Friday, 18 January 2008

A little Politics

I was watching CNN the other day, a correspondent was giving a report from Saudi Arabia about this trip that president of the United States had to the country. The broadcaster based in the studio asked the reporter: "If president Bush has talked or is going to talk about the human right conditions in Saudi Arabia with the king of this country?"( He referred to the latest news about that Saudi Arabian woman meanwhile). The correspondent's response was: "Well, this topic is a very sensitive matter to be talked directly and we need to be more careful in such terms".

That was the most ridiculous thing that I've heard recently. Saudi Arabia in terms of human rights and rights of women is way too strict and difficult compared to a country like Iran. How come they suddenly become concern of not talking about this matter while this topic is something that they use to put Iran on headlines most of the time! Human rights violation is dreadful no matter which person or government commits it. No matter where, when and how it happens, it must always be cried out loud, right?!


Frieda said...

human rights issues in saudia Arabia is talked about in American media (specially more after 9/11), what the reporter meant was Bush not talking about it directly to the king...I am sure same protocol would be following if he has visitng iran.

BEHI said...

Dear Frieda,
About all the political steps between countries and concerns that should be considered in such things I'm not an expert nor interested but the thing is that to me all these topics such as human rights, freedom of speech,...are something to make all the diplomatic claims between countries sensible. When the president of Iran was attacked and insulted "directly" by the president of Columbia University about all these exact terms then it doesn't make much sense to me anymore why another one shouldn't- I don't like "Ahmadi nejad" and have tons of matters to criticize him more than anyone else who is from another nationality- but it seems very clear to me all the diplomatic relationships-especially with middle eastern countries- are based in national benefits and topics like human rights are only playing their roles like catalysts to make this show ethnic and acceptable.


arthemis said...

Am I too late to comment, Mrs. Behi?
As much as I agreed with your post, that ALL human rights violations ANYWHERE in the world SHOULD be mentioned, I would turn your last comment around on your response to Frieda: I think that political and economic interests make Western countries pick and choose which coutry's human rights violations they are going to speak of, as opposed to human rights being only an excuse for attacks based on other reasons.