The Darkening Horizon
A perfect storm is brewing in Pakistan, a storm that will have regional and international implications of great consequence. In the immediate, Pakistanis themselves suffer. The war in Afghanistan has not abated, despite 9 years of fighting. In fact, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas have become a particularly dangerous battleground for a war that has now spread into Pakistani territory and threatens a fragile civilian establishment. The Obama administration continues to pursue a policy of measured response to insurgents within Pakistani territory, relying principally on unmanned drones to conduct raids in the tribal regions. However, there are few within Pakistan’s security apparatus that could rightfully deny the presence of US military assets operating from within Pakistan’s borders, fueling deep mistrust and resentment of the rulers in Islamabad. Rather than containing the Taliban to their homeland in the southern provinces of Afghanistan, a new front rages in the FATA that now threatens Pakistani stability. By and large, there has been a concession by the Pakistani security establishment that its long-held strategy of covert support for Islamist groups (including the Taliban) has backfired. The basically institutional view that Islamist proxies could be used by the ISI to exert influence in Afghanistan and thus provide a counter to Indian influence and strength has collapsed.
The floods in Pakistani defy description. The sheer scale (an area the size of England affected) of the tragedy must give us pause. The international community has pledged aid, and this will likely provide a modicum of relief. However, as is so often the case, those affected by this tragedy were among the poorest of Pakistani society, so while international relief may ease the transition from disaster to some semblance of normalcy, ordinary Pakistanis will return to the equilibrium state of an overall lack of development. Even prior to the floods, the amount of spending on education and health was woefully insufficient. Islamabad has not implemented any long term planning strategy for the agriculture or manufacturing sectors, and Pakistan is now importing wheat. The booming IT sector in India – a vital factor in that nation’s rise in global prominence – is all but non-existent in Pakistan. The overall lack of economic activity within Pakistan has resulted in a meager tax base, and continued dependence on foreign aid.
To be sure, these are massive challenges for any government. However, as if adding fuel to long burning fire, Pakistan may soon be faced with a Parliamentary crisis. The ruling PPP-PML(N) coalition shows signs of fragility, and it’s hard to imagine that Nawaz Sharif will expend efforts to repair the breach rather than shore up support for his own coalition should a no-confidence vote be held against Zardari and the PPP. However, the greater threat to Zardari may be from within his own party. There is virtually no debating Zardari’s cronyism, and recent events seem to find Zardari tightening his inner circle while excluding competent and respected senior PPP officials. Naheed Khan was recently quoted as stating that the PPP is becoming a “one man show.” Both she and her husband, Safdar Abbasi are senior officials in the PPP, and its Khan’s assertion that Zardari is closing ranks and surrounding himself with people that lack competence in governance. The PPP’s Executive Committee recently convened to discuss current matters of state, and Abbasi’s absence was conspicuous. Zardari does himself – and ultimately Pakistan – a great disservice by denying capable technocrats access to the levers of power at such a critical time in Pakistan’s history.
Perhaps most alarming is projecting what may happen in the case of a no confidence vote in Parliament. PML-N would emerge as the default ruling party. However, given the current composition of the Parliament, creating a coalition that could withstand a further no-confidence vote poses a significant challenge. In such a case, a general election would be required. The time frame for an election will be crucial, as maintaining security will become an absolute necessity. The announcement of a general election will undoubtedly inspire Taliban action. The worst case scenario is that the security situation deteriorates to the point where a legitimate vote cannot be held, and the military must intercede to provide continuity of governance, a familiar narrative in Pakistani history. While most accounts of General Kayani paint him as a mostly apolitical figure, he did once preside over ISI, an institution that believes that they alone should determine Pakistan’s destiny. Furthermore, military rule in Pakistan may be well received by a US administration desperate for a competent and capable partner in Pakistan. Previous administrations certainly were not squeamish about supporting military rule, and the most cynical view in Washington has long believed that it’s exactly what Pakistan requires.
The stakes are incredibly high. For the poorest Pakistanis, the fragile middle classes in Lahore and Karachi, and for the ruling elites, the moment dances on a knife edge. The dream of Jinnah remains deferred. The only question left is for how much longer?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Voices in the Wilderness
In late 2003, I started working with Professor Elie Chalala at his magazine, Al-Jadid. Having come out of university with a degree in Comparative Literature, a working knowledge of French and a deep interest in post-colonial issues in the Middle East and south Asia, it was the perfect venue for me. I knew it would give me an opportunity to write to edit and to stay in touch with contemporary trends. what I didn't know is how much it would teach me about the importance and power of dissent.
I think we in the West often underestimate the power of a repressive government. After 9/11, many in the West asked "where is the moderate Muslim denunciation of these acts, where are the voices of reason." Many in the West were led to believe that maybe such voices didn't exist. However, the fact that moderate voices didn't make it to the pages of the Times or the Post was less a function of their existence, and more so about the fact that they are under constant threat of severe repression.
In many countries in the Middle East, the most critical voices are academics, artists, journalists and opposition activists. These groups are also among the most heavily scrutinized, harassed and oppressed populations in that part of the world. The fact is quite simple: Moderate and dissenting voices exist and toil arduously throughout Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere. However, we in the West - who often take our freedom of speech for granted - cannot begin to fathom what life must be like for a journalist who must choose between self-censorship or torture, or an artist who must choose between tempering of passion or arrest.
Al Jadid has strived to bring these voices to a wider audience, to prevent them from being drowned in a sea of fundamentalist and statist propaganda. I may be biased by my personal involvement with the magazine, but that cannot detract from the vital role that such content can play in a time when the dialogue about the Middle East suffers from irrational polarization. Al Jadid shows us the possibilities of the Middle East; this region has inherited more than just Islamism, it still has traces of Pan-Arabism, Socialism, as well as artistic and literary traditions descended from one of humanity's great civilizations. This is a vision of the Middle East that must be at the forefront of the discussion, rather than shackled and hidden away.
I will place a description and link to Al-Jadid in the Resources section of this website. Please head over and take a look.
aljadid.com
All best . . .
In late 2003, I started working with Professor Elie Chalala at his magazine, Al-Jadid. Having come out of university with a degree in Comparative Literature, a working knowledge of French and a deep interest in post-colonial issues in the Middle East and south Asia, it was the perfect venue for me. I knew it would give me an opportunity to write to edit and to stay in touch with contemporary trends. what I didn't know is how much it would teach me about the importance and power of dissent.
I think we in the West often underestimate the power of a repressive government. After 9/11, many in the West asked "where is the moderate Muslim denunciation of these acts, where are the voices of reason." Many in the West were led to believe that maybe such voices didn't exist. However, the fact that moderate voices didn't make it to the pages of the Times or the Post was less a function of their existence, and more so about the fact that they are under constant threat of severe repression.
In many countries in the Middle East, the most critical voices are academics, artists, journalists and opposition activists. These groups are also among the most heavily scrutinized, harassed and oppressed populations in that part of the world. The fact is quite simple: Moderate and dissenting voices exist and toil arduously throughout Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere. However, we in the West - who often take our freedom of speech for granted - cannot begin to fathom what life must be like for a journalist who must choose between self-censorship or torture, or an artist who must choose between tempering of passion or arrest.
Al Jadid has strived to bring these voices to a wider audience, to prevent them from being drowned in a sea of fundamentalist and statist propaganda. I may be biased by my personal involvement with the magazine, but that cannot detract from the vital role that such content can play in a time when the dialogue about the Middle East suffers from irrational polarization. Al Jadid shows us the possibilities of the Middle East; this region has inherited more than just Islamism, it still has traces of Pan-Arabism, Socialism, as well as artistic and literary traditions descended from one of humanity's great civilizations. This is a vision of the Middle East that must be at the forefront of the discussion, rather than shackled and hidden away.
I will place a description and link to Al-Jadid in the Resources section of this website. Please head over and take a look.
aljadid.com
All best . . .
Monday, September 20, 2010
Working from the Script
Tonight, PBS aired Charlie Rose's annual interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I have seen numerous long form interviews with Ahmadinejad, and each occasion proves interesting and certainly worth the time. Charismatic, engaging, these words don't really describe the Iranian President, yet there is a certain subtle affability in the way that he speaks, although at times it devolves into smug self-assuredness.
However, personality aside, what is fascinating is how Ahmadinejad so closely sticks to the playbook. Leaders in the contemporary Middle East follow a very well choreographed script. The importance of the script cannot be underplayed as it achieves multiple aims simultaneously, but more importantly mixes principled positions with broad obfuscation.
The first vital element is Palestine. Every Middle Eastern leader, whether they be Arab or otherwise, will openly and proudly champion the cause of the Palestinians, though few will lift nary a finger to actually bring about a change in their situation. Yet, this is considered a vital public relations position. The masses in the Middle East expect their leaders to take such a principled stand, and more leaders will campaign on their supposed support for the Palestinian struggle. Ahmadinejad can even go one further, as it is basically common knowledge that Iran provides material support for Hamas. However, it is not vital whether the support is real or imagined. What is important is that the stand is considered a principled and moral one. The Palestinians are indeed suffering underneath the boot of an apartheid regime. The leaders who currently claim to represent the Palestinian people in multilateral and bi-lateral talks were not the same people chosen by the Palestinians to represent them in the last national election. Ahmadinejad, like his Arab counterparts present a principled position; the Palestinian struggle is real and requires an approach that holds Israel to account for its continued violations of international law.
Which brings us to the next element of the script. I speak of course about Israel, however, the script is slightly adapted for the Iranian case. When talking about nuclear inspections and the NPT, Ahmadinejad points to the hypocrisy surrounding Israel. This is a fair and legitimate point. Israel has denied IAEA inspectors access to alleged weapon sites, and has not signed nor does it abide by any provisions of the NPT. This, again, is a perfectly legitimate argument that corresponds with the facts, and is well within the accepted discourse of International opinion. You may not like what Ahmadinejad is saying, but its both true and significant. Of course, the argument most heard in defense of Israel's weapons program is that they are beset on all sides by enemies. Israel has also occupied its "enemies" in varying degrees for over 40 years, and continues to operate what amount to open air prisons in Gaza and the West Bank.
Ahmadinejad goes on to say that this is a case of "politicising" the argument against Iran. Which leads us to the third, the neo-colonial/great game argument. Charlie Rose asks an important question: what is the reason for the conflict between Iran and the United States? I say important because I think generally it is taken for granted that there must be good reasons for it. Ostensibly, the conflict has to do with nuclear proliferation, and maybe support for Hezbollah and Hamas (though I doubt the US is really all that concerned about that. The proxies justify endless and unconditional support for Israel). Ahmadinejad points out, again correctly, that when the US armed and encouraged Saddam Hussein to enter into a war with Iran (one of the bloodiest of the 20th century)there was no question of nuclear weapons, there was no Hamas or Hezbollah, so what then? Here, Ahmadinejad tells Rose "Its a game." In so doing he evokes the spectre of imperialism and neo-colonial adventure. If one is willing to keep an open mind at this point, the possibilities of propaganda, misinformation, Manichean Devils and newspeak create a dizzying realm of disturbing possibilities. And again, reasonable doubt enters the fray. Maybe the Iranian regime isn't so bad after all?
Of course, the problem with an actor stuck on the script is the inability to improvise. When Ahmadinejad suggests that the same international standards should apply to Israel as they do to Iran, he is correct. In actions between states, an essentially anarchic international system depends on uniformity of principle. However, when faced with internal human rights violations, one can no longer point fingers. Though Ahmadinejad tried at least once, when suggesting that Secretary Clinton is obsessed with executions in Iran while ignoring certain friendly countries that still behead the damned with swords in the public square (take that Saudi Arabia!). It is on this point that Ahmadinejad as well as his Arab counterparts, lose their place and stumble. To be sure, he has rehearsed, and the answers come off as smooth as can be, but they ring hollow. The Mohammadi case isn't a great one, the Western press ran too far with it. However, any cursory Google search will return numerous cases of journalists, activists, opposition leaders and organizers silenced -often violently - by the Iranian regime. This, like the plight of the Palestinians, is not in doubt.
What is interesting is that while the script becomes fuzzy for the Middle Eastern leader when it comes to human rights, his very obfuscation is integral to the greater narrative: The proud and brave, principled leader, standing up for the Palestinians against the Zionist regime, trying to bring his people out of the darkness of the imperial machinations of the West's Great Game, while not giving his beloved masses the right to choose for themselves.
Tonight, PBS aired Charlie Rose's annual interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I have seen numerous long form interviews with Ahmadinejad, and each occasion proves interesting and certainly worth the time. Charismatic, engaging, these words don't really describe the Iranian President, yet there is a certain subtle affability in the way that he speaks, although at times it devolves into smug self-assuredness.
However, personality aside, what is fascinating is how Ahmadinejad so closely sticks to the playbook. Leaders in the contemporary Middle East follow a very well choreographed script. The importance of the script cannot be underplayed as it achieves multiple aims simultaneously, but more importantly mixes principled positions with broad obfuscation.
The first vital element is Palestine. Every Middle Eastern leader, whether they be Arab or otherwise, will openly and proudly champion the cause of the Palestinians, though few will lift nary a finger to actually bring about a change in their situation. Yet, this is considered a vital public relations position. The masses in the Middle East expect their leaders to take such a principled stand, and more leaders will campaign on their supposed support for the Palestinian struggle. Ahmadinejad can even go one further, as it is basically common knowledge that Iran provides material support for Hamas. However, it is not vital whether the support is real or imagined. What is important is that the stand is considered a principled and moral one. The Palestinians are indeed suffering underneath the boot of an apartheid regime. The leaders who currently claim to represent the Palestinian people in multilateral and bi-lateral talks were not the same people chosen by the Palestinians to represent them in the last national election. Ahmadinejad, like his Arab counterparts present a principled position; the Palestinian struggle is real and requires an approach that holds Israel to account for its continued violations of international law.
Which brings us to the next element of the script. I speak of course about Israel, however, the script is slightly adapted for the Iranian case. When talking about nuclear inspections and the NPT, Ahmadinejad points to the hypocrisy surrounding Israel. This is a fair and legitimate point. Israel has denied IAEA inspectors access to alleged weapon sites, and has not signed nor does it abide by any provisions of the NPT. This, again, is a perfectly legitimate argument that corresponds with the facts, and is well within the accepted discourse of International opinion. You may not like what Ahmadinejad is saying, but its both true and significant. Of course, the argument most heard in defense of Israel's weapons program is that they are beset on all sides by enemies. Israel has also occupied its "enemies" in varying degrees for over 40 years, and continues to operate what amount to open air prisons in Gaza and the West Bank.
Ahmadinejad goes on to say that this is a case of "politicising" the argument against Iran. Which leads us to the third, the neo-colonial/great game argument. Charlie Rose asks an important question: what is the reason for the conflict between Iran and the United States? I say important because I think generally it is taken for granted that there must be good reasons for it. Ostensibly, the conflict has to do with nuclear proliferation, and maybe support for Hezbollah and Hamas (though I doubt the US is really all that concerned about that. The proxies justify endless and unconditional support for Israel). Ahmadinejad points out, again correctly, that when the US armed and encouraged Saddam Hussein to enter into a war with Iran (one of the bloodiest of the 20th century)there was no question of nuclear weapons, there was no Hamas or Hezbollah, so what then? Here, Ahmadinejad tells Rose "Its a game." In so doing he evokes the spectre of imperialism and neo-colonial adventure. If one is willing to keep an open mind at this point, the possibilities of propaganda, misinformation, Manichean Devils and newspeak create a dizzying realm of disturbing possibilities. And again, reasonable doubt enters the fray. Maybe the Iranian regime isn't so bad after all?
Of course, the problem with an actor stuck on the script is the inability to improvise. When Ahmadinejad suggests that the same international standards should apply to Israel as they do to Iran, he is correct. In actions between states, an essentially anarchic international system depends on uniformity of principle. However, when faced with internal human rights violations, one can no longer point fingers. Though Ahmadinejad tried at least once, when suggesting that Secretary Clinton is obsessed with executions in Iran while ignoring certain friendly countries that still behead the damned with swords in the public square (take that Saudi Arabia!). It is on this point that Ahmadinejad as well as his Arab counterparts, lose their place and stumble. To be sure, he has rehearsed, and the answers come off as smooth as can be, but they ring hollow. The Mohammadi case isn't a great one, the Western press ran too far with it. However, any cursory Google search will return numerous cases of journalists, activists, opposition leaders and organizers silenced -often violently - by the Iranian regime. This, like the plight of the Palestinians, is not in doubt.
What is interesting is that while the script becomes fuzzy for the Middle Eastern leader when it comes to human rights, his very obfuscation is integral to the greater narrative: The proud and brave, principled leader, standing up for the Palestinians against the Zionist regime, trying to bring his people out of the darkness of the imperial machinations of the West's Great Game, while not giving his beloved masses the right to choose for themselves.
Friday, August 20, 2010
A Matter of Timing
Israeli and Palestinian officials have announced a return to face to face negotiations. These talks will include the quartet, as well as special envoy Tony Blair. The invitation to resume talks was made by the Obama administration, and both Benyamin Netanyahu and Abu Mazen have agreed to resume talks without preconditions.
Ismail Haniya and Hamas have, predictably, shot down the effort, calling instead for a "National Unity" effort to help repair the breach within the PA, and bring Hamas and Fatah to some common ground. Though one may be hesitant to side with Hamas on any matter, it seems that any negotiation that takes would need to include the surety that efforts can be made to enact changes on the ground, in both Gaza and the West Bank. Unless there is reconciliation between the major Palestinian factions, there can be no implementation of a negotiated settlement. Either Abbas and Fatah want to enter into the talks just to see what Israel is offering, or they think they can win the next round of Parliamentary elections, and thus be able to ignore Hamas.
However, the other incongruent aspect of these negotiations is that they will take place with what is effectively one of the most Right-oriented governments in Israeli history. This is the government that right up until recently condoned and even encouraged the building of permanent settlements in East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank that are beyond the '67 line. Netanyahu's government is getting a huge break in being told they can enter talks with no preconditions, and though settlements will come up, as they always do, it will be a trifle to a government which has Avigdor Lieberman as its Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Secretary of State Clinton has been quoted as saying "the enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and derail these talks." While its not clear, one assumes she is talking about terrorists. I find it ironic, because frankly I don't think terrorism is a major issue here. Hamas is being basically marginalized by this process, and if anything these talks will embolden its militant wing, as well as the PIJ, to actually raise the stakes with violence in order to highlight the continued and daily oppression under which the Palestinians live.
Israeli and Palestinian officials have announced a return to face to face negotiations. These talks will include the quartet, as well as special envoy Tony Blair. The invitation to resume talks was made by the Obama administration, and both Benyamin Netanyahu and Abu Mazen have agreed to resume talks without preconditions.
Ismail Haniya and Hamas have, predictably, shot down the effort, calling instead for a "National Unity" effort to help repair the breach within the PA, and bring Hamas and Fatah to some common ground. Though one may be hesitant to side with Hamas on any matter, it seems that any negotiation that takes would need to include the surety that efforts can be made to enact changes on the ground, in both Gaza and the West Bank. Unless there is reconciliation between the major Palestinian factions, there can be no implementation of a negotiated settlement. Either Abbas and Fatah want to enter into the talks just to see what Israel is offering, or they think they can win the next round of Parliamentary elections, and thus be able to ignore Hamas.
However, the other incongruent aspect of these negotiations is that they will take place with what is effectively one of the most Right-oriented governments in Israeli history. This is the government that right up until recently condoned and even encouraged the building of permanent settlements in East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank that are beyond the '67 line. Netanyahu's government is getting a huge break in being told they can enter talks with no preconditions, and though settlements will come up, as they always do, it will be a trifle to a government which has Avigdor Lieberman as its Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Secretary of State Clinton has been quoted as saying "the enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and derail these talks." While its not clear, one assumes she is talking about terrorists. I find it ironic, because frankly I don't think terrorism is a major issue here. Hamas is being basically marginalized by this process, and if anything these talks will embolden its militant wing, as well as the PIJ, to actually raise the stakes with violence in order to highlight the continued and daily oppression under which the Palestinians live.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Drowning in the Tangle
So much going on. I stand in dereliction of duty, and this site stagnates. Consider this remediation. I hope to return to this with posts on recent events in Pakistan, Turkey, Palestine and Lebanon, and hopefully a couple of pieces on energy issues.
Briefly, regarding Pakistan, its near beyond expression. I spent many days and nights following political, cultural and social issues in Pakistan prior to the horrific flooding. To add scenes of disaster, muddy and cold disaster, makes me recoil in such a way as to not feel. In fact, it compels shutdown. I will do my best, in the next few days to say more about it.
Stay tuned . . .
So much going on. I stand in dereliction of duty, and this site stagnates. Consider this remediation. I hope to return to this with posts on recent events in Pakistan, Turkey, Palestine and Lebanon, and hopefully a couple of pieces on energy issues.
Briefly, regarding Pakistan, its near beyond expression. I spent many days and nights following political, cultural and social issues in Pakistan prior to the horrific flooding. To add scenes of disaster, muddy and cold disaster, makes me recoil in such a way as to not feel. In fact, it compels shutdown. I will do my best, in the next few days to say more about it.
Stay tuned . . .
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Re-Aligned Priorities
A few years ago, I took an internship with a boutique literary agency in West LA. At one point during my stint there, the Agent asked us interns to develop a book idea, fiction or non-fiction, that we thought would result in a compelling publication for a major publisher. The United States had at that point been engaged in the war in Iraq for a few years and I had become fascinated with the Turkish issue. At that point in time it seemed that Turkey stood at a crucial crossroads. Ankara had roundly denied US flyover rights through its airspace into northern targets in Iraq, and had been panned by the neocons for its apparent refusal to play along. This signalled to me the increasing importance of Turkey on the global scene. Ankara had taken a bold step in standing up to the neocon agenda and solidified its place as an independent actor. Given its geostrategic location, its increasing influence in both the Eurozone and the Arab states, and its secular, democratic (read: Kemalist) traditions, it seemed to me that a post 9/11 public would be hungry for reading material about this emerging nation.
Well, no book was ever produced, despite some modest efforts on my part. However, my prognostications seem to have been largely accurate. Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern nation-state of Turkey, Ankara's natural inclination has been to stay out of the Middle Eastern arena, while trying to convince its Western neighbors that Turkey's rightful place was among the nations of Enlightenment Europe. This, of course, was a project rife with considerable obstacles. Some 90 plus percent of Turks are Muslims, yet the continuously secular character of the nation has always been guaranteed by the dedication of the nation's army to this end. Contrast this with Pakistan, whose military establishment has consistently counted Islamists among its ranks, or Iran whose Revolutionary Guard has been the very arm of Allah himself, promising the continuation of Imam Khomeini's revolution.
Before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, the Pentagon had asked Ankara to show its support for the war effort by allowing U.S. flyover rights through Turkish airspace and into the northern provinces of Iraq The people of Turkey emerged on the streets in huge numbers, and Ankara responded to Washington by reflecting the will of the people, and denied the Pentagon's request. Despite the fact that the Turkish government seemingly embodied the very democratic ideals that Washington claimed it was spreading to the Middle East, the neocon administration derisively panned Ankara's decision.
It was a turning point for Turkey. Its geostrategic location was highlighted by the fact that war was now on its southern border. It also brought light to the fact that this was a large, complex, and cosmopolitan nation that seemed to have - at least for the moment - achieved some balance between Islam and democratic and free market institutions. To be sure, Turkey had its internal and external issues - in particular the lack of official recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the resulting human rights violations, as well as the persistent and bloody Kurdish issue. Nonetheless, Turkey was emerging on the world stage, the crossroads between Europe and Asia, between the Islamic world and the secular West.
For some time, it seemed that the specific mode by which Turkey would be integrated into the greater global community was through membership in the EU. This has been a subject of contentious debate for decades, with intensely felt opinions on both sides of the Bosporus, often devolving into racism and xenophobia. In Paris and Berlin, the possible inclusion of Turkey into "Europe" seemed to challenge the very meaning of the word. If Turkey, with its 70 million Muslims, its lower standard of living, and its questionable human rights standards became a part of Europe, then what is Europe? The debate continues and significant issues remain, particularly Turkish claims in Cyprus, the jailing of anti-establishment journalists in Turkey, and the rise of a moderate Pan-Islamist movement in the form of the AK Party. It seems for the moment, the Kemalist dream of a European Turkey is a dream deferred.
The entire European Union project met perhaps its greatest challenge with the recent economic struggles of Greece, and the continued worry about the future of the Spanish economy. The idea of a "united" Europe, that lives and dies together, stood naked in a stark light of skepticism when Berlin seemingly tried everything to avoid using its own purse to bailout Athens. A few observers (myself included) wondered out loud: "Maybe Turkey doesn't have as much to gain in the EU as it once thought?" The idea of bailing out smaller, mismanaged and slow developing economies for the sake of collective risk management and strength in the currency market may not be worth the price. The leaders of the AKP began to re-interpret the Kemalist legacy, envisioning Turkey as a dynamic state all its own, with influence in Europe and in the Arab world (and ultimately beyond), which it had never historically considered a major arena of engagement.
The re-alignment of foreign policy priorities owes its emergence to numerous factors, including the war in Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. However, perhaps the single most important factor is the change within Turkey itself. This historically secular society has begun - even if modestly - to look at its Islamic heritage as part and parcel of its identity. Perhaps the clearest and most significant reflections of this trend is the Justice and Development Party, known in Turkey as the AKP, or AK Party. Moderately Conservative may be the best way to describe the party's spectrum balance. But perhaps what is most significant is the fact that the AKP withstood a judicial challenge that accused the party of engaging in "anti-secular activities" that contravened the Turkish National Constitution. The case revolved around lifting the ban on the hijab, and the AKP was vindicated when the Turkish High Court could not render a verdict against the party.
The AKP brings a vision of Turkey that is deeply engaged in the Middle East and with its Islamic neighbors. This vital shift has resulted in a re-alignment of regional power. Iraq remains an occupied nation. Saudi Arabia perhaps still wields great regional influence, given its oil wealth and custodianship of the pilgrimage sites, yet the threat of its unholy alliance with Wahhabism and the rise of internal threats to the Monarchy place the Saudis in a precarious situation. Iran meanwhile has emerged as state with likely the largest potential to assert more regional influence. However, the recent UN sanctions and woeful economic state within the Islamic Republic may destabilize Tehran and prove a major obstacle to any serious pretensions to regional hegemony. This puts the recent rapprochement between Ankara and Damascus into an even more interesting light. Syria still maintains serious influence in Lebanon, particularly through its regional proxies (read: Hezbollah). Ankara's increasingly frenetic participation in Middle Eastern affairs is evident by its fuel-swap arrangement with Tehran, and its recent vociferous public condemnation of Israel's brutal response to an international aid flotilla attempting to break the Gaza blockade. The new regional alignment seems to run from Ankara to Damascus and then Tehran. Strange bedfellows in many ways, yet these states will likely hold the helm in Middle Eastern affairs in the emerging decade.
A few years ago, I took an internship with a boutique literary agency in West LA. At one point during my stint there, the Agent asked us interns to develop a book idea, fiction or non-fiction, that we thought would result in a compelling publication for a major publisher. The United States had at that point been engaged in the war in Iraq for a few years and I had become fascinated with the Turkish issue. At that point in time it seemed that Turkey stood at a crucial crossroads. Ankara had roundly denied US flyover rights through its airspace into northern targets in Iraq, and had been panned by the neocons for its apparent refusal to play along. This signalled to me the increasing importance of Turkey on the global scene. Ankara had taken a bold step in standing up to the neocon agenda and solidified its place as an independent actor. Given its geostrategic location, its increasing influence in both the Eurozone and the Arab states, and its secular, democratic (read: Kemalist) traditions, it seemed to me that a post 9/11 public would be hungry for reading material about this emerging nation.
Well, no book was ever produced, despite some modest efforts on my part. However, my prognostications seem to have been largely accurate. Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern nation-state of Turkey, Ankara's natural inclination has been to stay out of the Middle Eastern arena, while trying to convince its Western neighbors that Turkey's rightful place was among the nations of Enlightenment Europe. This, of course, was a project rife with considerable obstacles. Some 90 plus percent of Turks are Muslims, yet the continuously secular character of the nation has always been guaranteed by the dedication of the nation's army to this end. Contrast this with Pakistan, whose military establishment has consistently counted Islamists among its ranks, or Iran whose Revolutionary Guard has been the very arm of Allah himself, promising the continuation of Imam Khomeini's revolution.
Before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, the Pentagon had asked Ankara to show its support for the war effort by allowing U.S. flyover rights through Turkish airspace and into the northern provinces of Iraq The people of Turkey emerged on the streets in huge numbers, and Ankara responded to Washington by reflecting the will of the people, and denied the Pentagon's request. Despite the fact that the Turkish government seemingly embodied the very democratic ideals that Washington claimed it was spreading to the Middle East, the neocon administration derisively panned Ankara's decision.
It was a turning point for Turkey. Its geostrategic location was highlighted by the fact that war was now on its southern border. It also brought light to the fact that this was a large, complex, and cosmopolitan nation that seemed to have - at least for the moment - achieved some balance between Islam and democratic and free market institutions. To be sure, Turkey had its internal and external issues - in particular the lack of official recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the resulting human rights violations, as well as the persistent and bloody Kurdish issue. Nonetheless, Turkey was emerging on the world stage, the crossroads between Europe and Asia, between the Islamic world and the secular West.
For some time, it seemed that the specific mode by which Turkey would be integrated into the greater global community was through membership in the EU. This has been a subject of contentious debate for decades, with intensely felt opinions on both sides of the Bosporus, often devolving into racism and xenophobia. In Paris and Berlin, the possible inclusion of Turkey into "Europe" seemed to challenge the very meaning of the word. If Turkey, with its 70 million Muslims, its lower standard of living, and its questionable human rights standards became a part of Europe, then what is Europe? The debate continues and significant issues remain, particularly Turkish claims in Cyprus, the jailing of anti-establishment journalists in Turkey, and the rise of a moderate Pan-Islamist movement in the form of the AK Party. It seems for the moment, the Kemalist dream of a European Turkey is a dream deferred.
The entire European Union project met perhaps its greatest challenge with the recent economic struggles of Greece, and the continued worry about the future of the Spanish economy. The idea of a "united" Europe, that lives and dies together, stood naked in a stark light of skepticism when Berlin seemingly tried everything to avoid using its own purse to bailout Athens. A few observers (myself included) wondered out loud: "Maybe Turkey doesn't have as much to gain in the EU as it once thought?" The idea of bailing out smaller, mismanaged and slow developing economies for the sake of collective risk management and strength in the currency market may not be worth the price. The leaders of the AKP began to re-interpret the Kemalist legacy, envisioning Turkey as a dynamic state all its own, with influence in Europe and in the Arab world (and ultimately beyond), which it had never historically considered a major arena of engagement.
The re-alignment of foreign policy priorities owes its emergence to numerous factors, including the war in Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. However, perhaps the single most important factor is the change within Turkey itself. This historically secular society has begun - even if modestly - to look at its Islamic heritage as part and parcel of its identity. Perhaps the clearest and most significant reflections of this trend is the Justice and Development Party, known in Turkey as the AKP, or AK Party. Moderately Conservative may be the best way to describe the party's spectrum balance. But perhaps what is most significant is the fact that the AKP withstood a judicial challenge that accused the party of engaging in "anti-secular activities" that contravened the Turkish National Constitution. The case revolved around lifting the ban on the hijab, and the AKP was vindicated when the Turkish High Court could not render a verdict against the party.
The AKP brings a vision of Turkey that is deeply engaged in the Middle East and with its Islamic neighbors. This vital shift has resulted in a re-alignment of regional power. Iraq remains an occupied nation. Saudi Arabia perhaps still wields great regional influence, given its oil wealth and custodianship of the pilgrimage sites, yet the threat of its unholy alliance with Wahhabism and the rise of internal threats to the Monarchy place the Saudis in a precarious situation. Iran meanwhile has emerged as state with likely the largest potential to assert more regional influence. However, the recent UN sanctions and woeful economic state within the Islamic Republic may destabilize Tehran and prove a major obstacle to any serious pretensions to regional hegemony. This puts the recent rapprochement between Ankara and Damascus into an even more interesting light. Syria still maintains serious influence in Lebanon, particularly through its regional proxies (read: Hezbollah). Ankara's increasingly frenetic participation in Middle Eastern affairs is evident by its fuel-swap arrangement with Tehran, and its recent vociferous public condemnation of Israel's brutal response to an international aid flotilla attempting to break the Gaza blockade. The new regional alignment seems to run from Ankara to Damascus and then Tehran. Strange bedfellows in many ways, yet these states will likely hold the helm in Middle Eastern affairs in the emerging decade.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
By the Numbers
Quick hit today. Let's look at some figures for the War in Afghanistan to date:
-Total US cost of the war since 2001: Currently estimated at $272 Billion. This is approximately $2,044 per year per taxpayer since 2001. The administration will be asking Congress to approve a further $59 billion in the coming months. Furthermore, many economists, including Joseph Stieglitz, have projected that the final cost of the war, including humanitarian costs, treatment for wounded soldiers and future outlays for equipment and infrastructure could push the figure near $1.5 trillion. this information was taken largely from the National Priorities Project.
- U.S. Military deaths: As of today have passed 1,000. 630 casualties were recorded for the years 2001-2008. 450 casualties have been recorded from all of 2009 and 2010 to date. this increase has been attributed to the resurgence of the Taliban after a period of retreat and re-organization. Figures obtained from Human Rights Watch and icasualties.org.
- Since 2001, 5,725 U.S. soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan. Taken from icasualties.org.
- Afghan Civilian Death Toll: Estimated for Afghan civilian deaths vary widely. Reliable statistical data has only been recorded since 2006-2007. In 2009 alone, 2,412 Afghan civilian deaths were recorded. Direct and indirect deaths since 2001 are estimated at between 13,372-32,969. Again, the wide range in estimate is due largely to semi-official nature of the statistical data from the year 2001-2006. Further detail can be retrieved from afghanconflictmonitor.org.
Go in peace my friends . . .
-
Quick hit today. Let's look at some figures for the War in Afghanistan to date:
-Total US cost of the war since 2001: Currently estimated at $272 Billion. This is approximately $2,044 per year per taxpayer since 2001. The administration will be asking Congress to approve a further $59 billion in the coming months. Furthermore, many economists, including Joseph Stieglitz, have projected that the final cost of the war, including humanitarian costs, treatment for wounded soldiers and future outlays for equipment and infrastructure could push the figure near $1.5 trillion. this information was taken largely from the National Priorities Project.
- U.S. Military deaths: As of today have passed 1,000. 630 casualties were recorded for the years 2001-2008. 450 casualties have been recorded from all of 2009 and 2010 to date. this increase has been attributed to the resurgence of the Taliban after a period of retreat and re-organization. Figures obtained from Human Rights Watch and icasualties.org.
- Since 2001, 5,725 U.S. soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan. Taken from icasualties.org.
- Afghan Civilian Death Toll: Estimated for Afghan civilian deaths vary widely. Reliable statistical data has only been recorded since 2006-2007. In 2009 alone, 2,412 Afghan civilian deaths were recorded. Direct and indirect deaths since 2001 are estimated at between 13,372-32,969. Again, the wide range in estimate is due largely to semi-official nature of the statistical data from the year 2001-2006. Further detail can be retrieved from afghanconflictmonitor.org.
Go in peace my friends . . .
-
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Subject of Cinema
Shortly after the beginning of the war in Iraq, as the insurgency emerged as a serious threat to the American war effort, U.S. military commanders started screening The Battle of Algiers to troops in hopes of shedding some light on understanding and successfully waging a counter-insurgency campaign. Gillo Pontecorvo's classic and controversial film reads like documentary and remains to this day one of the most vital records of the battle between French Colonialism and the Algerian resistance movement, despite the fact that it is a fictional piece. But there is something about film that reaches us on a level that often times no other media can achieve. The combination of sight, sound, time and character - when executed well - has an almost immediate and often indelible impact on both our emotions and intellects.
The French Education Ministry has announced a plan to make some 200 films available online for secondary school students throughout France. While cinema is taught in some of the wealthier, elite high schools in France, the cine-lycee project will make these films available through the Internet to all students in France. The initiative hopes to provide students with not only exposure to France's own brilliant and varied cinematic tradition, but also with access to global cinema and thus a greater global perspective.
I think we should implement similar programs here in the U.S. Hollywood hosts the largest and most globally successful film industry in the world. And while it is mostly the blockbusters, screwball comedies and happy-ending romances that make their way to the local and global cineplexes, our own American cinematic canon contains numerous artists whose influence and vision has left deep footprints in our culture.
Film simultaneously reflects who we are as a society, as well as shed light on the marginal and hidden aspects of our culture and what it may become. Charlie Chaplin's tramp in "Modern Times" examined the comic/tragic anxiety of the modern industrial age; The films of the Cohen brothers shed light on the American obsession for personal power and its consequences; even recent films like "The Hangover" and "Knocked Up" speak to the suspended state of adolescence of the contemporary American man child. And thematic investigations aside, innumerable writers, directors, cinematographers and actors have filled our imaginations with beautiful and unique images that have influenced our language, our visual culture, and even our often unconscious aesthetic values.
And that is just America. Exposure to world cinema can provide our students with intimate and complex portraits of the human condition from anywhere on the globe. It has been said that Americans learn geography only after the U.S. military starts the air war, and CNN shows maps of the war zone on the nightly news. Perhaps cinema can provide an opportunity for our students to learn about the people who inhabit all of those distant and opaque places, and lend a new sensitivity to our global understanding.
In this time of economic struggle, as schools across the nation slash budgets for arts and music education, the French cine-lycee project provides an affordable example of cultural education. Math, science and reading are certainly vital in assuring our continued prosperity, and ultimately survival. However, without understanding expressions of culture, beauty and creativity, what good is prosperity?
Shortly after the beginning of the war in Iraq, as the insurgency emerged as a serious threat to the American war effort, U.S. military commanders started screening The Battle of Algiers to troops in hopes of shedding some light on understanding and successfully waging a counter-insurgency campaign. Gillo Pontecorvo's classic and controversial film reads like documentary and remains to this day one of the most vital records of the battle between French Colonialism and the Algerian resistance movement, despite the fact that it is a fictional piece. But there is something about film that reaches us on a level that often times no other media can achieve. The combination of sight, sound, time and character - when executed well - has an almost immediate and often indelible impact on both our emotions and intellects.
The French Education Ministry has announced a plan to make some 200 films available online for secondary school students throughout France. While cinema is taught in some of the wealthier, elite high schools in France, the cine-lycee project will make these films available through the Internet to all students in France. The initiative hopes to provide students with not only exposure to France's own brilliant and varied cinematic tradition, but also with access to global cinema and thus a greater global perspective.
I think we should implement similar programs here in the U.S. Hollywood hosts the largest and most globally successful film industry in the world. And while it is mostly the blockbusters, screwball comedies and happy-ending romances that make their way to the local and global cineplexes, our own American cinematic canon contains numerous artists whose influence and vision has left deep footprints in our culture.
Film simultaneously reflects who we are as a society, as well as shed light on the marginal and hidden aspects of our culture and what it may become. Charlie Chaplin's tramp in "Modern Times" examined the comic/tragic anxiety of the modern industrial age; The films of the Cohen brothers shed light on the American obsession for personal power and its consequences; even recent films like "The Hangover" and "Knocked Up" speak to the suspended state of adolescence of the contemporary American man child. And thematic investigations aside, innumerable writers, directors, cinematographers and actors have filled our imaginations with beautiful and unique images that have influenced our language, our visual culture, and even our often unconscious aesthetic values.
And that is just America. Exposure to world cinema can provide our students with intimate and complex portraits of the human condition from anywhere on the globe. It has been said that Americans learn geography only after the U.S. military starts the air war, and CNN shows maps of the war zone on the nightly news. Perhaps cinema can provide an opportunity for our students to learn about the people who inhabit all of those distant and opaque places, and lend a new sensitivity to our global understanding.
In this time of economic struggle, as schools across the nation slash budgets for arts and music education, the French cine-lycee project provides an affordable example of cultural education. Math, science and reading are certainly vital in assuring our continued prosperity, and ultimately survival. However, without understanding expressions of culture, beauty and creativity, what good is prosperity?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Long Goodbye
It was in 1995 that I first heard Wonderwall by Oasis. It was a Rock and Roll road to Damascus moment. I grew up with English pop music, despite growing up 7,000 miles from Albion. My sisters owned (and I inherited) records by New Order, Madness, Depeche Mode, the Smiths. However, as much as I loved those bands, and many others, they always inhabited a place of latent nostalgia and disconnection; what pop music could be, once was, somewhere far away.
Wonderwall was now. Britpop was now. My friend Ryan and I mined the record stores for all the latest imports. Pulp, Blur, Elastica, Suede. The new crop of British bands traded on their quintessential “Englishness,” sometimes with self-conscious derision, often with unabashed cheek. I’m not sure what attracted me to Britpop. Probably no single thing, but I always felt as if American music at the time lacked humor, wit and irony. Nirvana, and grunge generally, was far too solipsistic in its dour lamenting. Britpop exploded with a compelling alchemy of optimism and self-parody, and opened up avenues for the exploration of sexuality, class, and the possibilities of the coming millennium.
There were reasons to be optimistic. The guy in the White House played the sax, and this thing called the internet promised to connect everyone in the great global village. Rave culture was emerging and promised love and spirituality for any who could hitch out to the desert and drop ecstasy. And for the first time in my life, I found a politician to believe in.
Tony Blair was young, dynamic, and seemed to embody the enthusiasm and hope that accelerated “Cool Britannia” into the global mainstream. I knew fuck all about British politics, but who cares? Blair made it a point to bring his Fender to Number 10, and even invited Noel Gallagher to Downing Street for champagne. A strange feeling of excitement and confrontation surrounded the whole thing. Maybe there was nothing left to rebel against, maybe the world was moving in the right direction, and maybe England was at the forefront.
In 1998, Pulp released This is Hardcore. Something had changed. things got darker. I had become immersed in drum and bass, as well as the Bristol sound, Tricky, Massive Attack. As the world moved closer to the millennium, the optimism started to wane. Oasis declared victory in the battle of English rock supremacy, and the lads had triumphed. The music of the Rave culture both in the States and the UK increasingly reflected the darker side of heavy drug use and ill directed liberation. This is Hardcore spoke of regrets, of pain and the attempt to heal while simultaneously facing the possibility of “growing up.” Twilight had arrived. The reign of Cool Britannia passed with a whimper.
America’s first great act of the 21st century was to elect George W. Bush as President. It was clear to me even then, that the dark days were upon us. Of course, I held out some hope - as misguided and unfounded as it may be - in Tony Blair. Britpop had passed into the annals of pop history, but Blair and New Labour remained.
The deathblow came in 2003, when the United States attacked and occupied Iraq, with the Prime Minister standing shoulder to shoulder with our chicken hawk President. I was definitely upset by my country’s decision to go to war, but I also harbored a strangely particular feeling of betrayal and disappointment. Blair? Really? How did this come to pass?
Its seven years on, and today Gordon Brown has resigned the premiership, effectively ending the era of New Labour. Damon Albarn finally crashed America, albeit as a cartoon character, and I can’t imagine David Cameron inviting him to cocktails at Number 10. Britpop occupies that place of nostalgia and disconnection that reminds me of the good old days, and I am still contemplating “growing up.”
I wonder if Nick Clegg ever played the guitar during his University days?
It was in 1995 that I first heard Wonderwall by Oasis. It was a Rock and Roll road to Damascus moment. I grew up with English pop music, despite growing up 7,000 miles from Albion. My sisters owned (and I inherited) records by New Order, Madness, Depeche Mode, the Smiths. However, as much as I loved those bands, and many others, they always inhabited a place of latent nostalgia and disconnection; what pop music could be, once was, somewhere far away.
Wonderwall was now. Britpop was now. My friend Ryan and I mined the record stores for all the latest imports. Pulp, Blur, Elastica, Suede. The new crop of British bands traded on their quintessential “Englishness,” sometimes with self-conscious derision, often with unabashed cheek. I’m not sure what attracted me to Britpop. Probably no single thing, but I always felt as if American music at the time lacked humor, wit and irony. Nirvana, and grunge generally, was far too solipsistic in its dour lamenting. Britpop exploded with a compelling alchemy of optimism and self-parody, and opened up avenues for the exploration of sexuality, class, and the possibilities of the coming millennium.
There were reasons to be optimistic. The guy in the White House played the sax, and this thing called the internet promised to connect everyone in the great global village. Rave culture was emerging and promised love and spirituality for any who could hitch out to the desert and drop ecstasy. And for the first time in my life, I found a politician to believe in.
Tony Blair was young, dynamic, and seemed to embody the enthusiasm and hope that accelerated “Cool Britannia” into the global mainstream. I knew fuck all about British politics, but who cares? Blair made it a point to bring his Fender to Number 10, and even invited Noel Gallagher to Downing Street for champagne. A strange feeling of excitement and confrontation surrounded the whole thing. Maybe there was nothing left to rebel against, maybe the world was moving in the right direction, and maybe England was at the forefront.
In 1998, Pulp released This is Hardcore. Something had changed. things got darker. I had become immersed in drum and bass, as well as the Bristol sound, Tricky, Massive Attack. As the world moved closer to the millennium, the optimism started to wane. Oasis declared victory in the battle of English rock supremacy, and the lads had triumphed. The music of the Rave culture both in the States and the UK increasingly reflected the darker side of heavy drug use and ill directed liberation. This is Hardcore spoke of regrets, of pain and the attempt to heal while simultaneously facing the possibility of “growing up.” Twilight had arrived. The reign of Cool Britannia passed with a whimper.
America’s first great act of the 21st century was to elect George W. Bush as President. It was clear to me even then, that the dark days were upon us. Of course, I held out some hope - as misguided and unfounded as it may be - in Tony Blair. Britpop had passed into the annals of pop history, but Blair and New Labour remained.
The deathblow came in 2003, when the United States attacked and occupied Iraq, with the Prime Minister standing shoulder to shoulder with our chicken hawk President. I was definitely upset by my country’s decision to go to war, but I also harbored a strangely particular feeling of betrayal and disappointment. Blair? Really? How did this come to pass?
Its seven years on, and today Gordon Brown has resigned the premiership, effectively ending the era of New Labour. Damon Albarn finally crashed America, albeit as a cartoon character, and I can’t imagine David Cameron inviting him to cocktails at Number 10. Britpop occupies that place of nostalgia and disconnection that reminds me of the good old days, and I am still contemplating “growing up.”
I wonder if Nick Clegg ever played the guitar during his University days?
Changes
A quick post to announce some changes to the blog. Obviously, the look and feel has changed. Lately I have been feeling like the "Walking Narcoleptic" moniker is best used for more theory-based presentations and explorations that I have had in mind for some time now, but have gotten pushed to the wayside, because I mostly ended up using the blog space for journalistic/editorial ventures.
Thus, I would like to inaugurate the "new" site, hopefully with an expanded mission and message, and a straightforward presentation and feel.
More to come . . .
A quick post to announce some changes to the blog. Obviously, the look and feel has changed. Lately I have been feeling like the "Walking Narcoleptic" moniker is best used for more theory-based presentations and explorations that I have had in mind for some time now, but have gotten pushed to the wayside, because I mostly ended up using the blog space for journalistic/editorial ventures.
Thus, I would like to inaugurate the "new" site, hopefully with an expanded mission and message, and a straightforward presentation and feel.
More to come . . .
Monday, April 19, 2010
Revolution, 2.0
Of course the regime in Iran would blame foreigners for the agitation in the streets. They have to. Sure, they could admit to a modicum of legitimate disharmony after contentious elections, but in Iran appearances are everything.. If the mullahs owned up to the discontented streets, they would appear weak. No, better to scapegoat unknown alien agents from satanic, godless lands.
Yet, maybe the beards had something else on their minds. It isn’t just the agents of infiltration in public spaces. Virtual space has emerged as a new, increasingly dangerous battlefield, a battlefield strewn with the latest weapons of war: Web 2.0, personal communication technologies and internet monitoring software.
Jim Sciutto, having recently returned to Iran writes:
“The protest movement has lost momentum, suffering from a lack of
leadership and exhaustion after ten months of an often brutal crackdown.”
Part of this crackdown has been on information. Social networking technologies like facebook and twitter acted as a force multiplier in emerging protest movement that erupted after the contentious elections of June 2009. It was a cell phone video bearing witness to the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan that gave the movement a tangible human element. And bloggers continue to challenge the Iranian censors and information police to tell their stories to the rest of the world. The regime’s response to these threats has indeed been brutal, as evidenced by the recent death of Omid Reza Misayafi. Omid, a blogger and journalist, was sentenced to two and half years in prison for allegedly insulting religious leaders and engaging in propaganda against the regime. He died on March 18th while serving his sentence in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison. Omid was being held with actual convicted criminals, and some believe this may have led to his death. However, if nothing else, Omid’s story - that of a known intellectual expressing his natural right to free speech and being persecuted by a religious tyranny - betrays the boundless audacity of the Iranian government. Furthermore, both the events that shook Iran 10 months ago and the subsequent crackdown on a nascent civil rights movement prove the power of information and the potential for effective organizing through Web 2.0 and related interfacing technologies. If they are shooting at you, it means you’re doing something right, and the mullahs have bloggers and the web in their sights.
Of course the regime in Iran would blame foreigners for the agitation in the streets. They have to. Sure, they could admit to a modicum of legitimate disharmony after contentious elections, but in Iran appearances are everything.. If the mullahs owned up to the discontented streets, they would appear weak. No, better to scapegoat unknown alien agents from satanic, godless lands.
Yet, maybe the beards had something else on their minds. It isn’t just the agents of infiltration in public spaces. Virtual space has emerged as a new, increasingly dangerous battlefield, a battlefield strewn with the latest weapons of war: Web 2.0, personal communication technologies and internet monitoring software.
Jim Sciutto, having recently returned to Iran writes:
“The protest movement has lost momentum, suffering from a lack of
leadership and exhaustion after ten months of an often brutal crackdown.”
Part of this crackdown has been on information. Social networking technologies like facebook and twitter acted as a force multiplier in emerging protest movement that erupted after the contentious elections of June 2009. It was a cell phone video bearing witness to the murder of Neda Agha-Soltan that gave the movement a tangible human element. And bloggers continue to challenge the Iranian censors and information police to tell their stories to the rest of the world. The regime’s response to these threats has indeed been brutal, as evidenced by the recent death of Omid Reza Misayafi. Omid, a blogger and journalist, was sentenced to two and half years in prison for allegedly insulting religious leaders and engaging in propaganda against the regime. He died on March 18th while serving his sentence in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison. Omid was being held with actual convicted criminals, and some believe this may have led to his death. However, if nothing else, Omid’s story - that of a known intellectual expressing his natural right to free speech and being persecuted by a religious tyranny - betrays the boundless audacity of the Iranian government. Furthermore, both the events that shook Iran 10 months ago and the subsequent crackdown on a nascent civil rights movement prove the power of information and the potential for effective organizing through Web 2.0 and related interfacing technologies. If they are shooting at you, it means you’re doing something right, and the mullahs have bloggers and the web in their sights.
Friday, April 16, 2010
No need for toothless allies
A report in Ha'aretz today quotes sources as saying that Hezbollah has acquired SCUD missiles from Syria. These weapons would provide a significant boost in Hezbollah's firepower. In fact, the report says that Israeli officials have suggested that SCUD's could "alter the strategic balance." SCUD's pack significantly more explosive capacity, and greater range, than the Katyusha rockets used extensively by Hezbollah in the 2006 war.
For its part, Syria has denied any such deal and claims that Israeli is manufacturing the story in order to deflect from recent criticisms of its own purported nuclear weapons capabilities.
It makes sense that Syria would provide all the help it can to Hezbollah. The regime of Al-Assad isn't particularly strong, and Hezbollah provides a useful ally, as they can wage a continuous, low-level intensity conflict with Israel. Meanwhile, Syria will align itself with the plight of the South Lebanese and the Palestinians and restate its claims to the Golan Heights. Syria could never hope to confront Israel directly, and by using a non-state proxy Assad gains the ability to influence the conflict and further a Syrian agenda, while simultaneously gaining legitimacy and prestige in terms of Syria's regional profile.
For Israel, the possibility of SCUD missiles in Hezbollah hands is highly problematic. The danger is obvious. However, this may move President Obama to rethink his current strained relationship with Israel and Netanyahu. In as much as Israel plays the role of an American client state, it's security will remain a singular priority, as the U.S. President has stated on numerous occasions. It is no good to have a toothless ally, and increased Hezbollah strategic and military capacity means that the IDF Garrisons must be fully supported.
It bodes badly fore Palestinian aspirations hoping to see a halting of settlement activity in East Jerusalem. If Hezbollah makes moves along the border, Israel will most likely raise the red flag, and while international heads are turned, the settlers will be quietly encouraged to take the backdoor out to the West Bank.
A report in Ha'aretz today quotes sources as saying that Hezbollah has acquired SCUD missiles from Syria. These weapons would provide a significant boost in Hezbollah's firepower. In fact, the report says that Israeli officials have suggested that SCUD's could "alter the strategic balance." SCUD's pack significantly more explosive capacity, and greater range, than the Katyusha rockets used extensively by Hezbollah in the 2006 war.
For its part, Syria has denied any such deal and claims that Israeli is manufacturing the story in order to deflect from recent criticisms of its own purported nuclear weapons capabilities.
It makes sense that Syria would provide all the help it can to Hezbollah. The regime of Al-Assad isn't particularly strong, and Hezbollah provides a useful ally, as they can wage a continuous, low-level intensity conflict with Israel. Meanwhile, Syria will align itself with the plight of the South Lebanese and the Palestinians and restate its claims to the Golan Heights. Syria could never hope to confront Israel directly, and by using a non-state proxy Assad gains the ability to influence the conflict and further a Syrian agenda, while simultaneously gaining legitimacy and prestige in terms of Syria's regional profile.
For Israel, the possibility of SCUD missiles in Hezbollah hands is highly problematic. The danger is obvious. However, this may move President Obama to rethink his current strained relationship with Israel and Netanyahu. In as much as Israel plays the role of an American client state, it's security will remain a singular priority, as the U.S. President has stated on numerous occasions. It is no good to have a toothless ally, and increased Hezbollah strategic and military capacity means that the IDF Garrisons must be fully supported.
It bodes badly fore Palestinian aspirations hoping to see a halting of settlement activity in East Jerusalem. If Hezbollah makes moves along the border, Israel will most likely raise the red flag, and while international heads are turned, the settlers will be quietly encouraged to take the backdoor out to the West Bank.
Monday, January 11, 2010
In Solidarity
This post is mostly as a shout out to other Sikhs involved in activism, and those who are not, but may want to reconsider . . .
Amanda, my partner, and I had been dating for a few months. My cousin asked me where we had met. I told him that it was at an activist meeting. I knew going into detail would elicit ridicule. He chortled back, "What? Activist for what?" Derision as veiled as a tiger tooth about to bleed a deer. If I told him it was a meeting of local Pro-Palestinian Rights group, a terminal argument would be set ablaze and I would go blue in the face trying to make someone think it was worth the time.
In retrospect, I wonder . .. Perhaps had I taken a different approach from the beginning. It's just that these days, there are not so many Sikhs that I know who really think much about activism or social justice. Forgive the generality, I know about those wonderful groups out there, mostly students and young professionals, engaged in social and political struggles to ensure not just the rights of Sikhs but others as well. Maybe its just the older generation, my parent's generation, some of whom lived through Partition, and almost all of whom were touched by 1984. Maybe they want to forget, and shield themselves from the fact that when Sikhs enter history, its often bloody and tearful. I don't know.
One thing I do know, Sikhi impels me to act. Our history of political and social struggles mirrors our own internal struggle. Spirituality in Sikhi is not some exoteric 'given,' it must to worked for, cultivated. In working to better ourselves, we must recognize the rights of others to pursue peace and growth and happiness, and this leads to abundant compassion. The martial concept in Sikhism may have sprung from self-preservation, but reached perhaps its spiritual zenith with the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur. He died bravely, with warrior spirit, so that others - non-Sikhs - could know freedom. If Miri-Piri means anything, it means this; going to battle and putting one's own life in the breach, to serve the compassion that flows from spirit. It means knowing that protecting others is self-preservation, as only such a sacrifice can truly honor the teachings of Sikhi and the lives of our Gurus.
One can turn in just about any direction, there is work to be done. Find what resonates with you, whether it is down the street or across the sea. Sewa should be more than helping to serve a meal once a week (though its always good to do that too!). Hopefully, we can recognize that the our own struggle as Sikhs mimics the struggle of so many others on this planet, and in this way, find a path forward together.
This post is mostly as a shout out to other Sikhs involved in activism, and those who are not, but may want to reconsider . . .
Amanda, my partner, and I had been dating for a few months. My cousin asked me where we had met. I told him that it was at an activist meeting. I knew going into detail would elicit ridicule. He chortled back, "What? Activist for what?" Derision as veiled as a tiger tooth about to bleed a deer. If I told him it was a meeting of local Pro-Palestinian Rights group, a terminal argument would be set ablaze and I would go blue in the face trying to make someone think it was worth the time.
In retrospect, I wonder . .. Perhaps had I taken a different approach from the beginning. It's just that these days, there are not so many Sikhs that I know who really think much about activism or social justice. Forgive the generality, I know about those wonderful groups out there, mostly students and young professionals, engaged in social and political struggles to ensure not just the rights of Sikhs but others as well. Maybe its just the older generation, my parent's generation, some of whom lived through Partition, and almost all of whom were touched by 1984. Maybe they want to forget, and shield themselves from the fact that when Sikhs enter history, its often bloody and tearful. I don't know.
One thing I do know, Sikhi impels me to act. Our history of political and social struggles mirrors our own internal struggle. Spirituality in Sikhi is not some exoteric 'given,' it must to worked for, cultivated. In working to better ourselves, we must recognize the rights of others to pursue peace and growth and happiness, and this leads to abundant compassion. The martial concept in Sikhism may have sprung from self-preservation, but reached perhaps its spiritual zenith with the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur. He died bravely, with warrior spirit, so that others - non-Sikhs - could know freedom. If Miri-Piri means anything, it means this; going to battle and putting one's own life in the breach, to serve the compassion that flows from spirit. It means knowing that protecting others is self-preservation, as only such a sacrifice can truly honor the teachings of Sikhi and the lives of our Gurus.
One can turn in just about any direction, there is work to be done. Find what resonates with you, whether it is down the street or across the sea. Sewa should be more than helping to serve a meal once a week (though its always good to do that too!). Hopefully, we can recognize that the our own struggle as Sikhs mimics the struggle of so many others on this planet, and in this way, find a path forward together.
Labels:
activism,
palestine,
sikh,
spirituality,
tegh bahadur
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Green, the new Black
When I first watched "An Inconvenient Truth," I remember thinking how much better it would be without AL Gore's self-aggrandizing personal narrative about his passion for the slide show. And then, just yesterday, I heard that same voice on NPR, extolling the potential fecundity of a "green economy." Everyone's home will have photovoltaic panels, and jobs will be created to, um, create new battery technologies, the likes of which haven't even been conceived of yet! Gore sounded like a second rate huckster, the guy at the dealership who swears he can get me a deal despite my awful credit.
Why am I picking on Nobel Laureate and erstwhile inventor of the Internet, Mr. Al Gore? Gore isn't the disease, but he is a symptom. Green has become the new black, and sustainability has become the vision of the future. And baby, they are selling it.
The problem with the buzz around the concept of sustainability is that it fails to ask some very, very critical questions. The very first being, do we really want to "sustain" anything? The American way of life, characterized by suburbia, the automobile and the acquisition of consumer goods, depends fundamentally on growth. This way of life also relies on the comparative advantages brought out by exploiting labor and materials markets overseas. Globalization, and the resulting goods and market advantages, are not simply energy intensive, they rely on cheap and dense energy. There is no combination of wind, solar, hydrogen, or any other 'clean' technology, that will allow globalization to be 'sustained' in anyway. Petroleum is simply too energy rich. In fact, it is vital to remember that it is the literally explosive energy richness of petroleum that allowed us to build the civilization we live in today.
Of course, it is always easier and more comforting to say that we can save what we are so deeply invested in, rather than suggest that we may need to radically rethink our civilization. Al gore may be eloquent, even persuasive, but the high-priests of the Green Economy are not telling the whole story. They are telling you that if you change the color of the drapes, the structure of the palace will be saved. But the palace is built on a rotting foundation.
Buyer beware . . .
When I first watched "An Inconvenient Truth," I remember thinking how much better it would be without AL Gore's self-aggrandizing personal narrative about his passion for the slide show. And then, just yesterday, I heard that same voice on NPR, extolling the potential fecundity of a "green economy." Everyone's home will have photovoltaic panels, and jobs will be created to, um, create new battery technologies, the likes of which haven't even been conceived of yet! Gore sounded like a second rate huckster, the guy at the dealership who swears he can get me a deal despite my awful credit.
Why am I picking on Nobel Laureate and erstwhile inventor of the Internet, Mr. Al Gore? Gore isn't the disease, but he is a symptom. Green has become the new black, and sustainability has become the vision of the future. And baby, they are selling it.
The problem with the buzz around the concept of sustainability is that it fails to ask some very, very critical questions. The very first being, do we really want to "sustain" anything? The American way of life, characterized by suburbia, the automobile and the acquisition of consumer goods, depends fundamentally on growth. This way of life also relies on the comparative advantages brought out by exploiting labor and materials markets overseas. Globalization, and the resulting goods and market advantages, are not simply energy intensive, they rely on cheap and dense energy. There is no combination of wind, solar, hydrogen, or any other 'clean' technology, that will allow globalization to be 'sustained' in anyway. Petroleum is simply too energy rich. In fact, it is vital to remember that it is the literally explosive energy richness of petroleum that allowed us to build the civilization we live in today.
Of course, it is always easier and more comforting to say that we can save what we are so deeply invested in, rather than suggest that we may need to radically rethink our civilization. Al gore may be eloquent, even persuasive, but the high-priests of the Green Economy are not telling the whole story. They are telling you that if you change the color of the drapes, the structure of the palace will be saved. But the palace is built on a rotting foundation.
Buyer beware . . .
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Devil in the details
Special envoy George Mitchell recently held high level talks in the holy land with Benyamin Netanyau. I don't want to spend too much time on "what it all means," these meetings are by now standard, perfunctory events for each successive American administration. Instead, let's look at a couple ok key points.
Mitchell suggested that in exchange for Israel halting settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, America would increase pressure on Iran and it's nuclear proram. This should give pause. Our government should not be offering Israel any incentive to stop settlements. Rather, settlements should viewed and treated for what they are, illegal, inhumane and a major obstacle to any lasting peace. We should not be offering incentive, but demanding a halt to settlements, on moral, and legal grounds. If anything, we should be telling Israel that unless settlement activity stops, we will stop supporting Israel. We should not be encouraging the right behavior, we should demand it.
-- Post From Gulistan
Monday, August 24, 2009
A Hindu and a Jew walk into a bar . . .
I was recently alerted to a news item which reports the sale of surface to air missile systems from an Israeli Defense Contractor to the Government of India. The deal is the most recent in a growing line of Israeli/Indian defense contracts, further solidifying ties between the world's largest democracy, and the garrison state of Israel.
Rafael, the defense contractor in question, is owned by the state of Israel, thus the profits will land directly in the coffers of the government. Clearly, the government of India has no compunction concerning the possibility of these funds being used to further destroy the rights of the Palestinian people. Solidarity from the Indian government is absent. Rather, what we see is a furthering of the agenda of New Delhi, to align itself with the dominant Western powers and use the phantasms of terror as the common narrative thread. While Israelis and Indians have perhaps suffered from terrorist actions in greater proportion than any other states (save open war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan) this level of weaponry is evidence not of anti-terrorist action, but of the projection of military power and regional hegemonic ambitions.
Furthermore, it is no surprise that the Indian government should engage in such activity that blatantly rejects the plight of the Palestinian people. One simply need look at the history of the centre government's reaction to minority struggles within India's own borders. The Sikh struggle in Punjab is but one example. And despite India's own struggle against the British Raj, one gets the distinct notion that the Elites in New Delhi feel that they have been "let into the house" in recent decades, having thrived on globalized trade and information technology. They do not intent to go back, and will align themselves and the fate of the Indian people a regime bent on the elimination of an indigenous people.
Hope lies in the numerous minority groups in India, and creating further solidarity and recognition of struggle between all oppressed people. Sikhs, Palestinians, Assamese, Christians in Orissa and Muslims throughout India, and oppressed peoples across the globe. Time to get free . . .
I was recently alerted to a news item which reports the sale of surface to air missile systems from an Israeli Defense Contractor to the Government of India. The deal is the most recent in a growing line of Israeli/Indian defense contracts, further solidifying ties between the world's largest democracy, and the garrison state of Israel.
Rafael, the defense contractor in question, is owned by the state of Israel, thus the profits will land directly in the coffers of the government. Clearly, the government of India has no compunction concerning the possibility of these funds being used to further destroy the rights of the Palestinian people. Solidarity from the Indian government is absent. Rather, what we see is a furthering of the agenda of New Delhi, to align itself with the dominant Western powers and use the phantasms of terror as the common narrative thread. While Israelis and Indians have perhaps suffered from terrorist actions in greater proportion than any other states (save open war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan) this level of weaponry is evidence not of anti-terrorist action, but of the projection of military power and regional hegemonic ambitions.
Furthermore, it is no surprise that the Indian government should engage in such activity that blatantly rejects the plight of the Palestinian people. One simply need look at the history of the centre government's reaction to minority struggles within India's own borders. The Sikh struggle in Punjab is but one example. And despite India's own struggle against the British Raj, one gets the distinct notion that the Elites in New Delhi feel that they have been "let into the house" in recent decades, having thrived on globalized trade and information technology. They do not intent to go back, and will align themselves and the fate of the Indian people a regime bent on the elimination of an indigenous people.
Hope lies in the numerous minority groups in India, and creating further solidarity and recognition of struggle between all oppressed people. Sikhs, Palestinians, Assamese, Christians in Orissa and Muslims throughout India, and oppressed peoples across the globe. Time to get free . . .
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Cut it
Sometimes James brown is perfect. Does not need a dj treatment. Was meant to dance to in the first place
-- Post From Gulistan
-- Post From Gulistan
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Young Guard
Is the Fatah movement ready for a change? The recent elections and new central committee membership seems to at least suggest the possibility. Only four of nine "old guard" members were re-elected to the central committee, while all remaining members constitute the emerging "Young Guard." In my mind, three major questions emerge:
1. Barghouti versus Dahlan?: The election of Marwan Barghouti provides perhaps the biggest glimmer of hope in my mind. If anyone on the contemporary scene may be regarded as a Palestinian "Mandela" figure, its Barghouti. The likely successor to Mahmood Abbas, Barghouti currently holds court in an Israeli prison. His work in prison proves he has the ability to unite the next generation of both Hamas and Fatah activists, and many believe that he will be able to carry on that unifying spirit once beyond the prison walls. Barghouti is not simply charismatic and widely admired, he represents a way forward, and has proven that partisanship needn't lead to schism.
Dahlan, on the other hand, is cited by Hamas as a primary motivation for the Gaza coup. Hamas believes that Dahlan's security apparatus threatened Hamas' strength in Gaza and Dahlan would not have stopped until Fatah regained a foothold in the strip, at any cost. Dahlan was supposed to be the wunderkind, the rising star in Fatah. Hamas seizing power in Gaza marks a major failure on Dahlan's part, but he still holds a vital place in the party, and likely will for some time. While he may have had deep personal ties to Hamas through his relationship with the family of al-Rantissi, Dahlan stands as a polarizing and aggressively ambitious figure. Internal unity will be vital for any Fatah success, and I think that will largely be defined by the dynamic between these two men.
Next major question tomorrow . . .
Is the Fatah movement ready for a change? The recent elections and new central committee membership seems to at least suggest the possibility. Only four of nine "old guard" members were re-elected to the central committee, while all remaining members constitute the emerging "Young Guard." In my mind, three major questions emerge:
1. Barghouti versus Dahlan?: The election of Marwan Barghouti provides perhaps the biggest glimmer of hope in my mind. If anyone on the contemporary scene may be regarded as a Palestinian "Mandela" figure, its Barghouti. The likely successor to Mahmood Abbas, Barghouti currently holds court in an Israeli prison. His work in prison proves he has the ability to unite the next generation of both Hamas and Fatah activists, and many believe that he will be able to carry on that unifying spirit once beyond the prison walls. Barghouti is not simply charismatic and widely admired, he represents a way forward, and has proven that partisanship needn't lead to schism.
Dahlan, on the other hand, is cited by Hamas as a primary motivation for the Gaza coup. Hamas believes that Dahlan's security apparatus threatened Hamas' strength in Gaza and Dahlan would not have stopped until Fatah regained a foothold in the strip, at any cost. Dahlan was supposed to be the wunderkind, the rising star in Fatah. Hamas seizing power in Gaza marks a major failure on Dahlan's part, but he still holds a vital place in the party, and likely will for some time. While he may have had deep personal ties to Hamas through his relationship with the family of al-Rantissi, Dahlan stands as a polarizing and aggressively ambitious figure. Internal unity will be vital for any Fatah success, and I think that will largely be defined by the dynamic between these two men.
Next major question tomorrow . . .
Sunday, August 09, 2009
I just finished watching an old PBS which examined the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision. I know this is old news to many. When Kitzmiller came to national prominence, I willfully ignored the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate on the grounds that even the trivial and cursory information I had gleaned on the matter of Intelligent Design proved it to be specious science at best, and thinly veiled Fundamentalist machination at worst. For me, the very existence of the deabte screamed of a kind of madness, the madness of irrational belief.
Consider this the first secular confession of a born-again atheist. Perhaps I have missed the boat a bit, but it has become galringly apparent to me, that we live in a new age of belief. We currently live in a time and place (the post-industrial West) where the availability of knowledge, information, scholarship cultural understadning is greater than ever. The internet and the democritization of technology (while flawed and incomplete) has allowed for the prolifieration of easilty accessible knowledge in a vast number of fields of science, politics and the humanities. In some ways, one could well argue that this should be the most enlightened age in human history.
What we find however, is that these very same tools of technological progress have created a crisis of authority. thoroughly researched, reviewed, contested and revised scientific theory has suddenly been thrust into apparently equal footing with spurious, inherently biased and ideologically motivated pseudo-science. As a result, I dare say, we are becoming a generally less enlightened and continually poorly educated populace.
We are told on an almost daily basis that the "terrorist" pose an existential threat to the physically safety of the United States, as well as a threat to the American way of life. While I do not want to dismiss the danger posed by terrorist organizations, barring the possibility that any such group acquires a nuclear weapon, and the capability to deliver and detonate such a weapoin on U.S. soil, the "existential" threat posed by terrorist group tends to be marginal at best.
Let's not forget, that these terrorists are often described as having some kind of fundamentalist view of the world and religion that justifies their violence and vitriol. Religion can be a dangerous thing. I would argue that one of the greatest threats faced by American civilization is not, in point of fact, Islamic Fundamentalism, but rather Christian Fundamentalists here at home. While countries such as China and India now boast universities that are quickly reaching parity with the West in terms of technical and research sophistication, the heartland of America is being besieged by an ideological virus that would replace critical thinking and intellectual rigor with blind belief in Bronze Age mythology and a world-view that flies completely in the face of hundreds of years of well understood scientific evidence.
Let us be on guard in this new age of belief. Think for yourself, question truths, all truths. It is in this way that human knowledge expands, and that life is advanced. The urge to believe is strong, and faith is a great comfort in a confusing and often cruel world. However, only the open and critically active mind can hope to bring us from the dark to light. It is, in fact, the only thing that ever has.
More later
Consider this the first secular confession of a born-again atheist. Perhaps I have missed the boat a bit, but it has become galringly apparent to me, that we live in a new age of belief. We currently live in a time and place (the post-industrial West) where the availability of knowledge, information, scholarship cultural understadning is greater than ever. The internet and the democritization of technology (while flawed and incomplete) has allowed for the prolifieration of easilty accessible knowledge in a vast number of fields of science, politics and the humanities. In some ways, one could well argue that this should be the most enlightened age in human history.
What we find however, is that these very same tools of technological progress have created a crisis of authority. thoroughly researched, reviewed, contested and revised scientific theory has suddenly been thrust into apparently equal footing with spurious, inherently biased and ideologically motivated pseudo-science. As a result, I dare say, we are becoming a generally less enlightened and continually poorly educated populace.
We are told on an almost daily basis that the "terrorist" pose an existential threat to the physically safety of the United States, as well as a threat to the American way of life. While I do not want to dismiss the danger posed by terrorist organizations, barring the possibility that any such group acquires a nuclear weapon, and the capability to deliver and detonate such a weapoin on U.S. soil, the "existential" threat posed by terrorist group tends to be marginal at best.
Let's not forget, that these terrorists are often described as having some kind of fundamentalist view of the world and religion that justifies their violence and vitriol. Religion can be a dangerous thing. I would argue that one of the greatest threats faced by American civilization is not, in point of fact, Islamic Fundamentalism, but rather Christian Fundamentalists here at home. While countries such as China and India now boast universities that are quickly reaching parity with the West in terms of technical and research sophistication, the heartland of America is being besieged by an ideological virus that would replace critical thinking and intellectual rigor with blind belief in Bronze Age mythology and a world-view that flies completely in the face of hundreds of years of well understood scientific evidence.
Let us be on guard in this new age of belief. Think for yourself, question truths, all truths. It is in this way that human knowledge expands, and that life is advanced. The urge to believe is strong, and faith is a great comfort in a confusing and often cruel world. However, only the open and critically active mind can hope to bring us from the dark to light. It is, in fact, the only thing that ever has.
More later
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Heavy Guns
The Iranian establishment descended upon the Tehran streets in force over the weekend, and the country's de facto leaders, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, responded with ferocity and vicious inflexibility.
I take a moment to honour the fallen, the brave Iranians risking all in the name of justice.
Evidence mounts to reveal the depth of the crisis. In my previous post, I began to explore the current schism in Iranian society, a divide borne from political as well as generational conflict. The vast, and overwhelmingly young Iranian electorate seeks a new direction for the country. The period of cultural appeasement-when President Khatami loosened some of the more draconian restrictions on personal freedom - came to a jarring end during A-jad's first term. And while Iran's nuclear ambitions confer a sense of pride on most Iranians, the country's continued and deepening sense of isolation as a result of the regime's bluster tends to frustrate the young, progressive, urban Iranians. These young Persians (the demographic that largely supports Mousavi) feel that the current regime, just doesn't get it. They understand that a change must come in order to bring Iran fully into the global moment, rather than to retreat to the obscurantism and stagnation of a calcified worldview.
Persian civilization is one of the oldest and richest in human history. So long as the self-styled "retainers of the revolution" continue to stifle the great potential of the Iranian people, another generation of Iranians will be forever cutoff from its rightful and prodigious inheritance.
More later . . . God is Great.
The Iranian establishment descended upon the Tehran streets in force over the weekend, and the country's de facto leaders, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, responded with ferocity and vicious inflexibility.
I take a moment to honour the fallen, the brave Iranians risking all in the name of justice.
Evidence mounts to reveal the depth of the crisis. In my previous post, I began to explore the current schism in Iranian society, a divide borne from political as well as generational conflict. The vast, and overwhelmingly young Iranian electorate seeks a new direction for the country. The period of cultural appeasement-when President Khatami loosened some of the more draconian restrictions on personal freedom - came to a jarring end during A-jad's first term. And while Iran's nuclear ambitions confer a sense of pride on most Iranians, the country's continued and deepening sense of isolation as a result of the regime's bluster tends to frustrate the young, progressive, urban Iranians. These young Persians (the demographic that largely supports Mousavi) feel that the current regime, just doesn't get it. They understand that a change must come in order to bring Iran fully into the global moment, rather than to retreat to the obscurantism and stagnation of a calcified worldview.
Persian civilization is one of the oldest and richest in human history. So long as the self-styled "retainers of the revolution" continue to stifle the great potential of the Iranian people, another generation of Iranians will be forever cutoff from its rightful and prodigious inheritance.
More later . . . God is Great.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)