Iran's prime minister dies in helicopter accident - Should we express sympathy over the death of a mass killer?
Should we send condolence letters when ruthless dictators and tyrants pass away? Is it acceptable to stay silent instead, or even tell the truth? Literally, "May the dead rest in peace" is the Latin quote - a challenging situation for state leaders!
Cheering out loud when Iran's leader, Raisi nicknamed "Butcher of Tehran," doesn't survive a helicopter crash doesn't constructively contribute to the conversation.
However, not sending any condolence messages or letters seems inappropriate in the international sphere. Even the worst villains from the 20th century received condolences:
▶︎ The death of Adolf Hitler in Berlin's ruins in 1945 - imagine! Ireland's government leader, de Valera, went to the German embassy to express condolences.
Schmidt and Strauss and Mao
Today's situation isn't the same, obviously. Nevertheless, leaders all over the world showed condolences for other power-hungry killers. For example, Mao, the "China Butcher" responsible for the deaths of 76 million people:
▶︎ The German Chancellor, Schmidt (SPD), telegraphed to China, "[Mao] will live on in the consciousness of your people and the world as one of the shapers of world historical development." Schmidt claimed to have had a lasting impression from a conversation.
▶︎ The CSU leader, Strauß, went even further: "I am deeply saddened". Moreover, he conveyed his "personal sympathy" for this "great loss." Mao, the greatest mass murderer of our era, was "a politician and statesman, as a philosopher and poet, one of the great personalities of our century." He was "the heart and driving force of China," setting new standards in the continuously changing world. Respect for his historical significance was warranted.
How the Americans Do It
Such praise for ruthless butchers would be unthinkable now. The New York Times has compiled a list of the USA's messages upon the death of tyrants and dictators:
► Venezuela's Hugo Chavez (2013): Obama stated, "As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to promoting democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights." No sympathy mentioned. Message: If you continue to act this way, we'll stay your enemy.
► Cuba's Fidel Castro (2016): Obama declared, "History will record and judge the enormous impact this unique figure had on the people and the world around him." Message: history will be the judge. Tone: detached recognition.
► North Korea's Kim Jong-il (2011): Obama was silent this time. Instead, he phoned South Korea's president to discuss the situation on the Korean peninsula. Message: not acknowledging.
► Russia's Joseph Stalin (1953, 40-60 million dead): Then-US President Eisenhower remarked, "America's thoughts are for all the people of the USSR - men, women, boys, and girls. They are children of the same God who is the Father of all nations - regardless of government personalities." Message: acknowledging the victims.
The Iran Difference
So, the Iranian despot and ex-blood judge Raisi is different. Differences between America and Germany.
WASHINGTON: US President Joe Biden remained silent. The same for US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. However, his spokesperson announced publicly that condolences had been sent. The spokesperson's statement was cold as it got: "We regret any loss of life. We don't want anyone to die in a helicopter crash." Pause. "That's it."
BERLIN: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz clinically remarked, "...the news... has reached us ..." (a mere taking note). However, condolences were bestowed - to the "government of the Islamic Republic of Iran." But by whom?
Read also:
- The 15-year-old murderer admits to fatally shooting Francesco, who was 14.
- Schalke's pressure has affected Terodde.
- Columbia University Faces Possible Expulsion Following Demonstrations
- Football turmoil in Munich: Last-minute penalty stuns Bayern
Source: symclub.org
