A peaceful solution?

It began with negative reactions (!) towards Britain's way of dealing in a diplomatic way with the Iranian authorities. That's what caught my eye at first in this hazel over the British sea men held hostage in Iran for crossing Iranian sea territory. Whether they did that or not is a different discussion in itself but what has come to concern me now is, when it comes to the aftermath, that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has blown this event into rather undiplomatic proportions. Don't take me wrong on this. The fact that I'm questioning Mr. Ahmadinejad's measures is only because I wish to entrust him with being capable of thinking in other terms than fighting the Western world e.g. the Devil. Not that I blame him at times but within limits. So anyhow, the aftermath that I'm speaking of here is mainly the fact that Mr. Ahmadinejad, soon after the fifteen British men and women were to be released awarded the three Iranian military men (officers) that captured them. All this while in his speech referring to a contribution to world peace and the Iranian good will as reasons for releasing them (the fifteen British sea men). Hmm...

Suppose that what the British have claimed to be true all along, that they were situated within Iraqi sea borders the whole time, is a fact, you can do nothing but admire the way that this situation have been dealt with. Then I salute the British officials for not listening to president Bush calling for harsher methods (we all know what that means right) but that they'd rather appeal to the United Nations, recognising the immense importance of the dialogue taking place as related to the international peace organ. What hurts though is that the Iranian president looks upon this act as treating Iran and other Arabic and Asian countries in a condescending and racist (!) way. Here, the UN has a long way to go and to work on for future bridge building between countries that label the UN as being the forum for Westernised countries. However, the failure to realize this may in this case draw upon a different point.

Getting back to where I started, my main point with this text was (or turned out to be) this; A dialogue takes place; the British is concerned with solving the situation by diplomatic means; the Iranian president goes along the same line of thought; the fifteen British sea men are to be released - BUT - this is not accomplished through diplomacy being put in practice but, according to Mr. Ahmadinejad, as a result of Iran's good will towards (Western?) men.

My concern is this: If this is the case [Iran being out to demonstrate her good will towards men], why was an argument made out of this event [Fifteen British sea men crossing Iranian sea border] in the first place? If Iran is truly out to demonstrate herself as a contributor of world peace. All this in mind, suppose that what the British have claimed to be true all along is true, that they were situated within Iraqi sea borders the whole time...