerial Values, raisin’ the alarm at once through the Baní Horowitz . Should apologists for the mad mullahs at Ann Arbor, for instance, continue to lie that the Persian hordes have not aggressed since the year 1785/1163, their shamelessness is now exposed for all of Wingnut City to behold. Let's have no more of that poppycock, Professor Cole!
==
The learnèd neocomrade is on to somethin’ here, no doubt about it, although perhaps this outrage in isolation will not seem to Televisionland and the electorate to warrant instant preëmptive retaliation. There are limits, I fear, to how interested most denizens of the holy Homeland are in whether Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and Turkemenistan allow themselves to be swindled by that wily oriental gentlethug, M. Ahmadí-Nezhád. Even tossin’ in the Muscovite Menace that I have deliberatedly made disappear in quoting V. Kohlmayer, I suspect the whole affair may arouse more eye-glazin’ than flag-wavin’ amongst the Big Party base and vile.[2]
_____
You and I, Mr. Bones, may observe to the Muses and ourselves that M. Ahmadí-Nezhád looks to be rather a smarter cookie than we took him for back when we were unaware of V. Kohlmeyer's important discoveries. He seems quite as prudent as Mr. Bush of Rancho Crawford or M. Olmert of Telavivistan in that he makes sure to pick on somebody far smaller and weaker than himself. Iran is perhaps not quite a Godzilla compared to the Azeri-Kazakh-Turken Bambis, but close enough.
Neocomrade V. Kohlmeyer himself trades on the pathos of that disproportion, you'll notice, although his melodrama probably won't play well in Peoria all the same.[3]
It is at least a mild curiosity to learn that anybody in the fever swamps of Yank neorightism should think it worthwhile to go about discreditin’ the evil Qommies' claims to represent the former tiers monde, a.k.a. "the globally downtrodden." Logically speaking, should not that whole shtik of theirs have been abandoned as soon as the posteconomic Gospel of Clashism was revealed to Huntin’ton of Harvard? In any case, the neocomrade might have strengthened his brief by supplyin’ a few recent quotations from M. Ahmadí-Nezhád, or some suitably bearded/turbaned theofiend, to establish that the Islamic Republic really does still do business at that particular stand nowadays.[4]
There are, as often with neorightist agitprop, a number of lacunae in plain sight here. For example, we are not told that the poor helpless Bambis have actually agreed to be robbed by Qommies and Muscovites. And might there not be a problem for the Big Party argumentation, if in fact they did agree, though it be under pressure? Our own OnePercenters' devotion to sanctity of contract does not often invalidate their own negotiations on any such sentimental grounds, does it? Worst of all, however, for the Party cause is that Neocomrade V. Kahlenberg does not even pretend that any use of physical violence has taken place here. Indeed, there is no sign of even the threat of physical violence. The whole touchin’ fandango makes no sense, really, unless Godzilla tried to twist arms, but he presents no evidence to that effect whatsoever.
Should it be imputed to the evil Qommies as aggression, then, that they happen to outnumber Azeris and Kazakhs and Turkmenis and to be rather richer? That would be an interesting proposal, and perhaps one not altogether without merit, but nobody not ethically brain-dead could accept it without examining the implications for other parallel cases, such as the full annals of our own holy Homeland's behavior vis-a-vis Latin America. Perhaps all Monroe Doctrines are improper? Perhaps a Monroe Doctrine is perfectly legitimate even when extended by the likes of M. Ahmadí-Nezhád (or M. Putin) to Azeris and Kazakhs and Turkmenis? Perhaps some Monroe Doctrines are better than others? Who knows? Who is to say?
I do not profess to know the answers to these deep questions off hand, but there seems no good reason why Big Party neocomrade Vasko Kahlenberg shouldn't be forced to worry about them.[5]
God knows best.
_____
[1] (Who?)
[2] The Muscovite Menace angle is, briefly, as follows:
| Iran’s scheme would give Russia some five percent more than what it is by rights entitled to. Given today’s energy prices, this would translate into many millions in extra revenue. Even more important, Ahmadinejad’s scheme would make it more difficult for Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to lay pipelines across the Caspian to transport oil and gas to European destinations. This is especially important to Russia, which holds a virtual monopoly on fuel transport to Europe. |
That will not quicken many pulses either, perhaps, since normal Homelanders scarcely concern themselves with the Old Euros' energy problems, whilst hot-house Party lemmin’s may even take the line that those aggression-averse folks deserve to be screwed. At any rate, if the O.E.s had to pay more for their commuting, and if they realized that evil Qommies and pernicious Putinites are the cause of it, possibly they'd see the beauties of Preëmptive Retaliation more clearly. (Strictly speaking, though, their retaliation would not be preëmptive. Still, better postpreëmptive than not at all!)
[3] The Kohlmayerian pathos may not be entirely reality-based, however. Population ought to be taken into account: Turkemenistan's "comparatively modest resources" may well match those of the evil Qmmies per capita. To be sure, I'm only guessing, but since V. Kohlmayer supplies no figures, such speculation seems not impermissible.
[4] Perhaps it would be better to pass over V. Kohlmayer's unavoidable insinuation that his Boy and his Party have the interests of the Caspian small fry more at heart than the evil Qommies do. Harder-headed wingnuts such as those of Big Oil and Castle Cheney very likely don't much care who they buy the black gunk from or how the natives distribute among themselves such percentage of the loot as accrues to them.
[5] That one can't actually twist his arm to compel his attention is a fact, of course, but it is no good reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment