sabato 31 gennaio 2009
martedì 27 gennaio 2009
TOWARDS A NATO DEBACLE IN AFGHANISTAN
SUMMARY
Important recent events have pushed Afghanistan away from the limelight and the headlines, but the problems there are intense and growing. The NATO leadership is wrong if it believes that a purely military solution is possible, and it is also wrong in wanting, at all costs, to exclude an important player like Iran from any international discussion on the subject.
TEXT
In the past weeks the world has been dealing with events – Gaza and the inauguration of the U.S. President - weighty enough to push Afghanistan out of the limelight. This does not mean, however, that the Afghan situation has calmed down or improved, and, indeed, a recent attack in the very centre of Kabul shows a growing build-up of Taliban confidence and efficiency. Another attack in the Heart area, which up to some months ago was relatively secure shows that this surge in Taliban confidence and efficiency is not limited to the Capital but is spreading over the entire nation.
A fundamental refocusing of ideas therefore seems long overdue, and fresh thought has to be dedicated to unsolved problems which have long been maturing, and which will have to be tackled with cool, rational thinking to prevent a major Western debacle in Afghanistan. This new approach can only be achieved at the cost of showing sufficient courage to admit previous errors and radically to change political and military strategy.
It would be useful, in the first place, carefully to analyze the generally accepted opinion on what is seen as the “original” error, that is to have left the Afghan mission unaccomplished in order to invade Iraq, thus leaving the Al Qaeda command structure basically intact. This is only partially true: the failure to pursue the Al Qaeda command across the mountain passes and into Pakistani territory did indeed create basic political problems causing the West to lose momentum, and therefore credibility, in the so ineptly named “War on Terror”. It is, however open to question whether the Taliban, as a basically native party, could ever have been militarily defeated or neutralized. It is evident that this goal is impossible to accomplish now, but it probably would not have been possible to accomplish even then, given the historically and traditionally resilient character of Afghan resistance movements.
Instead of proceeding exclusively along the lines of a replication of the Iraqi “surge”, and asking all the NATO partners not only to increase their participation numerically, but also to send contingents with more unified, and, in any case more aggressive and combative rules of engagement, serious collective thought should be given to alternatives to military action which, in its present nature, is doomed to failure no matter how large or efficient the reinforcements.
There is no doubt that one of the main causes of the current institutional weakness in Afghanistan, and the subsequent rise of insurgency, can be found in the growing, and largely unpunished, corruption in all levels of Government (National, Provincial or Municipal), and of course in the entire Police and Justice system, with some notable, very brave, exceptions. Collective human memory tends to be selective and, within a growing sector of Afghan Civil Society memories of the harshness of the Taliban regime recede, substituted by those which enhance the unquestionable basic honesty and incorruptibility of the Taliban leadership.
If the expression “Hearts and Minds” is to make any sense at all, this is an issue which should be tackled with the greatest urgency and as ruthlessly as possible, at the risk of offending some of the Afghan leaders.
The International operators in Afghanistan should also pay closer attention to the complex web of geographic-ethnic-tribal relationships and undertake a serious attempt to understand Afghan realities, at the cost of having to jettison well meant but highly impractical preconceived ideas on the country’s democratic aspirations.
It would be a hopeless task to attempt to tackle Afghanistan’s problems without involving other Countries in the area. It is of course of paramount importance to reach some form of regional security, but also in this some basic rethinking is indispensable. It is received wisdom that Afghanistan’s security depends greatly on political stability in Pakistan. This is undoubtedly true, but so is the reverse: due to the complex ethnic and tribal nature of its frontier province, Pakistan cannot hope to achieve political harmony or stability if its Afghan neighbour is in turmoil. The time has certainly come to tackle the famous border issues squarely, seriously and with the greatest possible energy, to the point of considering the question as to whether Pakistan as a unified State with its present borders, is still a viable proposition without a strong military government.
These are serious and far reaching issues which cannot be solved by NATO with the cooperation of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sooner or later an International Conference will have to be convened, bringing together all the interested parties: it is amazing that, at present, whenever the need of international intervention is mentioned the one most interested and most influential party is never taken into consideration. While the names of India, Iraq, the Emirates, Turkey and others are freely offered, any mention of Iran is studiously avoided and this gives a measure of how unprepared the International Community is on this issue.
Iran is a neighbour whose historical, political and cultural influence should not be underestimated: it should be enough to remember that Persian, in a slight variant known as “Dari”, is one of Afghanistan’s two national languages. There are, furthermore, strong and credible indications that Afghanistan is one of the issues which could be used to come to more general agreements with Iran allowing it to fulfil its natural regional role, and finally putting to rest the shameful, ridiculous “Axis of Evil” epithet.
Important recent events have pushed Afghanistan away from the limelight and the headlines, but the problems there are intense and growing. The NATO leadership is wrong if it believes that a purely military solution is possible, and it is also wrong in wanting, at all costs, to exclude an important player like Iran from any international discussion on the subject.
TEXT
In the past weeks the world has been dealing with events – Gaza and the inauguration of the U.S. President - weighty enough to push Afghanistan out of the limelight. This does not mean, however, that the Afghan situation has calmed down or improved, and, indeed, a recent attack in the very centre of Kabul shows a growing build-up of Taliban confidence and efficiency. Another attack in the Heart area, which up to some months ago was relatively secure shows that this surge in Taliban confidence and efficiency is not limited to the Capital but is spreading over the entire nation.
A fundamental refocusing of ideas therefore seems long overdue, and fresh thought has to be dedicated to unsolved problems which have long been maturing, and which will have to be tackled with cool, rational thinking to prevent a major Western debacle in Afghanistan. This new approach can only be achieved at the cost of showing sufficient courage to admit previous errors and radically to change political and military strategy.
It would be useful, in the first place, carefully to analyze the generally accepted opinion on what is seen as the “original” error, that is to have left the Afghan mission unaccomplished in order to invade Iraq, thus leaving the Al Qaeda command structure basically intact. This is only partially true: the failure to pursue the Al Qaeda command across the mountain passes and into Pakistani territory did indeed create basic political problems causing the West to lose momentum, and therefore credibility, in the so ineptly named “War on Terror”. It is, however open to question whether the Taliban, as a basically native party, could ever have been militarily defeated or neutralized. It is evident that this goal is impossible to accomplish now, but it probably would not have been possible to accomplish even then, given the historically and traditionally resilient character of Afghan resistance movements.
Instead of proceeding exclusively along the lines of a replication of the Iraqi “surge”, and asking all the NATO partners not only to increase their participation numerically, but also to send contingents with more unified, and, in any case more aggressive and combative rules of engagement, serious collective thought should be given to alternatives to military action which, in its present nature, is doomed to failure no matter how large or efficient the reinforcements.
There is no doubt that one of the main causes of the current institutional weakness in Afghanistan, and the subsequent rise of insurgency, can be found in the growing, and largely unpunished, corruption in all levels of Government (National, Provincial or Municipal), and of course in the entire Police and Justice system, with some notable, very brave, exceptions. Collective human memory tends to be selective and, within a growing sector of Afghan Civil Society memories of the harshness of the Taliban regime recede, substituted by those which enhance the unquestionable basic honesty and incorruptibility of the Taliban leadership.
If the expression “Hearts and Minds” is to make any sense at all, this is an issue which should be tackled with the greatest urgency and as ruthlessly as possible, at the risk of offending some of the Afghan leaders.
The International operators in Afghanistan should also pay closer attention to the complex web of geographic-ethnic-tribal relationships and undertake a serious attempt to understand Afghan realities, at the cost of having to jettison well meant but highly impractical preconceived ideas on the country’s democratic aspirations.
It would be a hopeless task to attempt to tackle Afghanistan’s problems without involving other Countries in the area. It is of course of paramount importance to reach some form of regional security, but also in this some basic rethinking is indispensable. It is received wisdom that Afghanistan’s security depends greatly on political stability in Pakistan. This is undoubtedly true, but so is the reverse: due to the complex ethnic and tribal nature of its frontier province, Pakistan cannot hope to achieve political harmony or stability if its Afghan neighbour is in turmoil. The time has certainly come to tackle the famous border issues squarely, seriously and with the greatest possible energy, to the point of considering the question as to whether Pakistan as a unified State with its present borders, is still a viable proposition without a strong military government.
These are serious and far reaching issues which cannot be solved by NATO with the cooperation of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sooner or later an International Conference will have to be convened, bringing together all the interested parties: it is amazing that, at present, whenever the need of international intervention is mentioned the one most interested and most influential party is never taken into consideration. While the names of India, Iraq, the Emirates, Turkey and others are freely offered, any mention of Iran is studiously avoided and this gives a measure of how unprepared the International Community is on this issue.
Iran is a neighbour whose historical, political and cultural influence should not be underestimated: it should be enough to remember that Persian, in a slight variant known as “Dari”, is one of Afghanistan’s two national languages. There are, furthermore, strong and credible indications that Afghanistan is one of the issues which could be used to come to more general agreements with Iran allowing it to fulfil its natural regional role, and finally putting to rest the shameful, ridiculous “Axis of Evil” epithet.
domenica 18 gennaio 2009
THE AXIS OF EVIL REVISITED: IRAN
SUMMARY.
The uncertain outcome of the Gaza war, as well as the political changes in the United States and in Israel, should facilitate an essential rethinking of Iran's role, clearing the air of all the old clichés and allowing Iran to play its obvious and essential role in the Gulf Region.
TEXT.
There is some hope – albeit very slight - that the murderous events currently taking place in Gaza will contribute to clear the air around the only remaining active member of the “Axis of Evil”; I refer, of course, to Iran. The conventional wisdom about Iran, carefully nurtured in the United States and now adopted by many obedient Governments around the world depicts that country and its regime as a diabolically wicked historical enemy of the “Democratic West” and its values, armed to the teeth and ready to strike at our vital interests with ruthless efficiency. This, according to the same scenario, is compelling us to build “star wars” type barriers, which, of course by sheer coincidence, pose a direct threat to Russia, at the moment on the borderline and about to cross into – or, rather, return to - the “Evil” family of Nations.
This circumstance throws my mind back to the build-up for the invasion of Iraq, when Prime Minister Tony Blair could be seen wildly pacing the Parliament floor, hair flying in disarray ranting about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and not hesitating to compare the situation to the infamous appeasement associated with Munich, 1938. I was amazed, at the time, that not one of the major commentators or columnists came out with a simple assertion, just to say: “Mr. Blair, you are not Winston Churchill, and President Bush is definitely not FDR. Iraq is not Germany. Saddam is not Hitler, and, above all, the Iraqi army is not the Wehrmacht, nor is Saddam’s Republican Guard comparable to the Waffen SS.”
The mainstream international press remained stunningly and obsequiously silent, while leading columnists, perhaps fully convinced by the spin doctors, all seemed ready to rewrite the history of World War II. As a result the new Crusaders enthusiastically went to war, in a Quixotic endeavour to eliminate nonexistent Weapons of Mass Destructions and to eradicate imaginary terrorist bases.
There are striking parallels between those attitudes and the ones prevailing today In spite of the recent lesson of Iraq, none of the major international Newspapers or Periodicals have undertaken serious attempts at a cool, detached analysis of the Iranian situation, before embarking on grandiloquent tirades against the arch-enemy of the moment (things were easier during the Cold War when the arch-enemy’s identity didn’t change so often). This constant, mantra-like repetition of clichés, once the speciality of totalitarian regimes, once again seems to be an accepted substitute to investigation and research as an instrument for bringing correct information to the general public.
It is, for example, absurd to depict Iran as a military threat to Israel, the Middle East or Europe, for the simple reason that Iran’s military capacity is actually rather limited in comparison to most of the other countries in the area such as Saudi Arabia, The Emirates, Egypt and, of course, Israel itself. This can be deduced by the relatively low military expenditure in Iran, both in terms of total amount spent and in terms of percentage of National Product.
Iran is also depicted as an authoritarian dictatorship, while, of course, the above mentioned countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt are models of Democracy. In reality, the Iranian Government is one of the most democratic in the area, in spite of its theocratic origins and superstructure, and Iranian leaders are much more accountable to public opinion than the leaders in many other countries in the area, as can be witnessed by the political changes which occur at almost every general election.
Is Iran, finally, such an implacable and intractable enemy of the West? I would say that the situation is quite the reverse. At the onset of the 2001 military action in Afghanistan, Iran offered its assistance in combating the Taliban, of which it does not approve, and, similarly, Iran has offered to help stabilize the situation in post-invasion Iraq, an offer which was refused with contempt. It is probable that what Iran was hoping to obtain in exchange was nothing unacceptable to the West, but rather a recognition of the legitimate role it has to play in the Gulf area and of its interest in being bordered by a stable and peaceful Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even possible that important concessions could have been obtained in terms of a weaker support to organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, but this, of course, is only speculation.
It is perhaps not too late to engage Teheran in serious negotiations, which will not be easy, but will certainly alleviate the tensions which exist in the area and which have been exacerbated by the recent events in Gaza, which, if nothing else, with the impending political change in Israel, could have considerably diminished the political clout and the prestige both of the Fatah leadership and of some of the nearby Governments who chose to ignore popular feeling in their respective countries..
The uncertain outcome of the Gaza war, as well as the political changes in the United States and in Israel, should facilitate an essential rethinking of Iran's role, clearing the air of all the old clichés and allowing Iran to play its obvious and essential role in the Gulf Region.
TEXT.
There is some hope – albeit very slight - that the murderous events currently taking place in Gaza will contribute to clear the air around the only remaining active member of the “Axis of Evil”; I refer, of course, to Iran. The conventional wisdom about Iran, carefully nurtured in the United States and now adopted by many obedient Governments around the world depicts that country and its regime as a diabolically wicked historical enemy of the “Democratic West” and its values, armed to the teeth and ready to strike at our vital interests with ruthless efficiency. This, according to the same scenario, is compelling us to build “star wars” type barriers, which, of course by sheer coincidence, pose a direct threat to Russia, at the moment on the borderline and about to cross into – or, rather, return to - the “Evil” family of Nations.
This circumstance throws my mind back to the build-up for the invasion of Iraq, when Prime Minister Tony Blair could be seen wildly pacing the Parliament floor, hair flying in disarray ranting about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and not hesitating to compare the situation to the infamous appeasement associated with Munich, 1938. I was amazed, at the time, that not one of the major commentators or columnists came out with a simple assertion, just to say: “Mr. Blair, you are not Winston Churchill, and President Bush is definitely not FDR. Iraq is not Germany. Saddam is not Hitler, and, above all, the Iraqi army is not the Wehrmacht, nor is Saddam’s Republican Guard comparable to the Waffen SS.”
The mainstream international press remained stunningly and obsequiously silent, while leading columnists, perhaps fully convinced by the spin doctors, all seemed ready to rewrite the history of World War II. As a result the new Crusaders enthusiastically went to war, in a Quixotic endeavour to eliminate nonexistent Weapons of Mass Destructions and to eradicate imaginary terrorist bases.
There are striking parallels between those attitudes and the ones prevailing today In spite of the recent lesson of Iraq, none of the major international Newspapers or Periodicals have undertaken serious attempts at a cool, detached analysis of the Iranian situation, before embarking on grandiloquent tirades against the arch-enemy of the moment (things were easier during the Cold War when the arch-enemy’s identity didn’t change so often). This constant, mantra-like repetition of clichés, once the speciality of totalitarian regimes, once again seems to be an accepted substitute to investigation and research as an instrument for bringing correct information to the general public.
It is, for example, absurd to depict Iran as a military threat to Israel, the Middle East or Europe, for the simple reason that Iran’s military capacity is actually rather limited in comparison to most of the other countries in the area such as Saudi Arabia, The Emirates, Egypt and, of course, Israel itself. This can be deduced by the relatively low military expenditure in Iran, both in terms of total amount spent and in terms of percentage of National Product.
Iran is also depicted as an authoritarian dictatorship, while, of course, the above mentioned countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt are models of Democracy. In reality, the Iranian Government is one of the most democratic in the area, in spite of its theocratic origins and superstructure, and Iranian leaders are much more accountable to public opinion than the leaders in many other countries in the area, as can be witnessed by the political changes which occur at almost every general election.
Is Iran, finally, such an implacable and intractable enemy of the West? I would say that the situation is quite the reverse. At the onset of the 2001 military action in Afghanistan, Iran offered its assistance in combating the Taliban, of which it does not approve, and, similarly, Iran has offered to help stabilize the situation in post-invasion Iraq, an offer which was refused with contempt. It is probable that what Iran was hoping to obtain in exchange was nothing unacceptable to the West, but rather a recognition of the legitimate role it has to play in the Gulf area and of its interest in being bordered by a stable and peaceful Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even possible that important concessions could have been obtained in terms of a weaker support to organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, but this, of course, is only speculation.
It is perhaps not too late to engage Teheran in serious negotiations, which will not be easy, but will certainly alleviate the tensions which exist in the area and which have been exacerbated by the recent events in Gaza, which, if nothing else, with the impending political change in Israel, could have considerably diminished the political clout and the prestige both of the Fatah leadership and of some of the nearby Governments who chose to ignore popular feeling in their respective countries..
lunedì 12 gennaio 2009
RELIGION AND FUNDAMENTALISM, AN INEVITABLE COMBINATION?
The flourishing of fundamentalist tendencies within many of the World’s great Religions arouses fear, disapproval and some amazement.
Much of this derives from the misuse of the term “fundamentalist”, which has somehow come to be associated with intolerance and violence, whereas, in reality, it refers mainly to a strong attachment to the basic tenets of the religious belief to which the “fundamentalist” belongs, and above all to the persuasion that this, and only this particular Religion or Sect has the definite answer to all the Transcendental questions.
From a strictly logical perspective, it is utter nonsense to assert that “all Religions are true”, because there is only one possible alternative: either all Religions are false or one, and only one Religion is true, and from this assertion we could conclude that, actually, again from a strictly logical point of view, fundamentalism makes much better sense than ecumenicalism.
Whether we like it or not, this perception seems to be growing and fundamentalism is the leading trend. People in the West, however, should not limit themselves into considering – and therefore fearing – only Islamic Fundamentalism, and ignoring, instead, the fundamentalist strains in other leading Sects and Religious Movements.
These tendencies are less evident to us because we have got used to them and they blend into our environment, but nonetheless they exist and present tangible dangers. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, which in the early sixties set an ecumenical example with Pope John XXIII, has been led by fundamentalist Pontiffs since 1978, although, it has to be said, John-Paul’s striking political acumen, as well as his great personal charisma and charm, hid his basically fundamentalist policies rather efficiently. The present Pope, instead, is openly and aggressively fundamentalist and obviously ill at ease when talking to leaders of other religious sects, be they Christian or otherwise.
Signs of unrest emerge also in the East, and we are confronted today with a phenomenon which would have been unbelievable only a few years back: i.e. Hindu fundamentalism.
I believe that the phenomenon deserves investigation and comment, and I would be curious to know if any of my Facebook friends or readers of my blog have come to similar, or absolutely opposite, conclusions.
Much of this derives from the misuse of the term “fundamentalist”, which has somehow come to be associated with intolerance and violence, whereas, in reality, it refers mainly to a strong attachment to the basic tenets of the religious belief to which the “fundamentalist” belongs, and above all to the persuasion that this, and only this particular Religion or Sect has the definite answer to all the Transcendental questions.
From a strictly logical perspective, it is utter nonsense to assert that “all Religions are true”, because there is only one possible alternative: either all Religions are false or one, and only one Religion is true, and from this assertion we could conclude that, actually, again from a strictly logical point of view, fundamentalism makes much better sense than ecumenicalism.
Whether we like it or not, this perception seems to be growing and fundamentalism is the leading trend. People in the West, however, should not limit themselves into considering – and therefore fearing – only Islamic Fundamentalism, and ignoring, instead, the fundamentalist strains in other leading Sects and Religious Movements.
These tendencies are less evident to us because we have got used to them and they blend into our environment, but nonetheless they exist and present tangible dangers. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, which in the early sixties set an ecumenical example with Pope John XXIII, has been led by fundamentalist Pontiffs since 1978, although, it has to be said, John-Paul’s striking political acumen, as well as his great personal charisma and charm, hid his basically fundamentalist policies rather efficiently. The present Pope, instead, is openly and aggressively fundamentalist and obviously ill at ease when talking to leaders of other religious sects, be they Christian or otherwise.
Signs of unrest emerge also in the East, and we are confronted today with a phenomenon which would have been unbelievable only a few years back: i.e. Hindu fundamentalism.
I believe that the phenomenon deserves investigation and comment, and I would be curious to know if any of my Facebook friends or readers of my blog have come to similar, or absolutely opposite, conclusions.
domenica 11 gennaio 2009
MY BRAIN HAS BEEN WASHED, HOW ABOUT YOURS?
A recurring theme in the history of the United States has been the quasi-constant need for a visible adversary, often transformed into a sinister enemy, seen and almost revered as a fundamental threat to the very existence of the Nation..
The first of these, of course, were the Native Americans, them pesky injuns, who had to be eliminated in order to allow freedom to flourish.
A time also came when the role of public enemy was played by the emancipated African slaves, and this, with some variations, continued over many generations.
Then came the turn of the Spanish, and then - for a brief but intense period - the Germans and Japanese.
When I, as a teenager, lived in California, the great enemy was Communism, with its close running dog, Socialism, and this brought to the glorification of Senator Joe McCarthy and his “Un-American Activities” Committee.
The very term “Un-American” is an eye-opener, and has no real equivalent in any of the other major Democracies. The unlikely accusation of being “Un-Italian”, “Un-Austrian”, “Un-Dutch”, etc., would arouse incredulity and some amusement in Italy, Austria or the Netherlands and could certainly never be the basis for any legal or political action against the accused.
At the collapse of the Soviet Empire (The “Evil Empire”, forerunner of the “Axis of Evil” – in truth, John of Patmos, the Author of the “Book of Revelation”, would have had a remarkable political career in the United States) there suddenly seemed to be no credible adversary, no enemy of “Freedom”, until, mercifully, the Islamic Extremists appeared and reminded American opinion of the fact that the Arabs and Muslims were the enemies of Israel, and, therefore of all that was decent in the world.
What followed is recent history: the “War on Terror” (i.e. Christianity’s latest Crusade against the Heathen), turned out to be, and continues to be, a magnificent recruiting tool for a growing number of terrorists in Southern and Central Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. Within the United States, however, within that truly wonderful Country where authentic democratic aspirations so often are turned into a soft version of Fascism, survival depends on the ability to believe the predominant political pronouncements and to repeat them incessantly, while exhibiting one’s flag-waving patriotism beyond any possible doubt. As a result, the same type of majority which once firmly believed – and in a certain sense still does – that people who showed any sympathy for Communism or Socialism were a danger to the Nation, now seems to see an even greater threat in the activities of Muslim Governments or organisations, wherever they may be, and therefore, by association, in people who show sympathy or understanding for Muslim causes or even for Muslim culture.
All this raises a question in my mind, to which I have been unable to find an answer, even after all these years (over half a century) since living in the United States. Americans have never had a “Ministry of Culture” or a Government censoring machine to filter out from publication items which go against official policy. Nor is there a “Ministry of Propaganda” to ensure a constant stream of “correct” messages to the people. And yet, in spite of this, in spite of the unquestionable freedom of the press there is greater conformity in thought and opinions than can be found in most European Countries, and for this reason one has the feeling, at times, that people in the United States have been brain-washed into perceiving events as positive or negative, as encouraging or threatening, and are, therefore, extremely resistant to information which moves in a different direction. Just as it would have been unthinkable “in my time” (the early and mid fifties) to attempt any justification of Soviet policies or attitudes, so it seems a hopeless uphill struggle, now, to try to point out flaws in the blind, unreasoning anti-Iranian, or, for that matter, pro-Israeli stances adopted by the entire American political spectrum, a truly bipartisan approach to illogicality which seems unassailable.
How and why does this happen? How is it achieved? Are there hidden powers behind it? Is this a reality or a figment of my imagination?
I have never been able to find a satisfactory or convincing answer to these questions, except for the last one: I know that this is not my imagination, because I was myself caught up in the mechanism as I realised when, after five years spent in California, I arrived in Europe at the age of 17, in the mid-fifties, as a totally brain-washed American teenager. The proof of this can be given by the fact that, living in France, I was horrified – and somewhat frightened – when I heard that the French Government of the time was led by a Socialist. I gazed about me in wonderment, amazed at the fact that people still lived in seeming carefree joy, that everything still functioned, in spite of the evil ideology which seemed to inspire the leadership.
It only took a few weeks to shake off that feeling, but I have a very clear memory of how amazed I was at the very possibility of leading a normal life with a “Socialist” government, just as I’m sure, it is difficult for present-day Americans to understand that people in Muslim or Islamic Countries lead pretty normal lives and are not bent on the destruction of the “Great Satan”.
The mystery remains on how such behavioural conformity is achieved and maintained.
The first of these, of course, were the Native Americans, them pesky injuns, who had to be eliminated in order to allow freedom to flourish.
A time also came when the role of public enemy was played by the emancipated African slaves, and this, with some variations, continued over many generations.
Then came the turn of the Spanish, and then - for a brief but intense period - the Germans and Japanese.
When I, as a teenager, lived in California, the great enemy was Communism, with its close running dog, Socialism, and this brought to the glorification of Senator Joe McCarthy and his “Un-American Activities” Committee.
The very term “Un-American” is an eye-opener, and has no real equivalent in any of the other major Democracies. The unlikely accusation of being “Un-Italian”, “Un-Austrian”, “Un-Dutch”, etc., would arouse incredulity and some amusement in Italy, Austria or the Netherlands and could certainly never be the basis for any legal or political action against the accused.
At the collapse of the Soviet Empire (The “Evil Empire”, forerunner of the “Axis of Evil” – in truth, John of Patmos, the Author of the “Book of Revelation”, would have had a remarkable political career in the United States) there suddenly seemed to be no credible adversary, no enemy of “Freedom”, until, mercifully, the Islamic Extremists appeared and reminded American opinion of the fact that the Arabs and Muslims were the enemies of Israel, and, therefore of all that was decent in the world.
What followed is recent history: the “War on Terror” (i.e. Christianity’s latest Crusade against the Heathen), turned out to be, and continues to be, a magnificent recruiting tool for a growing number of terrorists in Southern and Central Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. Within the United States, however, within that truly wonderful Country where authentic democratic aspirations so often are turned into a soft version of Fascism, survival depends on the ability to believe the predominant political pronouncements and to repeat them incessantly, while exhibiting one’s flag-waving patriotism beyond any possible doubt. As a result, the same type of majority which once firmly believed – and in a certain sense still does – that people who showed any sympathy for Communism or Socialism were a danger to the Nation, now seems to see an even greater threat in the activities of Muslim Governments or organisations, wherever they may be, and therefore, by association, in people who show sympathy or understanding for Muslim causes or even for Muslim culture.
All this raises a question in my mind, to which I have been unable to find an answer, even after all these years (over half a century) since living in the United States. Americans have never had a “Ministry of Culture” or a Government censoring machine to filter out from publication items which go against official policy. Nor is there a “Ministry of Propaganda” to ensure a constant stream of “correct” messages to the people. And yet, in spite of this, in spite of the unquestionable freedom of the press there is greater conformity in thought and opinions than can be found in most European Countries, and for this reason one has the feeling, at times, that people in the United States have been brain-washed into perceiving events as positive or negative, as encouraging or threatening, and are, therefore, extremely resistant to information which moves in a different direction. Just as it would have been unthinkable “in my time” (the early and mid fifties) to attempt any justification of Soviet policies or attitudes, so it seems a hopeless uphill struggle, now, to try to point out flaws in the blind, unreasoning anti-Iranian, or, for that matter, pro-Israeli stances adopted by the entire American political spectrum, a truly bipartisan approach to illogicality which seems unassailable.
How and why does this happen? How is it achieved? Are there hidden powers behind it? Is this a reality or a figment of my imagination?
I have never been able to find a satisfactory or convincing answer to these questions, except for the last one: I know that this is not my imagination, because I was myself caught up in the mechanism as I realised when, after five years spent in California, I arrived in Europe at the age of 17, in the mid-fifties, as a totally brain-washed American teenager. The proof of this can be given by the fact that, living in France, I was horrified – and somewhat frightened – when I heard that the French Government of the time was led by a Socialist. I gazed about me in wonderment, amazed at the fact that people still lived in seeming carefree joy, that everything still functioned, in spite of the evil ideology which seemed to inspire the leadership.
It only took a few weeks to shake off that feeling, but I have a very clear memory of how amazed I was at the very possibility of leading a normal life with a “Socialist” government, just as I’m sure, it is difficult for present-day Americans to understand that people in Muslim or Islamic Countries lead pretty normal lives and are not bent on the destruction of the “Great Satan”.
The mystery remains on how such behavioural conformity is achieved and maintained.
martedì 6 gennaio 2009
NEWSPEAK REVISITED
SUMMARY.
The International Media - with some exceptions - has shown itself a very obedient pawn in the propaganda war waged by Israel and its allies in the course of the Gaza military operation.
TEXT.
The events in Gaza have transformed me into a Television addict, and, as a consequence, for a great part of the day, I gaze at the screen in muted disbelief, my mind inundated by the International Media (with some notable and laudable exceptions) as it incessantly repeats all the familiar Israeli arguments which, through this constant repletion seem to acquire a life and even a veracity of their own. The opposing side just does not have the material to counter this constant barrage of half-truths, platitudes, shibboleths and downright falsehoods which mercilessly tell us why “we” are right and hence “they” are wrong. Of course, propaganda, especially in times of armed conflict, tends to be mendacious, a bit like political messages or publicity campaigns, but what strikes me here is the massive support that this particular type of mendacity seems to be receiving from the International Community, at the highest level of Government and, of course, from the Media.
A succession of pathetic scenarios is served up and constantly adjusted as the situation on the ground worsens and becomes more and more difficult to justify. For example, what began as a “rain of Hamas Rockets” has now been transformed in the image of “a million Israeli civilians terrorized by rocket attacks for the past eight years”, with the implication that during this period the people in the Gaza Strip were living in luxurious penthouses sipping Daiquiris and enjoying the spectacle of Israeli civilians being massacred, and not, instead, trying desperately to cope with an illegal and brutal foreign occupation.
The double-talk incessantly thrown at us from the highest Government officials to anonymous spokespersons is faithfully echoed, almost verbatim, by world leaders around the Globe, with very few exceptions (e.g. Iran, the Arab States and some others, including, to some extent, the Holy See) We are therefore repeatedly told that Israel, by invading Gaza and undertaking what can only be described as a killing spree is actually engaging in a “defensive action”.
We are also told – and at this stage the double-talk becomes nauseating – that, contrary to the Palestinians, the Israeli have “respect for human life”, without adding that for them non-Israelis are scarcely considered human (should I use the term “untermenschen”?). Those who tell us this gaze unflinchingly at pictures of children’s bodies being brought to the morgue, but this only because, of course, they were being used as “human shields”.
The double-talk becomes a fresh version of “newspeak” when Governments are comfortably classified into two categories: “moderate” (i.e. those who agree with Israel) and “extremist” (those who disagree).
The list is long, and this whole tragic farce seems set to continue until the enemies of Israel will be cowed or, better still, annihilated.
The International Media - with some exceptions - has shown itself a very obedient pawn in the propaganda war waged by Israel and its allies in the course of the Gaza military operation.
TEXT.
The events in Gaza have transformed me into a Television addict, and, as a consequence, for a great part of the day, I gaze at the screen in muted disbelief, my mind inundated by the International Media (with some notable and laudable exceptions) as it incessantly repeats all the familiar Israeli arguments which, through this constant repletion seem to acquire a life and even a veracity of their own. The opposing side just does not have the material to counter this constant barrage of half-truths, platitudes, shibboleths and downright falsehoods which mercilessly tell us why “we” are right and hence “they” are wrong. Of course, propaganda, especially in times of armed conflict, tends to be mendacious, a bit like political messages or publicity campaigns, but what strikes me here is the massive support that this particular type of mendacity seems to be receiving from the International Community, at the highest level of Government and, of course, from the Media.
A succession of pathetic scenarios is served up and constantly adjusted as the situation on the ground worsens and becomes more and more difficult to justify. For example, what began as a “rain of Hamas Rockets” has now been transformed in the image of “a million Israeli civilians terrorized by rocket attacks for the past eight years”, with the implication that during this period the people in the Gaza Strip were living in luxurious penthouses sipping Daiquiris and enjoying the spectacle of Israeli civilians being massacred, and not, instead, trying desperately to cope with an illegal and brutal foreign occupation.
The double-talk incessantly thrown at us from the highest Government officials to anonymous spokespersons is faithfully echoed, almost verbatim, by world leaders around the Globe, with very few exceptions (e.g. Iran, the Arab States and some others, including, to some extent, the Holy See) We are therefore repeatedly told that Israel, by invading Gaza and undertaking what can only be described as a killing spree is actually engaging in a “defensive action”.
We are also told – and at this stage the double-talk becomes nauseating – that, contrary to the Palestinians, the Israeli have “respect for human life”, without adding that for them non-Israelis are scarcely considered human (should I use the term “untermenschen”?). Those who tell us this gaze unflinchingly at pictures of children’s bodies being brought to the morgue, but this only because, of course, they were being used as “human shields”.
The double-talk becomes a fresh version of “newspeak” when Governments are comfortably classified into two categories: “moderate” (i.e. those who agree with Israel) and “extremist” (those who disagree).
The list is long, and this whole tragic farce seems set to continue until the enemies of Israel will be cowed or, better still, annihilated.
giovedì 1 gennaio 2009
GEORGE W. BUSH: A CLOSET INTELLECTUAL?
Very few Italians – with perhaps the exception of our Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi – can be described as admirers of the outgoing President of the United States, who, in this country, as indeed in most of Europe, is largely a figure of ridicule. It can therefore be imagined with what surprise Italians read, on December 31, in the pages of one of the main newspapers “la Repubblica” an article by one of our best foreign correspondents, Vittorio Zucconi who, extensively quoting an article by Karl Rove in the “Wall Street Journal”, informed us that George W. Bush was, in fact, what we could call a closet intellectual who regularly read close to “one hundred books a year”.
It has to be said that Zucconi, in his elegant prose, wrote the article with his tongue very firmly in his cheek, and didn’t seem to believe the truth of Karl Rove’s assertions. It is however interesting that, in a desperate attempt to give the President some stature, his acolytes have now brought out the image of a studious book-worm with an absolutely incredible capacity at the absorption of books, to the tune of about three a week some of which, like the Holy Bible (which he allegedly reads every year) are not exactly light reading.
I am what is generally thought of as a “speed reader”, and, being retired, can dedicate plenty of time to reading. I have not counted ho many books I read in 2008 (I have this quaint, “old-European” idea that the quality of the books one reads is slightly more important than the quantity) but I have some doubts as to whether I have reached the magic number which would put me on an intellectual par with the President of the United States.. Even if all his alleged reading material were to consist in “non-books”, such as “Jurassic Park” or some Stephen King booklets, and even if he were actually capable of reading, I doubt that a man who ought to be busy at least in an attempt to undo the damage caused to his own and many other Countries, and who has with great modesty defined himself as “the decider” could even come close to that number. Some of the material he has allegedly read seems extremely serious, absorbing and thought-provoking (e.g. Albert Camus, “The Stranger”, or “Team of Rivals”, by Doris Kearns Goodwin) and it just makes me wonder if we have all misjudged the man.
Or perhaps, but we don’t dare imagine this, Mr. Rove was lying.
It has to be said that Zucconi, in his elegant prose, wrote the article with his tongue very firmly in his cheek, and didn’t seem to believe the truth of Karl Rove’s assertions. It is however interesting that, in a desperate attempt to give the President some stature, his acolytes have now brought out the image of a studious book-worm with an absolutely incredible capacity at the absorption of books, to the tune of about three a week some of which, like the Holy Bible (which he allegedly reads every year) are not exactly light reading.
I am what is generally thought of as a “speed reader”, and, being retired, can dedicate plenty of time to reading. I have not counted ho many books I read in 2008 (I have this quaint, “old-European” idea that the quality of the books one reads is slightly more important than the quantity) but I have some doubts as to whether I have reached the magic number which would put me on an intellectual par with the President of the United States.. Even if all his alleged reading material were to consist in “non-books”, such as “Jurassic Park” or some Stephen King booklets, and even if he were actually capable of reading, I doubt that a man who ought to be busy at least in an attempt to undo the damage caused to his own and many other Countries, and who has with great modesty defined himself as “the decider” could even come close to that number. Some of the material he has allegedly read seems extremely serious, absorbing and thought-provoking (e.g. Albert Camus, “The Stranger”, or “Team of Rivals”, by Doris Kearns Goodwin) and it just makes me wonder if we have all misjudged the man.
Or perhaps, but we don’t dare imagine this, Mr. Rove was lying.
DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, president Bush stated that the people behind them indulged in terrorist acts because “they hate freedom”, As is unfortunately all too often the case in the President’s pronouncements, this statement was extremely superficial and uninformed. Al Qaeda does not “hate freedom”, but rather the western ideologies, rooted in Christianity, which are, rightly or wrongly perceived as being historical enemies of Islam.
The most absurd aftermath of this tragic episode was the invasion of Iraq, an action which, in the course of time, received many different justifications and explanations, none of which was even remotely acceptable. The most enduring justification consisted in the need to “bring Democracy” to Iraq, which was then led by a ruthless dictator who had subjected some of his people to acts of considerable savagery. According to current Conventional Wisdom, Democracy is now flourishing and, as a consequence, the people of Iraq are now “free”.
This statement begs a question, in the sense that a correct definition of “freedom” has to be agreed upon, and an assessment then has to be made as to whether this freedom now exists in the newly democratic Iraq to a larger degree than in the preceding years.
Two factors, among many, could easily be chosen as parameters, mainly because in the western psyche they are very intimately connected to the concept of freedom.
The first of these, of course, is the position of women in society. It is safe to say that in the recent past women in Iraq had much greater freedom than they have now, and participated much more actively than they do now in social and political activities. The outlook for the future seems very bleak.
Freedom of Religion also comes to mind: In the pre-invasion Iraq, people of different religious beliefs seemed able to live side by side and even intermarry. The Christian community, a rather small minority, lived in peace and even flourished, while now the Iraqi Christians are intent in fleeing a country in which they seem to have no future.
In many Countries which have never been “liberated” and in which “democracy” has not been imposed these basic issues don’t seem to be a problem.
The concept of “freedom” cannot be limited to the dubious privilege of being allowed to criticise the existing Government, but has to encompass an entire spectrum of social and moral factors.
The fact is that “Democracy” – which means “the rule of the people” – and “freedom” are not synonyms and that these definitions should be reconsidered before new attempts at imposing democracy bring about further debacles. I strongly believe that if the rule of some of the twentieth century’s most ruthless dictators (for example Hitler or Stalin) had been subject to a completely “free and fair” referendum, the existing government would have been confirmed by a landslide. On the other hand, organizations which come to power through perfectly legal elections (I’m thinking of Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which I respect and understand) are not necessarily committed to the safeguard of freedom as we understand it.
The next time a Western Power decides to impose elections – as was the case of Gaza some years back – a firm decision has to be taken beforehand: either the results of the elections are accepted no matter how distasteful they may appear, or else all the western democratic expertise on election-rigging has to be put in place in order to ensure the triumph of the most obedient, acceptable and “freedom-loving” party.
The most absurd aftermath of this tragic episode was the invasion of Iraq, an action which, in the course of time, received many different justifications and explanations, none of which was even remotely acceptable. The most enduring justification consisted in the need to “bring Democracy” to Iraq, which was then led by a ruthless dictator who had subjected some of his people to acts of considerable savagery. According to current Conventional Wisdom, Democracy is now flourishing and, as a consequence, the people of Iraq are now “free”.
This statement begs a question, in the sense that a correct definition of “freedom” has to be agreed upon, and an assessment then has to be made as to whether this freedom now exists in the newly democratic Iraq to a larger degree than in the preceding years.
Two factors, among many, could easily be chosen as parameters, mainly because in the western psyche they are very intimately connected to the concept of freedom.
The first of these, of course, is the position of women in society. It is safe to say that in the recent past women in Iraq had much greater freedom than they have now, and participated much more actively than they do now in social and political activities. The outlook for the future seems very bleak.
Freedom of Religion also comes to mind: In the pre-invasion Iraq, people of different religious beliefs seemed able to live side by side and even intermarry. The Christian community, a rather small minority, lived in peace and even flourished, while now the Iraqi Christians are intent in fleeing a country in which they seem to have no future.
In many Countries which have never been “liberated” and in which “democracy” has not been imposed these basic issues don’t seem to be a problem.
The concept of “freedom” cannot be limited to the dubious privilege of being allowed to criticise the existing Government, but has to encompass an entire spectrum of social and moral factors.
The fact is that “Democracy” – which means “the rule of the people” – and “freedom” are not synonyms and that these definitions should be reconsidered before new attempts at imposing democracy bring about further debacles. I strongly believe that if the rule of some of the twentieth century’s most ruthless dictators (for example Hitler or Stalin) had been subject to a completely “free and fair” referendum, the existing government would have been confirmed by a landslide. On the other hand, organizations which come to power through perfectly legal elections (I’m thinking of Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which I respect and understand) are not necessarily committed to the safeguard of freedom as we understand it.
The next time a Western Power decides to impose elections – as was the case of Gaza some years back – a firm decision has to be taken beforehand: either the results of the elections are accepted no matter how distasteful they may appear, or else all the western democratic expertise on election-rigging has to be put in place in order to ensure the triumph of the most obedient, acceptable and “freedom-loving” party.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
