President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is a lawyer, prides herself on her oratory and has sufficient regard for her own intellectual ability to have once described herself as “totally Hegelian”. We may therefore take her to be a person conscious of the power and meaning of the words with which she chooses to express herself.
In this context I now turn to a detailed examination of those of her remarks to the UN General Assembly in New York yesterday that concerned Argentina’s attempts to have several Iranian suspects extradited so that the Argentine courts can prosecute them for their role in the 1994 bomb attack on the AMIA Jewish community center, an atrocity which killed dozens and wounded hundreds.
I don’t want to finish without referring to a question that has been included in all the speeches made here since 2003 both by President Néstor Kirchner and myself.
A few minutes ago, when I mentioned the question of Palestine, I talked of the authority – if it’s authority it gives us, so to speak – given to us by the fact of having been one of the only two countries in the Americas to have suffered the aggression of international terrorism. This occurred on two occasions, in 1992 with the bombing of the Israeli embassy and in 1994 with the AMIA bombing, the AMIA being one of Argentina’s most important social organizations. And note that I say nothing of it being of the Jewish community but rather that it is an Argentine organization, because it was clearly an attack on Argentina.
The President clearly identifies the AMIA massacre as an attack on Argentina, as a national issue, not one relevant only to a specific community. This is excellent. She also speaks of Argentina as having been endowed with some sort of moral authority by the Israeli Embassy and AMIA attacks. She says nothing about having been the victim of terrorism imposing any duties or obligations on the Argentine state and nation.
We have been requesting that, in accordance with the demands of our courts [la justicia argentina], the Islamic Republic of Iran allow those suspected of some degree of participation in the AMIA attack to be placed at the disposition of our legal system [la justicia].
While the AMIA bombing is seen as an attack on the Argentine nation, the response to that attack is here seen as coming from Argentina’s legal system and not from the nation, which, personified in the President herself, only acts as a mouthpiece for that response.
The polysemy of the Spanish word justicia also leaves a notable degree of wiggle room. The President first speaks of la justicia argentina and there’s no doubt about what that means, but she finishes by using the term la justicia, which I have charitably translated as “our legal system” but which might also be uncharitably understood as referring to some philosophical notion of justice, something different from that administered by judges and courts. I would not have mentioned this ambiguity were it not for the fact that it fits well with the notion of “dialogue” that comes later.
Of course, if the President had said something like “Argentina has been demanding and will continue to demand the extradition of the AMIA suspects”, none of my cavilling here would be viable.
Last year we proposed that if they [the government of Iran] lacked confidence in our legal system then we could follow the Lockerbie model and choose a court in a third country, to be agreed between us, in which to seek the only thing that we have been demanding and that is justice.
Here the President is ill-informed. The Lockerbie trial was carried by a Scottish court under Scottish law. The only thing that was changed to satisfy Libya was the location where the trial was held; the Scottish court sat in the Netherlands.
We focus on this because it is a universal demand with no political aspect and the word “justice” can be found in the Talmud, the Bible and the Koran, and for those who don’t believe in anything, also in the Constitutions of their countries.
And here we’re back to justice as a religious or philosophical idea, not something mundanely administered by courts and lawyers, and note the dig at agnostics and atheists, “those who don’t believe in anything”.
On the 16th of July, the Argentine government received a message from the Iranian Foreign Ministry which expressed its desire to cooperate and initiate a constructive dialogue with Argentina in order to arrive at the truth regarding what happened with regard to the brutal attack on the Jewish community center [mutual israelita] on July 18th, 1994.
The message received from Iran, while it represents a change in the attitude of that government, does not in itself constitute an adequate response to our demands which, as I have said with complete clarity, are for justice. Nevertheless it represents an offer of dialogue which Argentina cannot and will not reject.
So what exactly did the Iranian offer consist of? If you search the July 18th edition of the Tehran Times you’ll find the full statement. It completely rejects the validity of Argentina’s investigation into the attack, says that there are no circumstances in which it will extradite its citizens and that it wants to help Argentina find the “real culprits”. That’s the offer of dialogue which the President thinks Argentina “cannot and will not reject”. Note also that the President only sees the dialogue as not being an adequate response “in itself” to Argentina’s demands, she doesn’t rule out it forming part of, or leading to such a response.
And why the use of the word israelita, which can mean either “Jewish” or “Israeli”? Wasn’t the AMIA atrocity an attack on Argentina?
We are here demanding dialogue with the United Kingdom and dialogue between all those who make up this organization. Argentina does so in the context of complying with its obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means, an attitude which has characterized it throughout its history.
While the President, with certain reservations, accepts Iran’s offer of dialogue, an offer based on a flat Iranian rejection of Argentina’s demands, in the same speech she threatened to interrupt civil aviation links with the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas and take further unspecified measures if Britain continues to refuse to discuss the question of sovereignty. The contrast with her supine attitude to Iran is noteworthy.
None of this should be taken to mean that the Republic of Argentina is setting the requirements of its courts to one side with regard to the prosecution of those suspected of committing that outrage.
Excellent, but the Iranian offer of dialogue is based on a root and branch rejection of the Argentine courts’ investigation into the atrocity. So what exactly will there be to talk about? Note also the demands are seen as coming from Argentine courts, rather than from Argentina itself.
In any case that is not something we can do as it is the responsibility of the judges and prosecutors.
Either the President is affirming her belief in the separation of powers or she is providing herself with further wiggle room in the dialogue with Iran.
What we do say is that the dialogue ought to be constructive and sincere and have credible results and, thus, not be understood simply as a delaying or distracting tactic.
Given the nature of the Iranian offer, it would be interesting to know exactly what the President means by “credible results”. An inter-faith dialogue on the meaning of justice in the Catholic, Jewish and Shiite traditions, perhaps? Or maybe a sort of truth and reconciliation commission in which the families of the victims and the killers can show that they have overcome old resentments and conclude by issuing a joint statement emphasising the value of cross-cultural and inter- religious dialogue?
Naturally the claque of Argentine Jewish community leaders that accompanied the President on her trip to New York declared they were entirely satisfied with her speech.
And Argentina’s trade relations with Iran are enjoying spectacular growth.
1 Response to “Cristina Kowtows To The Ayatollahs”