Internationaldouble standardsobjectionable

After Venezuelan President (and dictator wannabe) Hugo Chavez and Iranian President (and Hitler wannabe) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put on their demagogic Third World Comedy Show at the United Nations in New York last month, I wondered how the world would react if the roles were reversed.

Imagine what would happen if President Bush, or any other high-ranking U.S. official, went to Caracas to deliver a speech denouncing Chavez as a megalomaniacal buffoon who is embarrassing his country on the international stage and bankrupting its once-thriving economy. The negative reaction would be immediate and overwhelming, unlike the mostly muted reaction of most Americans to Chavez's diatribe. Perhaps that's because we're good hosts who understand the concept of free speech.

It should also be noted that U.S. taxpayers pay nearly 25 percent of the United Nations' bloated budget, thereby wasting millions of our hard-earned tax dollars. Writing in the September issue of Foreign Service Journal, retired U.S. Ambassador Thomas Boyatt asserted that "there have been numerous verified reports of widespread abuses by U.N. personnel involving sexual and financial extortion" and that millions of dollars have been stolen through the corrupt Oil for Food Program and by officials of the world organization's virtually unsupervised Procurement Office.

I'd compare Chavez's performance in New York to that of a house guest who denounces his or her hosts as horrible people who should be jailed (or worse) for exploiting house guests. I thought of that comparison after the Venezuelan leader took the podium at the U.N. General Assembly to label President Bush as "the devil." That was a bit much, even for some Bush-hating Americans.

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez declared, crossing himself ever so sanctimoniously. "He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world. I can still smell the sulfur." Later, Iran's Ahmadinejad also insulted his American hosts and once again defied U.N. resolutions requiring his country to stop enriching uranium in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

And what were the offensive words that President Bush spoke at the U.N.? He endorsed democracy, expressed his hope that people of the Middle East could "live in freedom" and said that he looked forward to a day when "America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace." He also accused terrorists of trying to justify their violent activities by claiming that the U.S. is waging war against Islam. Dangerous words, that's for sure.

The U.S. was represented by "a junior note taker" as Chavez spoke. Although our outspoken UN Ambassador, John Bolton, acknowledged that the South American visitor had a right to express his opinions, he added that "it's too bad the people of Venezuela don't have free speech," referring to the fact that Chavez has jailed several critics of his authoritarian regime.

After the incendiary U.N. speech, actor Danny Glover and other left-wing nutcases welcomed Chavez to a black church in Harlem, where the Venezuelan repeated his angry denunciations of Bush and Yankee imperialism. So does this mean that it's OK to mount anti-American political rallies in black churches but not OK to hold patriotic rallies in fundamentalist Christian churches? That's just a rhetorical question; personally, I'd like to apply the same rules to everyone and maintain the constitutional separation between church and state.

I also have a question for Ahmadinejad, Chavez & Co.: What other country in the world would permit you to insult its government and its leaders on its home territory? Help me out here because I can't think of any. If any American leader took on Ahmadinejad in Tehran, he'd have a price on his head before he finished speaking because Islamic jihadists kill people who disagree with them.

I found the overheated Muslim reaction to a recent speech by Pope Benedict to be instructive. After the Pope quoted an ancient statement about Islam's alleged propensity for violence, hotheads stirred up the masses even though Benedict explained that the old quote didn't represent his personal views. He even called a meeting of Islamic diplomatic representatives to the Vatican in an attempt to calm the well-orchestrated reaction - all to no avail as Islamic extremists continued to fan the flames of hate throughout the Muslim world.

For example, the official newspaper of Hamas - the elected government of the Palestinian Authority - published a cartoon showing the Pope holding a Nazi swastika while wearing a scarf made of U.S. and Danish flags. That was an obvious reference to a cartoon published last year by a Danish newspaper that made fun of the Islamic prophet, Mohammed. The Hamas weekly also called the Pope "criminal, arrogant, ignorant and stupid." Conclusion: Some Muslim leaders can dish it out but they can't take it.

So it appears that it's OK to publish cartoons that trash the Pope and other non-Islamic religions but not OK to publish cartoons that make fun of Mohammed or Islam. Excuse me, but what's the difference? Earlier this year, Iran sponsored the annual Holocaust Cartoon Competition (Yes, really), and no one said a word. I strenuously object to these blatant international double standards, and urge politicians of all religious persuasions to stop insulting one another in the name of their particular God. Enough already!

• Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.