Also, how far do we perceive other people's local issues through our own particular interests? To what extent are we spoon-fed one-sided coverage of local issues by transnational networks and media? Whether it is intellectual, political or military meddling, whether it is done through new or relatively old means of communication, does this interference help to disseminate accurate information, and thus equip people with the means to bring about peaceful coexistence?
Let's consider two current cases and try to deduce our own and others' interests in them.
In the first case, on June 12 Ahmadinejad officially won the Iranian presidential election by a margin of two to one against Mousavi. Mousavi's supporters claimed the election was rigged and organized demonstrations. A partial recount did not help, and protests and a crackdown, both resulting in injuries and fatalities, ensued. A young woman was shot during the skirmishes and at lightning speed became a symbol of the opposition via a cellphone video recording. Much of the media coverage of events seems to have been gleaned from Twitter.
In the lesser known case, for two months native Indians have been clashing with police in Peru. The Indians are demanding the repeal of a government decree that allows further oil exploration, commercial farming and logging in the indigenous people's lands. In the clashes, 34-40 natives and 23 police officers have been killed. Sixty more indigenous people are missing. An indigenous leader of the protests fled the country to Nicaragua, from where he continues the struggle. There has been no Twitter campaign for him yet.
The media coverage and political involvement in the Iranian and Peruvian cases exhibit stark differences. It is important to examine how the particular and local becomes general and transnational and binds our emotions and intellects. How do the pervasive pictures and discourse affect our attitudes on the issues? Is this intellectual and emotional invasion bringing solutions to our common problems or proving more problematic in the long run?
Western governments are recalling their ambassadors from Iran. International intervention in Iran is discussed as if it were an option. It seems that when any political group which does not please the West wins an election in another country, Western powers feel free to cut political ties or intervene in the other country's domestic matters. Yet, when the killing of a female protestor is enough to bring talk of intervention by super powers in Iran, does Peru face international intervention? Far more people have been killed there so far.
In the run-up to the election, Western media, governments and NGOs supported Mousavi against Ahmadinejad. They were bold in their estimates that Mousavi would win by a wide margin, claiming, for example, that he was widely supported by women. In any event, Ahmadinejad won more women's votes. But my focus here is the meaning of the global, not the local, action. Intellectuals are now asking if all the external support for Mousavi in fact helped Ahmadinejad win. The next question must be whether that was the intended outcome or not. That is, were Western and Eastern minds manipulated by the Western media and discourse, and if so, to what extent? Could it be true that Western power lobbies do not really want Ahmadinejad replaced by an alleged reformer? Why are the expectations of the millennialists in both East and West so attached to Iran and to belligerent theocratic leaders? How different did analysts assume Iran under Mousavi would be compared to the previous government? Could the revolutionary forces and theocratic leaders allow Mousavi to act in accordance with Western alignments? These are serious questions for the media.
I am offering no support for any leader or regime here. My point here is how people have been misled by the media coverage of the Iranian elections. Whether or not media agencies share ulterior motives of vested interests, media coverage too often works against moderation and developing effective and non-violent solutions to problems in the Middle East and other parts of the world. The coverage of these elections, with their protest banners in English sending messages to Western powers, as if the media has a duty to overthrow a person elected by the people, further isolates Iran and encourages polarization locally and globally. The current regime will use the coverage to affirm its own ideology and grip on power. The coverage will not help the reformists in Iran.
To conjecture about future developments based on Twitter messages or unverified cellphone coverage of partisan activists may not be sensible. We must ask why Peruvians killed by police bullets or assaults with spears and machetes by indigenous people are not at all iconic and pervasive in our minds and monitors. Perhaps if the indigenous Peruvians were given electronic gadgets to post on Twitter, we might expect future interventions there, too. But I won't hold my breath while I'm waiting.
