- 5 January 2010
-
- 9 Comments
-
-
-
- Diplomacy, Events in Iran, Human Rights in Iran, Iran Election 2009, Sanctions
Chinese Death-Mobiles
5 January 2010 Posted By Patrick Disney
A colleague forwarded these photos of Chinese-made vehicles that appear to be designed for crowd-control, possibly to be used against protesters in Iran.
I think it’s interesting how a lot of the anger at the government’s repression against the protesters is now being directed toward the Chinese for supporting the regime. China has long maintained an amoral foreign policy (that’s amoral, not necessarily immoral) which ignores issues such as human rights and instead takes a coldly rational view of national self-interest. (ie Iran has oil. China needs oil. Period.)
Here lies a fundamental problem with America’s approach to Iran over the past two decades, in which we have relied almost entirely on using sanctions as a strategy unto themselves. Cutting off trade with Iran might raise the cost of doing business for the government a little bit, but it also crowds out any possibility for a positive US influence. This is what George W. Bush meant when he said we have “sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran.” Sanctions are a tactic; not a strategy.
When the US has open trade relations with another country, and that country’s government behaves in a way that we find disagreeable, the US can exercise powerful leverage by threatening to withhold trade until the troubling behavior stops. But when we have no relations with a country — as is the case with Iran — we don’t have the same amount of leverage, and are reduced to casting aspersions from across the Atlantic.
Now, I am not arguing that we lift the embargo on Iran and start trading with Tehran. I am simply pointing out that two decades of broad US sanctions have contributed to the situation we’re in right now, in which Iran is driven directly into the arms of the Chinese, leaving all of us to huff and puff without a thing to do.
9 Responses to “Chinese Death-Mobiles”
Actually, Patrick, these particular armored water cannon vehicles (AWCV) are not the ones currently in use by NAJA (Iran’s police force, or IRIPF).
There was a story last week that these AWCVs were being rush ordered from China to be used against the protesters in Iran. In reality, certain Iranian municipalities already have them in service, but to date there’s no evidence they’ve been activated for riot/crowd control post-2009 election.
For a look at a real NAJA AWCV, see the following:
http://uskowioniran.blogspot.com/2010/01/irans-armored-water-cannon-vehicles-in.html
Please check out this blogpost by homylafayette. It’s an analysis of several videos surrounding another protestor killed on Ashura by a police vehicle (NB, not the protestor killed in Vali Asr square.) It includes videos of her corpse being refused by a government clinic.
http://homylafayette.blogspot.com/2010/01/close-up-medical-center-rejects-body-of.html
@Jimmy:
Thanks for the link. The link also provides Pirouz’s amazing defense of Iranian government in the face of mounting video evidence that it is ruthlessly killing Iranian citizens. He cites beating of police officers by protestors, and suggests the incident is some sort of act of self-defense. To quote, “either an accident or a desperate attempt by police officers to evade an angry mob intent”.
Wow.
Well,
It’s only a matter of time before these trucks will start being used to blast people with hot water and chemicals on innocent protesters as the regime gets more desperate. However, I doubt they will have any real effect when faced with hundreds of thousands people who are just becoming more belligerent due to the government’s increased brutality.
On a side note, everyone has to appreciate the comedy styling of Pirouz, Mark Pyruz, Sargard Pirooz etc etc. It’s almost as if he’s not a government agent at all, but a level-headed person with deep concerns of the well being of Iranians. Kind of reminds of Mohammed Marandi aka Mouth of Sauron trying to act calm and pretending to be unbiased until its starts to become more difficult to rationalize the governments crimes.
@I-A:
Slooooow down, fella. Go to homa’s blog post and reread that comment. It’s no defense. Instead of sharing the same conclusion made by homa, other potential explanations are provided. If you disagree, I suggest you revisit homa’s blog post and offer your own views where it is appropriate.
Patrick, I’ve given this post another lookover and have additional commentary.
These types of AWCVs shouldn’t really be described as “Death-Mobiles”. They do offer a less-lethal form of riot/crowd control. Not too long ago, they were even used by US law enforcement in Seattle, Washington.
Also, you majored in international studies, so you should know that the China-Iran relationship is not solely based on the trade of oil. There are a number of other geopolitical issues at play, including geostrategic considerations, other elements of trade, and additional aspects of trade and industry related to the energy sector.
@ Pirouz
“Slooooow down, fella. Go to homa’s blog post and reread that comment. It’s no defense.”
Really? Here’s an excerpt:
“This second incident [of a protester run over by government forces] could also be explained as either an accident or a desperate attempt by police officers to evade an angry mob intent on seizing the officers and subjecting them to severe beating…”
Or it could be explained as even more evidence of government brutality and repression. A far more likely explanation for any reasonable person who’s been following Iran in recent months. I mean, you’d have to be blind not to notice the willingness of government officials to use disproportionate (and sometimes lethal) violence against non-violent protest and the consistency with which they demonstrate that willingness.
Now, the question is, why is it that against the overwhelming tide of evidence, you choose to interpret every bit of information coming out of Iran in the most flattering of ways for the government and it’s forces?
Consistently providing a narrative, which is unsupported by evidence, that justifies state repression is indeed a defense of that repression and you are fooling no one by claiming otherwise.
@Pirouz
Interesting and significant analysis can only come from an unbiased and neutral source.
You have in a sense “blown-your-cover” with your selective skepticism towards the opposition, and your blind trust in the government’s claims. You have repeatedly placed the burden on the opposition to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of their claims, and assume the government’s claims, which are often even more outlandish than your “analyses”, to be true until proven otherwise. You have conveniently forgot to mention key claims and counter-claims by the opposition, and yet make a point to reiterate bizarre and ridiculous claims made by the government.
Thus, it is not analysis you are providing, but propaganda. It may be the case that you are not even aware of this. After all, people truly believe even more ridiculous things than you. E.g. the Birthers truly believe Obama is not a citizen, and interestingly, often provide the same kind of “analyses”. There so-call analysis regarding the citizenship of Obama is more ridiculous than your so-called analysis of events in Iran, but not as much as you’d like to believe.
You know, folks, a more appropriate place for this discussion is over at the source of this material: homylafayette’s blog. But since you for some reason insist on debating it here:
@Someone:
You’re actually right. It could go both ways. I showed that with the inclusion of additional available evidence, different possibilities exist. Therefore I stated that I did not share homylafayette’s conclusion. Moreover, I did not offer a conclusion of my own.
@I-A:
You’re also right. In fact, right here at niacINsight, I’ve stated that I serve as a sceptic, in many regards. I should also point out that, in the past, homylafayette has personally emailed me for help in interpreting material with which to interpret and analyze. Check the comments section, I’ve even been openly commended for it by the blog owner. And homylafayette is not the only one. Naj over at that neo-resistance blog also, from time to time, asks me for input, especially on Iran military issues- and she is very much Green. As is homylafayette.
Myself, I do not restrict myself to inputs based entirely on matching my own personal political viewpoints. I like to think that’s because I’ve an open mind. And I’m definitely able to be persuaded. A university undergraduate recently pointed out additional photographic evidence that changed my interpretation of more recently obtained evidence.
Agree or disagree, I’m willing to discuss subject matter and interpretation of evidence. But responding to knee-jerk reactions based primarily on emotion- well, this is really getting tedious, fella’s
@Pirouz:
I’m afraid you have mistaken my “call-it-like-I-see-it” reaction as an emotional one. With all due respect, your analysis is nothing short of dishonest. The fact that you may not see that, does not make it any less true. Neither does the fact that you have been asked to provide analysis for Green blogs. Neither does the fact of who you voted for in this election.
To claim your statement, which Someone kindly quoted, is no defense, is at best delusional and at worst dishonest. I would ask you the same thing you asked me– re-read your comments.
Someone made my point better than I did in the following question:
“why is it that against the overwhelming tide of evidence, you choose to interpret every bit of information coming out of Iran in the most flattering of ways for the government and it’s forces?”
To honestly not see that this is exactly and consistently what you do is delusional. To see that this is exactly and consistently what you do, and pretend it is not is dishonest, good fella.