Further to this recent post about the setting up of a joint Argentine-Iranian commission to look into the AMIA massacre of July 1994, there's a forthright piece by Dante Caputo, Argentine academic and former diplomat, about the agreement that established the commission. Caputo says that it 'will have no judicial value'; it is, rather, 'a parody of justice'. He says, too, that Argentine President Kirchner's description of the agreement as 'historic' may be right, but this is only because it 'will certainly leave a historic stain on Argentina'. Also of interest is what Caputo writes in the following passage:
A couple of years ago, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Cuba. These four countries' governments, which claim to be progressive, received - without a hint of concern - a leader who denies the Holocaust; beat, jailed, repressed, and killed protesters who objected to the fraudulent election that brought him a second term in office; and flaunts his contempt for individual liberties, with gay Iranians particularly vulnerable.
Why do some leftists find Iran's reactionary, homophobic president so seductive? Are they enthusiastic simply because he opposes the US? Does being anti-American excuse all sins and justify all friendships? Maybe the answer is simpler: often, it is not shared ideas and values that bring individuals together, but rather power and money.
The questions, anyway, are all too familiar. (Thanks: HG.)