The Counterrevolutionary Perspective

A long time ago, when I was too young to be interested in politics, the Cuban government labeled me as a "counterrevolutionary." I had nothing to do with it. It was my parents' decision to take me off the communist island to become a refugee in the United States. But that was enough for my homeland to consider me an enemy.

In retrospect, of course, I think my parents' decision was brilliant. Once I became fully aware of the atrocities of the Cuban Revolution, I became a proud counterrevolutionary.

I know. It's not as romantic as being considered a rebel. But when revolutions become repressive regimes — as they often do — counterrevolutionaries become the real freedom fighters. And they are the ones who deserve our support and admiration.

And that's how I've viewed the images coming through my television out of Iran during the past few days. As the TV anchors announced that we could be seeing the beginning of a counterrevolution there, the people of Iran got my undivided attention and solidarity.

As they protested against what they perceived as a rigged election, risking their lives in violent clashes with police, I couldn't help myself; I was rooting for my fellow counterrevolutionaries. And as an American citizen, proud to live in a country that shines like a beacon of liberty for the whole world, I expected my government to stand up for freedom and democracy without hesitation.

Yet I was amazed by the slow and weak response from the Obama administration. Our government is so paranoid about getting Iran to agree to pursue a peaceful nuclear program that it forgot to question how some 40 million handwritten ballots could have been counted in a few hours in Iran during the weekend and how a winner could have been determined so fast.

While other world leaders were questioning Friday's re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and expressing "serious concerns" about his regime's violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators, the Obama administration was taking a wait-and-see approach, which shamefully minimized our role as the world's champion of freedom.

The official Iranian election results gave Ahmadinejad nearly 63 percent of the vote, while only 34 percent went to his main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who, although still conservative, had vowed to liberalize Iranian society, especially for the youth and for women.

If the election results had been closer, perhaps they would be more believable. Even though Ahmadinejad clearly has a strong following, the way in which he won — sweepingly, even among the youth and other sectors in which he is not popular — shows that there had to be fraud.

Besides, a violent crackdown on the opposition is not the way that a winner would act unless he stole the election.

German officials said the military crackdown was "completely unacceptable." The French government summoned Iran's ambassador and asked for an explanation. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the British Parliament the Iranian regime "must address the serious questions which have been asked about the conduct of the Iranian elections" and noted that "the way the regime responds to legitimate protests will have implications for Iran's relationships with the rest of the world in (the) future."

Yet after a delay of crucial days, when the Iranian freedom fighters needed to hear that they had the support of the United States, all we heard from President Barack Obama were vague statements that showed he wants to land on both sides of the fence.

Instead of immediately siding with Iran's new freedom and democracy movement, Obama finally told reporters Monday that Iranian voters have a right to feel their ballots mattered. "It would be wrong for me to be silent on what we've seen on the television the last few days," he said.

Well, duh!

Instead of denouncing the Ahmadinejad regime for stealing the election and calling for an independent probe, Obama seemed willing to accept the investigation that will be conducted by Iran's Guardian Council, which is sure to be a whitewash. Instead of conveying our strong solidarity with the people demonstrating on the streets of Tehran, Obama seems to be more concerned with making friends with their oppressors.

We seem to be saying that as long as Iran's leaders don't make nuclear weapons, we are willing to overlook the freedom and human rights they deny to their people.

Because Ahmadinejad is bound to win this battle and we will have to continue to deal with him in the future, some Democrats apparently are not eager to support the demonstrators, a shameful position for the United States. Some of them argue that U.S. support could actually hurt the Iranian opposition because Ahmadinejad then could accuse his opponents of being pawns of the United States. It's a good try, but it's hogwash. Those people need at least our moral support!

If we don't stand up for freedom, who will?

Unless Obama starts using stronger language to condemn the recent developments in Iran, he will be helping to legitimize an election that had no independent monitoring and illogical results. He will be caving in to an avowed enemy of the United States and betraying the freedom aspirations of the Iranian people who want to follow our beacon of liberty.

More than 47 years have passed since my parents brought me, at the age of 11, to the United States in search of the precious freedom I enjoy today as an American. But whenever and wherever people fight against oppressors disguised as revolutionaries, I go back in time to my native Cuba and become a proud counterrevolutionary all over again.

To find out more about Miguel Perez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.