One might understand from UN envoy Staffan de Mistura’s comments about the recent riots in Afghanistan why the UN consistently gets it wrong.
De Mistura essentially blamed the riots and the deaths that resulted on the act that ostensibly “provoked” it, the burning of a Koran in Florida. De Mistura was unequivocal in his proclamation that “free speech” did not cover offenses to religion.
De Mistura is, of course, wrong. But one might actually understand why he said it: he was afraid for his, and his charges’, lives. Especially when the victims of the riots had absolutely nothing to do with the Koran burning by any degree of separation. One wonders why American troops weren’t targeted: could it be that the rioters feared superior firepower?
Another UN’er who got it wrong was Richard Goldstone, and this week, he admitted it. The Israeli response was notable in its absolute 180 degree divergence from the Afghan response: the Israeli interior minister invited Goldstone to see for himself what actually happens when Hamas terrorizes southern Israel. One can only imagine a parallel invitation from an Imam or other religious figure to one of Pastor Jones’ congregants to see what the “real” community of Koran readers are like. [Then again, it would likely be an invitation to a beheading.]
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
1989? 1918? 1979?
We might think—or hope—that the spontaneous uprisings in the Middle East are reminiscent of the Velvet Revolution[s] of 1989. One might even draw a parallel between Nicolae Ceausescu and Col. Khadafy: one leader who actually resisted the uprising ended up paying for it with his life [which many are likely praying for, in this case].
However, aside from the uncertainties inherent in any sudden regime change, especially in areas with no tradition of a truly republican rule of law [never mind democratic], and aside from the fact that Iran waits to fill any power vacuums that develop as a result of the widespread agitation, one might actually find a more salient parallel with the events that took place following World War I.
Following the Great War, when numerous ethnicities agitated for homelands under the principles of self-determination and old empires that had largely been intact for nearly a century crumbled under their own weight, the map up Europe was not only redrawn but its political makeup changed overnight, largely not for the better. In many cases, sclerotic monarchies were replaced either by revolutionary dictatorships [Hungary being one example] or very unstable republics [Weimar]. And, eerily reminiscent of Iran today, the newly formed Soviet Union waited in the wings to take advantage of any power vacuums that would result.
Additionally, the perception that the Middle East has been America’s private oil reserve parallels—however loosely and inaccurately—the colonialism of the post-1918 period. By extension, the ever looming specter of political Islam may be seen as a distorted version of self-determination, as the faith remains the center of the lives of much of the protestors, even as it remains a question as to whether the faith itself has propelled any of the current revolts.
The world—and especially the United States—has convincingly demonstrated that it was not ready for this. And while the endgame probably won’t mimic 1989 or 1918 [and, hopefully, not 1979], it remains to be seen what truisms are shattered and what new ones arise to take their place.
However, aside from the uncertainties inherent in any sudden regime change, especially in areas with no tradition of a truly republican rule of law [never mind democratic], and aside from the fact that Iran waits to fill any power vacuums that develop as a result of the widespread agitation, one might actually find a more salient parallel with the events that took place following World War I.
Following the Great War, when numerous ethnicities agitated for homelands under the principles of self-determination and old empires that had largely been intact for nearly a century crumbled under their own weight, the map up Europe was not only redrawn but its political makeup changed overnight, largely not for the better. In many cases, sclerotic monarchies were replaced either by revolutionary dictatorships [Hungary being one example] or very unstable republics [Weimar]. And, eerily reminiscent of Iran today, the newly formed Soviet Union waited in the wings to take advantage of any power vacuums that would result.
Additionally, the perception that the Middle East has been America’s private oil reserve parallels—however loosely and inaccurately—the colonialism of the post-1918 period. By extension, the ever looming specter of political Islam may be seen as a distorted version of self-determination, as the faith remains the center of the lives of much of the protestors, even as it remains a question as to whether the faith itself has propelled any of the current revolts.
The world—and especially the United States—has convincingly demonstrated that it was not ready for this. And while the endgame probably won’t mimic 1989 or 1918 [and, hopefully, not 1979], it remains to be seen what truisms are shattered and what new ones arise to take their place.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Arizona
As inappropriately ironic or ironically inappropriate as it may be to say so, the left has shot itself in the foot once again.
They may have had a legitimate—however flimsy—argument about the use of target imagery in politics as perilous if they restricted their argument to issues relating to gun control and gun culture; after all, it was a very loose purchase policy that allowed the murderer in Arizona to acquire his weapon and ammunition with relative ease.
Instead, the left decided to go after the entirety of the debating style of the right to score political points, mostly because they find it hard to shout back effectively.
Interestingly, Fox News chief Roger Ailes has called for a calmer tone from his side and has challenged the left to do the same, pointing out that both sides of the debate use target imagery as ubiquitous political metaphor.
In any case, indications from outlets such as the NY Times and MSNBC are such that they don’t seem to want to let up in this debate irrespective of the what the wishes of Rep. Giffords might be once she wakes up.
They may have had a legitimate—however flimsy—argument about the use of target imagery in politics as perilous if they restricted their argument to issues relating to gun control and gun culture; after all, it was a very loose purchase policy that allowed the murderer in Arizona to acquire his weapon and ammunition with relative ease.
Instead, the left decided to go after the entirety of the debating style of the right to score political points, mostly because they find it hard to shout back effectively.
Interestingly, Fox News chief Roger Ailes has called for a calmer tone from his side and has challenged the left to do the same, pointing out that both sides of the debate use target imagery as ubiquitous political metaphor.
In any case, indications from outlets such as the NY Times and MSNBC are such that they don’t seem to want to let up in this debate irrespective of the what the wishes of Rep. Giffords might be once she wakes up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)