Peter Beaumont has an interesting article on Iran that notes how our understanding of the local complexities must trump simplistic perceptions shaped by our own foreign policy assumptions. A valuable lesson, though Beaumont commits the same sin when he artificially divides foreign policy debates into two camps, so that he can pose as the voice of sense.
Of value in his article is the lack of knowledge that we have in the Iranian regime. That Iran is an Islamist conservative state with wider freedoms, though severely circumscribed, than is commonly supposed, must be accepted. This has allowed space for a democratic pillar to develop as a channel for aspirant social mobility and as a safety valve for the competing interests within the elites. When the inherent clash between the revolutionary drive of the rulers and the risk of a democratic vote endangering their goals emerged, a crisis of legitimacy was assured. For Khameini and Ahmedinejad, the crisis preceded and precipitated their decision to rig the election, leading to the current conflict.
Many of the demonstrators want reform and counter-revolution; the maintenance of the Islamic republic without pursuing the destabilising geopolitical foreign policy of the hardliners. Some want a liberal democracy and a westernised state. The current clash over the future of the Islamic Republic of Iran posits a revolutionary hardline or the transition to a post-revolutionary polity.
What an unpleasant choice for libertarians in Iran: an unstable, brittle Islamic dictatership or a republic progressing towards an illiberal democracy. It isn’t a choice. Support is required for the courage of the demonstrators as the value of freedom exercised has the potential for effecting more radical change.
It’s none of our business. It certainly isn’t a matter for the west or anyone else outside to interfere.
Are there any libertarians in Iran? There are hardly any anywhere else in the world. I’d have thought the number in Iran was vanishingly small and unlikely to have any strength to exert influence anyway.
Yes, it’s Mullah or Mullah-Lite.
There may be quite a misperception of the underlying emotions and motivations giving rise to the current events in Iran.
As likely as any other factor may be the widespread sense that the individual is to have no significance in the matters of their governance. This is odd in a society whose major religious tenets hold otherwise as to the relation of the individual to ultimate divine authority.
Of course, that happens in the “democratic process,” and has been reflected in periodic declines in voter turnout where individuals come to sense that they will have no effect on the trend of things.
It is possible that the events do not so much reflect a desire to escape totally from present authority as they do an underlying need for individual significance to be recognized by authority.
I don’t understand the point. You mean to say that the demonstrators aren’t demanding a fully libertarian regime, therefore we should “keep out” and stay neutral as Oboma is doing ?
If so then bs.
The current regime in Iran is a profoundly evil one. Anything that will replace it will necessarily be better.
Whether we know something about Iran or don’t – we can’t be indifferent toward the heroic struggle for more liberty.
We should do, vigorously, what we can, to help: i.e. pour out a stream of pixels condemning the murderous and insane regime, and praising the undisputed courage of the demonstrators.
Keeping silent or neutral, at this point, is evil.
After reading the linked article I say: bs. squared.
There is one remarkable sentence in that article:
(I don’t know what he means by “dissenting left”).
Yes, the left, including Obama, are backing Ahmedinajad.
That is as pure and stark an evil as you can get.
Peter Beaumont is doing the same. Under a veneer of sophistication and apparently clever words – he is pushing bs.: i.e. – the idea that there is no difference between the two camps.
Maybe there isn’t (Idon’t think so) – it does not matter. Bringing down the insane Ahmed… and the mullahs with him, is a worthy cause.
Musavi may have started as a “fundamentalist” (the only way you could get to be a candidate there), but he is being swept by the events, and changing.
I repeat: to stay neutral, to “keep out” is evil.
We should speak out against oppression, and encourage those who seek even a bit of more freedom.
Rich and his ilk may oppose intervention, physical intervention. Ok., I can see their point. But speaking up is required. Keeping quiet is evil.
I’m conflicted about the situation in Iran in so many ways.
a part of me hopes that the current Khameini/Amehdinejad regime cracks down of the demonstrators in the manner of the Chinese and Tianemen, showing the world exactly what kind of a poisonous and evil regime they really are. I realise that this may be an offensive and deeply immoral stance to some, but it may be the only way to get the universal opprobium of the world focussed on the regime. Another part of me (the dominant one) hopes that the demonstrators do manage to affect some real change in Iran and bring some sanity the country. Pressure from outside is not going to make an awful lot of difference, it is in the hands of the Iranians themselves to resolve this, and whether this involves bloodshed or not is ultimately up to them.
As to the various foreign policies of the west towards the situation I find them to be cowardly in the extreme. If you sit on the fence too long you’re going to end up with a post up your ass, and this post may well be armed with nuclear weapons in the not to distant future. Khameini and Amehdinejad should be condemned in the strongest of terms, but none of our govenments seem to have the guts to do so unequivocally.
Who is this “we” of which you speak?
The only significant lesson to be learned from a history of meddling in the affairs of other nations is that it has unintended consequences, which appear to be more likely to be negative than positive for “us”. Just as the hardest thing to convince anyone of on the home front is that Do Nothing is the best government policy, we should apply that same rule abroad.
Good luck with that. I do agree with the gist of your comment though. And, what Jacob said.
“Who is this “we” of which you speak?”
It is you, Ian B.
To see a desperate and courageous struggle for some kind of freedom and to say: “I dunno, maybe” – that is evil.
I can understand the left, them of the Stalin-Hitler pact, I can understand why they would be “neutral”. They are evil, I know them.
I can’t understand you.
I don’t expect you to go and volunteer to fight alongside the protesters, but I don’t see how you can keep intellectually and sentimentally aloof.
Jacob et al. –
Consider that what we are observing (from outside) are demonstrations of resentment not revolution.
Oh please, This isn’t a grand battle between good vs evil. It’s one Muslim jerk vs another Muslim jerk.
O what bull shit !
RSS: “of resentment not revolution.”
Seems you are very knowledgeable! What words!!. How can you tell??
People are fed up with a tyrannical regime. That is plain. They fight and die to bring it down. That is to be applauded.
Nobody’s a prophet and wise enough to tell what regime will come afterwards. The French revolutionaries didn’t know they will get Robespierre.
This regime needs to be brought down.
I can’t see how one can fail to appreciate that, and the courage and desperation of the protesters.
M,
I don’t know you but the jerk is you.
Even Muslims are people, not jerks, most of them anyway.
Ian B,
As to the involvement of HMG, there is nothing to be afraid about. They are mentally and physically impotent.
Still, they could have afforded some words of encouragement, like those said by Angela Merkel, who seems to know something about oppressive regimes.
How many Iranians do you want to die to get one mad fucker replaced by another mad fucker?
Ian B.
Sorry Ian, you make no sense.
You (and I), we have no way of knowing what will come next.
The people fight tyranny. They hope for a better regime. They are ready to die for it. It’s something we should honor.
It is extremely dumb and cynical to say: “your sacrifice is in vain, you’re too dumb to establish a better regime. Keep slaving on”.
Anyway, since this regime is so wicked and crazy, there is a good chance that the next one will be less so.
Ian, by that line of thinking, you shouldn’t try and get rid of Broon, or I shouldn’t try and get rid of the big O – who knows what mad fuckers will replace them?
I agree with Ian B.
I am an American, and have never read the British Constitution (is there such a thing? What is an unwritten Constitution, anyway?) but I know that the American Government has no authority to take any action regarding Iran, because Iran is not U.S. territory, and Iranians are not American. They just aren’t. May the best gang of thugs win: I’m sitting out.
It’s really interesting to hear “conservatives” claiming that because Iranians are “needy” that they have some sort of claim to my life. The warrant for my existence is the fact of my existence. I need no further justification to exist, and my existence does not carry a responsibility to solve other people’s problems.
Rich, speaking only for myself here, I am not arguing for the US Government’s military action against Iran, at least not at this point, as the threat may not yet be clear and present enough (UK may be a different matter). I am merely talking about moral support from individuals such as those commenting here, who are all self-proclaimed champions of liberty. Of course, some only value liberty as it applies to them and their kin. I understand that position, but I don’t share it (an understatement there).
And I’m sure all those liberals and socialists that helped overthrow the Shah of Iran believed that back in 1979 just before the Ayotollahs made pretty clear who was now going to be boss. And I suppose many of those who helped overthrow Louis XVI and Nicholas II believed it too.
Anyway, if Mousavi does manage to get to power, and inevitably fails to live up to your jacobin ideals, I’m sure you’ll soon be denouncing him and his supporters as ‘wicked and crazy.’
Rich, (and others)
If you value liberty as an idea, as an ideal, you should rejoice whenever anybody fights for it. If you’re indifferent toward a struggle for liberty, you are a zombie.
As I said to Ian, I’m not demanding that you go there and fight with them. God forbid that you should sacrifice anything, but I expect people who proclaim to value liberty to express their sympathy for other people who are actually fighting for it.
M,
The possibility that the next regime will turn sour certainly exists.
But that should not prevent us from trying to topple this one, and from feeling sympathy (and expressing it) toward people who are struggling for more freedom.
and M,
The current regime IS wicked and crazy.
It’s not that I’m just calling it names.
Your remark implies that you are too broad minded, and diversity oriented.
If the next regime will be wicked and crazy too, I will denounce it, too.
I’m with Ian. Keep in mind that Mousavi was an insider not too long ago. It’s hard to imagine there’s much difference between him and the current bunch. It should also be pointed out that this election doesn’t really have the power to change policy much in Iran, as all decisions of the elected government have to be approved by the council of clerics, who are not elected and cannot be removed from power.
Jacob – you might want to tone down the rhetoric a bit. Some of the people here are not as insensitive as you seem to think them – they’re just not keen on being part of encouraging anyone to get brutalized by the police over something that is, from our point of view, essentially pointless. See the point above – you seem to be overestimating the impact any election in Iran can have, even if the clerics do end up letting Mousavi in office. Naturally this doesn’t say anything about those individuals’ choices; they should do what they think is right. But I don’t think ill of anyone not necessarily wanting to encourage them from abroad.
The Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians select the candidates – so the idea that Iran has a “democratic pillar” is false.
In this case the-powers-that-be in Iran went another step – selecting who would win the election rather than allowing the semifarce of allowing the people to choose between the candidates that had been selected for them. That has caused trouble – not so much because the candidate who was robbed of victory is much good (if he was he would not have been selected) but on “straw that broke the camel’s back” grounds – it is just one insult too many.
By the way the President of Iran and the Revolutionary Guard that support him are in no way “conservative” in the context of the Shia Islam.
In fact the whole system is NOT conservative.
In economic policy there is no historical theological backing for price controls, subsidies, and endless credit money inflation – this is all modern stuff.
And in traditional Shia practice in Iran believers had a CHOICE of religious authorities.
The concept of a “Supreme Leader” who would monopolize theological judgement and religious courts is a concept that is quite modern and has nothing to do with Shia practice as it was traditionally in Iran/Persia.
“How does this effect us”.
Partly because Iran is strategically important (which is why the attempted Soviet front man take over in 1953 could not be accepted).
And partly because the present regime (which came to power because Preident James Earl Carter backstabbed the Shah) wishes to have nuclear weapons. And it wishes to have nukes so that the world can be “cleansed with fire” so that the 13 (or hidden) Iman may come to rule the world.
Rothbardians please note – “the world” includes the United States.
The United States does not exist on another planet from where it can ignore such things as the Nazis, the Soviets, or the Iranian regime.
It now dawned on me that maybe the writers and commenters here aren’t supporters of oppresion, but are just terribly wrong and uninformed on the nature of the Iran protests.
This is not a fight between Mussavi supporters and Ahmedinajad supporters. This whole “election fraud” is just a pretext for the protesters.
The Iranian people live under an oppressive and totalitarian regime, and the great majority abhor it, but are powerless under it’s boot.
They just grabbed the oportunity of the election to try to topple the regime. Mussavi is irrelevant, except as a figurehead, or just as a pretext. Nobody can predict what the next regime might be.
If the protesters prevail (big if) then it’s the end for the ayatollahs. The ayatollahs know it, and they fight for keeps.
The good people here, on this blog, who say: “Mussavi, Ahmedi.. – it’s all the same” – they are just uninformed. Go read your stuff, the internet is full of it.
Care to point us to a starting point? Because most of the stuff I come across says exactly that, if you read it critically.
Paul –
Is Mousavi going to abandon the nuclear power (*cough* weapons *cough*) program if he is allowed to win the election? Does he have the power to do so even if he wants to?
This is quite likely about ending a theocracy.
Of course, Mid.
Joshua, go read Pajams media, Michael Ledeen, Instapundit and the endless links there.
Even the MSM (NY Times) are full of it.
Far more sensiblelinks.
Joshua, regardless of Mosavi’s merits or lack of them (of which at least I am ignorant) for the purpose of the following point: it’s not the nukes that are the problem, it’s the nature of the regime that has them.
Jacob –
I’ve just had a look at Instapundit and come up with 13 links about Iran in the blog’s headlines, exactly none of which give any indication that Mousavi is a figure worth getting beaten up by the police over, and only one of which (this one) even contains any believable speculation that this is going anywhere.
Here’s the breakdown:
2 are video links to the protests. So – protests are happening. This we know. Uninformative.
1 is a link about the Iranian Women’s movement – which as a special interest group hardly qualifies as the voice of the movement.
1 is a report from someone helping to set up the internet links that get news out of the country. Again, inconclusive on the matter of whether Mousavi will change anything.
1 is a story in the NY Times about the internet blackout in Iran. Obviously completely uninformative about what kind of change Mousavi supposedly represents.
1 is yet another post on the “Angel of Iran,” this woman who died in the protests. This is informative only as a reason people should be sure they are demonstrating for something worthwhile before they demonstrate in such countries, it does not go to the point of whether Mousavi is worth demonstrating about.
1 is an interview with a student who claims the movement is about regime change, followed by a link to an expert who says students frequently claim this in Iran without success.
1 is an article about western corporations that supply surveilance equipment to Iran.
1 is an interview with Glen Reynolds, who is not an expert on Iran.
1 is a report on voting irregularities – to wit, the vote count had the typical Chicago inflation factor. That there was corruption, however, is not news – the question before the court is whether Mousavi is significantly less corrupt.
1 is a completely irrelevant past example of a student having been brutalized by the regime in 1999.
1 is a rehash of the Revolutionary Guard’s threats against the protestors. No news on whether they would be better behaved if Mousavis is allowed to win.
I admit that I could have read some of this more closely, so perhaps I am missing something. As is stands, however, there is nothing on Instapundit to back up your claim that evidence that this election could actually make a difference to anyone is “all over” the internet. You could, of course, save us all a bunch of time by simply supplying an actual link to an informative article or two on the subject yourself. Would you please?
Alisa –
Ok, then I rephrase my question. Is there any evidence that allowing Mousavi to win will change the character of the regime significantly? I haven’t seen any. Jacob says he has read articles “all over” the internet that make this “blindingly obvious,” but he has yet to supply any actual links to any of these articles. I hope he does soon, as I am rather keen to believe that the people currently being brutalized in Iran are achieving something more than geting on television and giving Michelle Malkin something else to get self-righteous about.
One thing I should add is that my cynicism towards Mousavi and his supporters protesting and rioting is based on the fact that we’ve seen similar ‘reformers’ and ‘liberators’ and their movements in recent years that westerners have fawned over, only to eventually find out that they are very shabby. The Kosovo Liberation Army, Yushchenko and Tymoshenko in Ukraine, Saakashvili in Georgia, Karzai in Afghanistan, Benazir Bhutto/Asif Ali Zardari in Pakistan, Nelson Mandela in South Africa all spring to mind.
Joshua, you did not rephrase the question, but rather asked a different – and much more interesting one, which has already been asked numerous times, with no conclusive answer (surely not from me, as I have already declared myself ignorant on the subject). But:
M, South African case does in fact represent an instance where there has been an actual improvement in the overall conditions of the people in the country. Very far from satisfactory, but still an improvement. Ukraine and Georgia are in the wrong category here as they were not apartheid/theocratic police states prior to their respective revolutions. Kosova is in the wrong category, as the issue there was independence from foreign rule, not a political change. Afghanistan is also in the wrong category, but for an opposite reason, as Korzai did not come to power (if you can even call it power) through popular uprising, but through foreign occupation. Still, if we could be assured that Mosavi is willing and able take Iran through a similar degree of improvement that, say, Afghanistan went through, that would be nothing to sneeze at.
Now again, I don’t know whether Mosavi is such a person, but I’d like to make two points: one is that where Iran is now, there is much more room for improvement than there is for deterioration. Second point: as tragic as it is that people get killed in protests that could well turn out to be futile, we have to remember that they are doing it out of their free will. And before anyone jumps in with “but are they making an informed decision”, I’d tend to assume that as poorly informed as they may be, they are still better informed than any of us here.
Most important of all: when people anywhere express their opinion and are willing to fight and even die for it (given that said opinion does not involve oppressing any other people), they should get moral, if not physical support from anyone with a consience.
M,
Your link to Taki’s magazine is all crappy rants about “narcissist neocons” , he’s an ignorant leftie, who knows, and says, nothing at all about Iran.
Joshua – did you follow Midwesterner’s link above?
Or this Amir Taheri(Link) piece (he’s Irani born):
“Within just a few days, all institutions of the state have ceased to function properly.”
And why don’t you google Michael Ledeen?
etc., etc.
You should work on your internet capabilities.
M
“we’ve seen similar ‘reformers’ and ‘liberators’ and their movements in recent years”
So, can we deduce from this sentence that you are opposed, in principle, to all uprisings and revolutions?
That’s nonsense.
Why don’t you read about Iran instead of basing your opinions on Taki’s rants?
Jacob –
Midwesterner’s link is in fact the same one that is in my comment.
Amir Taheri in the link you provide certainly seems to think that this is more important than just the election, so I’ll count this as an article that makes the points that you say are “all over” the internet in “blindingly obvious” places. However, it should be pointed out that Taheri gives several reasons in his article why this will not turn into 1979. On the whole, he doesn’t seem to hold much hope that this is going to bring down the regime.
I do wonder why you sent me on a wild goose chase to Instapundit if you had actually read the page and knew that there would be nothing there of interest. It would have been much simpler to simply link the Taheri article to begin with. It should also be pointed out that one article plus one you got from Midwesterner does not constitute evidence that credible speculation that these protests have the will and potential to make a real difference is “all over” the internet in “blindingly obvious” ways. As usual, you are indulging in hyperbole about subjects of which you in fact know little.
Alisa –
Nevertheless, it is not clear that Mousavi represents an improvement of any kind, let alone one significant enough to be worth taking to the streets for. As you say later in your comment, that is a decision for the people doing the protesting to make for themselves – which was rather Ian’s original point.
It’s the “given” in the parenthetical that is the stickler here. If Mousavi represents “more of the same, only perhaps a bit less so,” then he is not an improvement worth dying or even getting beaten for.
I’m inclined to agree with you that the benefit of the doubt goes to the people marching in the streets, and that it’s in any case certainly not wrong to express support for them. I definitely agree that they know much more about the situation than I do, and it goes without saying that it matters more to them than to us – at least in the short term. At the same time, the mere fact that people are out marching should not be mistaken for evidence that anything is going on we should get our hopes up about. It might well be that something important is going on, but at the moment the weight of the evidence seems to be that this election is fairly meaningless in the scheme of things, that the protests will not succeed in installing Mousavi, that even if they did, very little would change, and that in any case large portions of the protesters are not unhappy with the model of theocratic, anti-western government in general (or probably the nuclear program and foreign policy bluster in particular), it’s more just that they don’t like some of the current beards.
Joshua, I have no concrete proof, but what you are presuming does not sound plausible. I doubt people would be ready to die or even just get beaten over a mere different set of beards. We know for a fact that there has long been real demographic in Iran that opposes the current regime – it has been well documented in various Iranian blogs, and even in the MSM. It seems unlikely that these people would not use such an occasion (even if originally it was about the mere election results) as a wagon to advance their political aspirations, so I am sure they are taking an active part in the protests. Revolutions are like that: lots of bedfellows of different degrees of strangeness. These things are never black and white. As long as there are no signs saying “down with the Jews/Sunnis/Turks/you name it”, they get my moral support. You don’t have to agree.
Alisa –
That depends a great deal on the culture. You would be surprised at the triviality of some of the things that cause political violence in South Korea, to name an example I know something about. My point is not to say that Iranians have a tendency to protest over nothing, but just to say that since some cultures do, I would like to know a bit more about what’s going on before making assumptions that would be obvious if the protestors were Americans(/Britons/Israelis).
I find that convincing. Probably there is a large contingent within the protestors that people who frequent Samizdata could find common cause with, even if it isn’t all or even most of them.
Well, I’m certainly glad I have your permission to disagree with you. I may even exercise this right when all the data is in. 😉
Feel free to do so;-P
Interesting about Korea. And I did say that I am ignorant.
Joshua – as Jacob has already said it is NOT about the candidate who “lost” the election. It is about the people – who used his “defeat” as a reason to voice their hatred of the whole regime.
“Death to the dictator” (often in English) does not mean just the President – it means the Supreme Leader who claims to speak for the 12 Iman (13th if he were to return – although they would say 12th still) and the Guardian Council.
These are the most pro Western (and specically pro American) young people in the Islamic world.
They despise the regime – but the sad thing is they have no real way of fighing it.
It would be unfortuntate if the regime is left in place – and no it will not stop at “just” nuking Israel. That would not be enough for the return of the hidden Iman – American cities must be nuked also.
Still Israel must act if the regime (i.e. the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council and so on) stay in place.
The United States will not work for “regime change” and Israel does not have the means to achieve regime change.
So Israel must concentrate on destroying the Iranian nuclear program.
Which means, if and when the internal resistance in Iran is crushed, the use of armed force.
And as the nuclear bases are buried deep underground that may well mean the use of atomic weapons by Israel to destroy the Iranian nuclear bases before the Iranian weapons have been produced.
Sadly this will give Barack Obama the excuse he needs to totally break with Israel “for the first time since 1945 atomic weapons have been used in war – but this time in an unprovoked suprise attack”.
Not even his Jewish Chief of Staff could object to breaking with the “Zionist enity” (as the man who got Barack Obama into Harvard Law School describes Israel) over this.
Yet Israel will have no other choice – other than to wait to be exterminated.
Such is the world.
Pardon me for being blunt but dear commenters you deserve every bit of my bluntness: what a bunch of self-righteous idiots.
Are people who so reek of self-righteousness supposed to bring change to the world? How about beginning at home? Wouldn’t you mind beginning some critic of the respective systems you yourself live subject to? How about going out and protesting what you see unfit around your own home and letting other people do the same around theirs?
This guy who speaks as if he knows all about Iran and Israel can’t even spell those thingamabubs the Shi’a revere. Those others speak of “beards” and “mullahs” with such haughtiness as if they know for sure their own sorry, powerless asses are better than those of the “beards” and “mullahs.” Or as if their daily Gillette-therapy somehow makes them better…
Oh, and we get a religio-hater, too: the one who so very kindly paints all the “Muslim jerks” with the brush they deserve but somehow systematically forgets about “Jewish jerks” and “Christian jerks.”
Hahaha… I guess you do not read this site very often… we do little else but snarl about the system we live under, but that does not preclude us from also snarling about the fucked up pro-tyranny people we see overseas in Iran, or say Russia for that matter.
Do I see this collective of you protesting on the streets, by demonstrations or anything a tad more pronounced than blogging, somewhere on the soil of any country rather than snarling?
Either side of Iran’s issue, “pro-tyranny” or “pro-freedom,” are resorting to action to further their respective agenda. The collective of you, however, very likely sits somewhere and opines on those other people’s affairs. The self-righteousness comes from that you are not involved in action on either side yet deem yourself worthy of having and expressing opinion. Methinks, without action you are not entitled to your opinion. Less talk, more knowledge, more action–that’d take the stench of self-righteousness out of this.
Actually, if you were taking serious political action on your home soil you wouldn’t allow yourself the luxury of being as ignorant as some commenters above since you’d know the true worth of knowledge about your own place as well as other places. You’d also have less time to be high-handed about what is others’ problem since you’d be busy solving yours.
Actually mate, our writers are a like a who’s who of activists. One of our writers was a courier for a Samizdat in Communist Czechoslovakia, one of our writers is the boss of NO2ID, without a doubt the most effective civil rights lobby in the UK… we have people associated with us who have been on the bleeding edge of anti-statist actions you are never even going to hear about and as we go not give a damn for concepts like ‘national self determination’, we favour anti-government activities everywhere in the world rather than limiting ourself to our own small patch of ground.
Well, for one thing I have no way of verifying, and no intent of doubting, those credentials. Although, your claim to NO2ID’s aura of effect is definitely spurious given the history of more active action groups such as AFA in the UK. Of course, AFA or any other group did not necessarily have the same goals as you but it’s clear they were far more action-oriented than you are or will likely ever be.
For another, I mostly referenced the comments and commenters on this specific post.
And finally, I believe your irreverent attitude towards what you call “national self-determination” is limited to verbal promotion of instability abroad, unwittingly (or?) serving the interests of global power elite (which isn’t a conspiracy, rather a corollary of how economy works). Cue me in if you have ever tried to, or had the guts to think of, promoting instability on your national soil.
As No2ID were overwhelmingly in the lead derailing the entire National ID programme, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.