Six years after Christopher Hitchens' important book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, justice remains elusive - it seems that fairness, justice and international law are only to be imposed upon the meek and enfeebled, while the strong kill, obliterate and plunder at will and with impunity, even decades after they have left power. I have posted below a clip from the 2003 documentary, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, inspired by Hitchens' book.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Citizen Obama: The Transcendence of Identity Politics?
Barack Obama conceded to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Pennsylvanian Democratic Primary last week. Though hardly a surprise to those eagerly following the campaign trail, some might have succumbed to wishful thinking, hoping Obama might be able to ride the wave of past momentum and bring a long drawn out and fatigued contest to a resolution. Alas, for Senator Obama and his avid supporters it was not meant to be, as his rival the junior Senator from New York and former First Lady was thrown a desperately needed life-preserver by the registered Democrats of Pennsylvania.
As an outsider looking in, it’s often difficult to assess what exactly Americans on the ground are thinking and feeling about the ups and downs of the campaign thus far waged, as our perceptions are inescapably mediated by the coverage of CNN, BBC World Service, Fox News, Al-Jazeera and the op-ed pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. We’re susceptible to clichés and stereotypes, just as Americans are so often criticized vis-à-vis their misconceptions and ill-informed opinions regarding Iranians, Islam and the politics of the Middle East.
There has been a constant in the Obama-Clinton race, which has never ceased to bubble beneath the surface, and that is the politics of identity. Though never really absent from the political fray, it was almost inevitable that a stand-off between a woman and African-American for the Democratic Party nomination would spark one of the most heart-wrenching investigations into the meaning of American identity in decades and perhaps one of unprecedented proportions in the run up to a presidential election.[1]
Obama is an interesting figure for a number of reasons, but foremost among them is that his mixed heritage has forced him to struggle and exhaustively grapple with his identity without succumbing to the temptation to occlude one aspect of himself at the expense of the many other influences which go to make up the man. Obama doesn’t simply conform to the well-trodden tale of a minority who grew up ‘in a white man’s world and made good’, but rather an individual who has crafted and melded the disparate influences and histories that go to make up the American experience into a coherent narrative. And it is in this respect that he has coexisted as both an example of what is best and most damning in American history. Still, his experience is hardly unique; scores of sons and daughters born to immigrants have been compelled to grapple with who they were and how they see themselves in the tapestry of modern American life. The crude answer, is that Obama, unlike his predecessors, has garnered so much attention because he’s a ‘black man’ running for president.
Born to a Harvard-educated Kenyan economist and a white American mother hailing from Kansas, Obama passed most of his childhood and adolescent years in Honolulu and from the ages of six to ten, lived in Jakarta with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. Obama’s cumulative experience and exposure beyond the borders of the land he calls home clearly shaped and molded his formative years, while simultaneously fostering a profound investment in what he regards as the very best traditions and ideals America has to offer and the values he takes such a vision to essentially entail. It is in this respect that he can be regarded as patriotic without being provincial, a trait rarely glimpsed amongst politicians. In the course of his campaign this duality has played the part of both blessing and curse and yet remains undeniable. It also stands as a testament to Obama’s shrewd understanding of the contradictions and complexities which lie at the heart of ‘America’ and the myriad things in the course of its relatively short history it has come to signify. His A More Perfect Union speech of March 18th was just one example of this intricate existential negotiation upon which he has obviously spent considerable time dwelling:
“I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.”[2]
It’s true, where else is such a tale possible? Obama’s plural heritage has forced him to understand both the terrible history of racism, slavery and genocide in America while at the same time witnessing and struggling toward that history’s transcendence at rare and cherished moments as exemplified and embodied in iconic figures like Abraham Lincoln, Fredrick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Tubman and John F. Kennedy. Many have been quick to make exaggerated and grandiose comparisons and have indeed forgotten in their heady delirium that Obama has yet to even win the Democratic nomination let alone the presidency.
Obama is not the prophet of a post-racial America – whether such a thing is possible or even desirable is a question his campaign has arguably neglected. What it has stressed by contrast, is the importance of a moratorium of sorts regarding the politics of race and the pressing need to work together on those issues which bind Americans together irrespective of racial identity. He states unequivocally that ‘I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally.’[3] Such a message has struck a chord with vast numbers of people and reignited a certain degree of optimism willing to for the time being let racial politics fall by the wayside in order to surmount the deep-seated animosity and adversarial attitude responsible for stymieing so many domestic policy initiatives.
Even Vanity Fair’s Christopher Hitchens, a fierce opponent of identity politics, has conceded Obama has refused to bow to calls that he identify with a particular community, as opposed to the broader American polity.[4] Obama’s best-selling The Audacity of Hope is itself strident in putting forth his ambition to divest the political process of its stultifying dogma which he regards as no longer germane to the contemporary predicament which Americans face. It’s ‘doctrinaire thinking and stark partisanship’ he claims ‘that have turned Americans off of politics.’[5] That being said Obama’s voting record was ranked as more liberal than some 86% of his Senate colleagues in 2006. Whether that is a laudable or lamentable is in the last instance for the voters to decide.
There’s an adage which says that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold, so perhaps it’s no surprise that the Obama campaign has aroused a remarkable welter of opinions and views not only within the US, but around the world. On Facebook – a now well-established global social network – one can become an Obama fan and follow the progress of his campaign with updates and video feeds of his speeches – and at a cursory glance one can espy not only US citizens, but a veritable pastiche of nationalities encompassing Paraguayans, Cubans, Russians, Georgians, Turks, Egyptians, Kenyans, Brits, French, Spaniards, Ghanaians, Indians and many more besides. At my last count Obama had some 793,252 fans to Clinton’s relatively modest 150, 949. Perhaps the one thing Obama’s recent loss proves is that Facebook is deeply flawed as a barometer of US public opinion, since those of us whom engage in brief exchanges of levity and vampire and zombie attacks online can hardly be said to be the same blue collar voters whom continue to be recalcitrant to ‘Obamania’.
Obama’s opponents on various occasions have attempted to paint him as a passing fad whose lofty words and charismatic appeal like the legendary melodious tones of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, once managed to cajole and coax the young and youthful at heart, but whose ‘rhetoric’ is just that, and ultimately lacking in substance and that ever-vague term ‘political realism’. In short, it’s alleged he’s peddling pipe dreams in a game of politics which is inherently dirty, cynical and predatory.
At the opening of the contest to become the Democratic presidential nominee, Clinton as the supposedly ‘inevitable’ victor regularly came under fire and her record under serious scrutiny. But as the momentum of Obama’s campaign picked up speed and undercut the hitherto conventional wisdom that Clinton was the presumptive nominee, Obama has come in for a barrage of criticism and now countless attempts to pigeonhole him as the representative of a narrow group defined by either race, economic status or a limited section of the Democratic party. In some quarters he has been portrayed as a ‘black candidate’, or more recently a ‘liberal elitist’. Obama has also been the subject of persistent Internet rumors suggesting he is a Muslim, was educated at a madrassah in Indonesia and took the oath of office using a Quran. Obama did spend part of his childhood in Indonesia but attended Catholic and public schools there. He took the oath of office on a Bible. Unfortunately Obama has been virtually inaudible in his condemnation of the use of ‘Muslim’ as a pejorative and disparaging term which has in recent month formed part of an orchestrated ‘smear campaign’, to which his Democratic rival has very much been party.[6]
The Jeremiah A. Wright affair, as well as Obama’s comments more recently in which he claimed that in the face of political apathy and economic frustration, some Pennsylvanian voters sought solace in those touchstones, which most deeply shape their lives such as religion and firearms, have provided his opponents with additional fodder for the purpose of defining him as either this or that. In the last couple of months both the GOP and the Clinton campaign have surreptitiously segued from propagating Obama’s past and present affiliations, to impugning the latter’s ‘patriotic credentials’. This chain of events found its denouement in the heavily criticized ABC debate between Obama and Clinton in which Obama was questioned by a Pennsylvania resident on whether he bore a grudge against the American flag because he failed to sport the stars and stripes on his lapel.
The fact however, whether you like or loathe the man and what he stands for, is that he is undoubtedly one of America’s sons, and in lieu of an ‘exotic’ curiosity, encapsulates the best and worst of the American experience of both oppression and liberation, and a history pregnant with centuries of struggle in the name of a message which purports to be universal in its scope: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The question of whether Obama is sufficiently ‘patriotic’ or even ‘American’ must surely be seen as little more than a malicious potshot and attempt to appeal to voters’ most parochial and intolerant instincts. The real question is whether Obama will be able to live up to the expectations and bright-eyed optimism he has evoked in his supporters, and whether his eloquence had been masking chutzpah all along, and on this count only time will tell.
[1] Obama, Being Called a Muslim is Not a Smear, Naomi Klein, The Nation, February 28 2008
[2] Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union', Philadelphia, PA March 18, 2008, http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_53.php
[3] Quoted in Dreams of Obama, Darryl Pinckney, The New York Review of Books, March 6. 2008
[4] Identity Crisis: There’s Something Pathetic and Embarrassing about our Obsession with Barack Obama’s Race, Christopher Hitchens, Slate, January 7, 2008
[5] The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Barack Obama, Canongate Books, 2006, p40
[6] Before the March 4th primaries Clinton stated on 60 Minutes that Obama was not a Muslim ‘as far as I know.’ Molehill Politics, Elizabeth Drew, The New York Review of Books, Volume 55, Number 6, April 17, 2008
As an outsider looking in, it’s often difficult to assess what exactly Americans on the ground are thinking and feeling about the ups and downs of the campaign thus far waged, as our perceptions are inescapably mediated by the coverage of CNN, BBC World Service, Fox News, Al-Jazeera and the op-ed pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. We’re susceptible to clichés and stereotypes, just as Americans are so often criticized vis-à-vis their misconceptions and ill-informed opinions regarding Iranians, Islam and the politics of the Middle East.
There has been a constant in the Obama-Clinton race, which has never ceased to bubble beneath the surface, and that is the politics of identity. Though never really absent from the political fray, it was almost inevitable that a stand-off between a woman and African-American for the Democratic Party nomination would spark one of the most heart-wrenching investigations into the meaning of American identity in decades and perhaps one of unprecedented proportions in the run up to a presidential election.[1]
Obama is an interesting figure for a number of reasons, but foremost among them is that his mixed heritage has forced him to struggle and exhaustively grapple with his identity without succumbing to the temptation to occlude one aspect of himself at the expense of the many other influences which go to make up the man. Obama doesn’t simply conform to the well-trodden tale of a minority who grew up ‘in a white man’s world and made good’, but rather an individual who has crafted and melded the disparate influences and histories that go to make up the American experience into a coherent narrative. And it is in this respect that he has coexisted as both an example of what is best and most damning in American history. Still, his experience is hardly unique; scores of sons and daughters born to immigrants have been compelled to grapple with who they were and how they see themselves in the tapestry of modern American life. The crude answer, is that Obama, unlike his predecessors, has garnered so much attention because he’s a ‘black man’ running for president.
Born to a Harvard-educated Kenyan economist and a white American mother hailing from Kansas, Obama passed most of his childhood and adolescent years in Honolulu and from the ages of six to ten, lived in Jakarta with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. Obama’s cumulative experience and exposure beyond the borders of the land he calls home clearly shaped and molded his formative years, while simultaneously fostering a profound investment in what he regards as the very best traditions and ideals America has to offer and the values he takes such a vision to essentially entail. It is in this respect that he can be regarded as patriotic without being provincial, a trait rarely glimpsed amongst politicians. In the course of his campaign this duality has played the part of both blessing and curse and yet remains undeniable. It also stands as a testament to Obama’s shrewd understanding of the contradictions and complexities which lie at the heart of ‘America’ and the myriad things in the course of its relatively short history it has come to signify. His A More Perfect Union speech of March 18th was just one example of this intricate existential negotiation upon which he has obviously spent considerable time dwelling:
“I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.”[2]
It’s true, where else is such a tale possible? Obama’s plural heritage has forced him to understand both the terrible history of racism, slavery and genocide in America while at the same time witnessing and struggling toward that history’s transcendence at rare and cherished moments as exemplified and embodied in iconic figures like Abraham Lincoln, Fredrick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Tubman and John F. Kennedy. Many have been quick to make exaggerated and grandiose comparisons and have indeed forgotten in their heady delirium that Obama has yet to even win the Democratic nomination let alone the presidency.
Obama is not the prophet of a post-racial America – whether such a thing is possible or even desirable is a question his campaign has arguably neglected. What it has stressed by contrast, is the importance of a moratorium of sorts regarding the politics of race and the pressing need to work together on those issues which bind Americans together irrespective of racial identity. He states unequivocally that ‘I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally.’[3] Such a message has struck a chord with vast numbers of people and reignited a certain degree of optimism willing to for the time being let racial politics fall by the wayside in order to surmount the deep-seated animosity and adversarial attitude responsible for stymieing so many domestic policy initiatives.
Even Vanity Fair’s Christopher Hitchens, a fierce opponent of identity politics, has conceded Obama has refused to bow to calls that he identify with a particular community, as opposed to the broader American polity.[4] Obama’s best-selling The Audacity of Hope is itself strident in putting forth his ambition to divest the political process of its stultifying dogma which he regards as no longer germane to the contemporary predicament which Americans face. It’s ‘doctrinaire thinking and stark partisanship’ he claims ‘that have turned Americans off of politics.’[5] That being said Obama’s voting record was ranked as more liberal than some 86% of his Senate colleagues in 2006. Whether that is a laudable or lamentable is in the last instance for the voters to decide.
There’s an adage which says that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold, so perhaps it’s no surprise that the Obama campaign has aroused a remarkable welter of opinions and views not only within the US, but around the world. On Facebook – a now well-established global social network – one can become an Obama fan and follow the progress of his campaign with updates and video feeds of his speeches – and at a cursory glance one can espy not only US citizens, but a veritable pastiche of nationalities encompassing Paraguayans, Cubans, Russians, Georgians, Turks, Egyptians, Kenyans, Brits, French, Spaniards, Ghanaians, Indians and many more besides. At my last count Obama had some 793,252 fans to Clinton’s relatively modest 150, 949. Perhaps the one thing Obama’s recent loss proves is that Facebook is deeply flawed as a barometer of US public opinion, since those of us whom engage in brief exchanges of levity and vampire and zombie attacks online can hardly be said to be the same blue collar voters whom continue to be recalcitrant to ‘Obamania’.
Obama’s opponents on various occasions have attempted to paint him as a passing fad whose lofty words and charismatic appeal like the legendary melodious tones of the Pied Piper of Hamelin, once managed to cajole and coax the young and youthful at heart, but whose ‘rhetoric’ is just that, and ultimately lacking in substance and that ever-vague term ‘political realism’. In short, it’s alleged he’s peddling pipe dreams in a game of politics which is inherently dirty, cynical and predatory.
At the opening of the contest to become the Democratic presidential nominee, Clinton as the supposedly ‘inevitable’ victor regularly came under fire and her record under serious scrutiny. But as the momentum of Obama’s campaign picked up speed and undercut the hitherto conventional wisdom that Clinton was the presumptive nominee, Obama has come in for a barrage of criticism and now countless attempts to pigeonhole him as the representative of a narrow group defined by either race, economic status or a limited section of the Democratic party. In some quarters he has been portrayed as a ‘black candidate’, or more recently a ‘liberal elitist’. Obama has also been the subject of persistent Internet rumors suggesting he is a Muslim, was educated at a madrassah in Indonesia and took the oath of office using a Quran. Obama did spend part of his childhood in Indonesia but attended Catholic and public schools there. He took the oath of office on a Bible. Unfortunately Obama has been virtually inaudible in his condemnation of the use of ‘Muslim’ as a pejorative and disparaging term which has in recent month formed part of an orchestrated ‘smear campaign’, to which his Democratic rival has very much been party.[6]
The Jeremiah A. Wright affair, as well as Obama’s comments more recently in which he claimed that in the face of political apathy and economic frustration, some Pennsylvanian voters sought solace in those touchstones, which most deeply shape their lives such as religion and firearms, have provided his opponents with additional fodder for the purpose of defining him as either this or that. In the last couple of months both the GOP and the Clinton campaign have surreptitiously segued from propagating Obama’s past and present affiliations, to impugning the latter’s ‘patriotic credentials’. This chain of events found its denouement in the heavily criticized ABC debate between Obama and Clinton in which Obama was questioned by a Pennsylvania resident on whether he bore a grudge against the American flag because he failed to sport the stars and stripes on his lapel.
The fact however, whether you like or loathe the man and what he stands for, is that he is undoubtedly one of America’s sons, and in lieu of an ‘exotic’ curiosity, encapsulates the best and worst of the American experience of both oppression and liberation, and a history pregnant with centuries of struggle in the name of a message which purports to be universal in its scope: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The question of whether Obama is sufficiently ‘patriotic’ or even ‘American’ must surely be seen as little more than a malicious potshot and attempt to appeal to voters’ most parochial and intolerant instincts. The real question is whether Obama will be able to live up to the expectations and bright-eyed optimism he has evoked in his supporters, and whether his eloquence had been masking chutzpah all along, and on this count only time will tell.
[1] Obama, Being Called a Muslim is Not a Smear, Naomi Klein, The Nation, February 28 2008
[2] Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union', Philadelphia, PA March 18, 2008, http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_53.php
[3] Quoted in Dreams of Obama, Darryl Pinckney, The New York Review of Books, March 6. 2008
[4] Identity Crisis: There’s Something Pathetic and Embarrassing about our Obsession with Barack Obama’s Race, Christopher Hitchens, Slate, January 7, 2008
[5] The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Barack Obama, Canongate Books, 2006, p40
[6] Before the March 4th primaries Clinton stated on 60 Minutes that Obama was not a Muslim ‘as far as I know.’ Molehill Politics, Elizabeth Drew, The New York Review of Books, Volume 55, Number 6, April 17, 2008
© Sadegh Kabeer
Monday, April 21, 2008
Terror in EU overwhelmingly non-Islamic
"Although there were no major foiled, failed or executed terrorist attacks in Europe in 2007, Europol still witnessed a sharp increase in both terrorist attacks and arrests on terrorism charges. But only four of the 583 terrorist attacks committed were linked to militant Islam.
Europol's second annual EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, released last week, found that EU member states had to deal with a 24 percent increase in terrorist attacks, although many were foiled or failed, and arrested 48 percent more terrorist suspects. Eighty-eight percent of these terrorist attacks were linked to separatist groups unrelated to Islamist groups."
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/04/21/terror_in_eu_overwhelmingly_non-islamic/3102/310~1208797201~1/
Europol's second annual EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, released last week, found that EU member states had to deal with a 24 percent increase in terrorist attacks, although many were foiled or failed, and arrested 48 percent more terrorist suspects. Eighty-eight percent of these terrorist attacks were linked to separatist groups unrelated to Islamist groups."
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/04/21/terror_in_eu_overwhelmingly_non-islamic/3102/310~1208797201~1/
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Dangerous Slope: On the Erosion of International Norms in Favor of Torture
We know torture exists, we know it happens, but since it rarely intrudes into our daily lives we’re wont to think along the lines of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. For the most part we remain oblivious to its contemporary pervasiveness and the steady erosion of international norms that has taken place over the last decade. We pay little attention to the fact that today torture is evermore becoming a tacitly and sometimes openly approved instrument of statecraft. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a host of other international treaties such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions III & IV, were established to prevent the use of torture. At present it unfortunately appears as though a concerted effort to both circumvent and downplay these international legal precedents has been undertaken by the uppermost echelons within the Bush Administration.
Only last month, after both houses of the US Congress passed a bill that would ban waterboarding and other so-called ‘aggressive interrogation techniques’, President Bush chose to invoke his veto, claiming that it would impose unacceptable limitations on the interrogation techniques relied on by the CIA.
The dangerous precedent was first established back in 2003 in a now infamous 81-page memorandum, issued by former US Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo. Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley, bears a significant brunt of the responsibility in providing the legal rational for the so-called ‘aggressive interrogation techniques’ used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.[1]
The gist of Yoo’s argument holds that military interrogators operating outside of the United States, could legally use a number of unspecified techniques as long as they didn’t violate his definition of torture: "intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body functions will likely result." That the intentional infliction of pain just shy of death, organ failure or permanent damage and loss of bodily function has been given a legal rationalization is frankly a terrifying prospect. The reaction has been so strong in some quarters that a number of commentators, pundits and academics have called for Yoo to be arraigned for war crimes.
There is another side to this rather bleak picture. A BBC World Service poll of more than 27,000 people in 25 different countries in 2006 concluded that 59 percent of the world’s citizens are unwilling to compromise on the protection of human rights.[2] Majorities in 19 out of 25 countries surveyed supported upholding the rule against torture. What’s more refreshing still is the fact that the survey encompassed a broad range of individuals separated by religion, nationality and culture and yet who despite such differences affirmed their commitment to human rights and their opposition to the use of torture.
The fact is, is that we don’t like to think that western governments could be either involved or complicit in torture; if anything it seems counterintuitive to suggest that liberal and democratic societies could be responsible for the heinous acts we usually associate with so-called third world dictatorships scattered throughout the Middle East and Africa. The conventional wisdom of late however has come under increasing attack in both the media and academia. Last year for instance, Professor of Political Science at Reed College, Darius Rejali published his prolific and critically acclaimed tome Torture and Democracy, which argued for two central theses, which irrevocably transform the way we view the role and development of torture in modernity and democratic societies in particular. In the course of several hundred pages he proceeds to systematically map out how torture has existed within modern democracies, debunking claims that torture has solely been the province of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, though it’s of course frequently relied upon in such ‘closed’ societies.
In the course of his argument and with relative ease, Rejali undermines the image usually offered up for public consumption that the two, torture and democracy, are mutually exclusive practices, and so incompatible in principle. The second thesis, in many respects a corollary of the first, is that rather than interrogation techniques becoming more 'civilized' as a result of taking place in open societies, the development of torture techniques within democratic societies has in fact fomented a situation whereby the effects of torture are merely more difficult to discern and uncover after the event. The pain is all too real of course, but soon afterwards the torture victim bears none of the scars, gashes, scraps and broken bones, necessary to corroborate his claims. The horror of being tortured is thus compacted by the horror of nobody believing you were tortured.
How did this situation come to pass? What were the reasons and motivations for the development of so-called ‘clean techniques’ which though exceedingly painful, leave little to no trace of abuse only a short time after the event? In a nutshell, such techniques have developed in large part because of western public demands for openness and the watchful eye of the global human rights regiment which first gained momentum in the late 60s and 70s. Notably, it was during this period that we witnessed the election of the Carter Administration which was elected on a platform of human rights and the mandate to overhaul previous Administrations’ foreign policy bungles and incompetence in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
It was largely in response to the monitoring and cataloguing of abuses as exhibited in the painstaking work of organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that torturers have become increasingly adept at covering their tracks and developing techniques that ensure little to no verifiable evidence of torture can be uncovered.
An additional consequence which has been pursued with vigor by the Bush Administration is that of extraordinary rendition otherwise known as torture by proxy, whereby suspected ‘enemies of the state’ are whisked away to so-called ‘black sites’ around the globe in countries governed by regimes with a more lax attitude and legal lassitude toward the torture and coercion of detainees. The question of Guantanamo Bay is of course related to all this, but opens a whole other can of worms altogether, which we can’t adequately address here.[3]
The collusion of the CIA with the intelligence services of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Uzbekistan in the practice of torture by proxy has been confirmed by multiple sources, including sources within the American intelligence establishment.[4] Suspected terrorists including citizens of western governments have been for all intents and purposes kidnapped and flown to foreign ‘jails’ to be interrogated. Robert Baer, who worked as a CIA covert officer in the Middle East for 21 years has put it thus: “The ultimate destination of these flights are places that are involved in torture”. He continues: “If you send a prisoner to Jordan you get a better interrogation. If you send a prisoner to Egypt you will probably never see him again; the same with Syria.”[5]
Rejali and others in brief have provided us with the conceptual apparatus as well as empirical evidence to plot a trajectory from the monstrous techniques employed by the Nazis and the Soviet Union to the practice of water boarding in modern-day democracies; a development that is in large part indebted to the symbiosis of two, at least superficially, antithetical practices, torture and democracy. This of course doesn’t impugn democracy as the paramount model of political organization, even if it is our best worst option as Winston Churchill once quipped. What it does suggest is that despite a plethora of treaties and international agreements established to safeguard against and categorically condemn torture, such agreements are ultimately incapable of preventing governments from pursuing such a line if they decide, all but in name, to abrogate their international responsibilities.
Finally, numerous torture experts have been arguing for some time that torture is fundamentally incapable of providing actionable intelligence. Prior to the Iraq War key members of the Bush Administration cited proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and that the former had somehow been complicit in carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The ‘proof’ in question was extracted by means of torture and has since been shown to be baseless by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. It was a Libyan by the name of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who was rendered to Egypt from Afghanistan and under protracted interrogation reported “that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to the terrorist organization [al-Qaeda].”[6]
The ticking time bomb scenario which is invariably invoked by torture’s defenders and apologists has virtually descended into myth in present-day culture, when in reality it’s highly unlikely that torture under such circumstances will provide genuine and actionable intelligence. Reliable intelligence, as evinced in the case of the London bombings, is afforded instead by the cultivation of strong communal ties and local informants, not torture or ‘torture lite’ as some like to refer to it. The fact of the matter is that our cultural perception of the issue has been distorted and slanted as a result of the tragic events of 9/11, Madrid and London; and shows like 24, backed by the demagoguery of Fox News, have also played a significant role in ‘a dangerous shift of norms’[7] which has been underway for several years and continues unabated under the current US Administration.
In contrast to the poll mentioned at the outset of this essay, another poll conducted by AP-Ipsos makes it plain that we are gradually being acclimatized to view the issue of torture through the lens of a ticking digital clock with a mushroom cloud over LA, NYC or London upon the clock’s expiration. The practice of torture has thereby been framed and skewed so that we’re increasingly receptive to the idea of torture ‘in rare circumstances’. The problem we then find ourselves in of course is where do we draw the line and what exactly constitutes ‘rare circumstances’.[8]
Often we’re posed the question in explicitly personal terms: ‘What would you do if your wife or child were held hostage and you only had a matter of days if not hours to save them, and you suspected that a guy in captivity possibly knew something?’ Megan McArdle, at the Atlantic Monthly, posed the question is just these terms back in 2003 and replied with a candid, if not downright scary answer: “Now, are you going to give him back to the Feds to be sent to Gitmo in the hopes that a couple of years down the road, he might tell you something – if they haven’t already gassed your child, that is? Or are you going to whip out the toolbox and get to work?”[9]
The massive problem with all this is that torture is contagious and though initially sanctioned ‘under unique circumstances’ soon becomes rife, sullying everything it touches, as the scandal of Abu Ghraib back in April 2004 can testify.[10] Techniques supposedly restricted for use by the CIA, get taken up by the army, and these in turn are adopted by private contractors working for companies like Blackwater, and basically the end result is that all hell breaks loose. It’s a dangerous ‘slippery slope’ which has ceased to be merely a hypothetical and has unfortunately become all too real.
Moreover and to simplify the matter somewhat, the repercussions of such actions for the US’s global standing are twofold: firstly: the US’s moral superiority and stature have taken a devastating hit, not just in the Arab and Muslim world, but even amongst the publics of some of the US’s staunchest western European allies.[11] Second, and coming off the first point, resentment and anti-Americanism have been given even greater impetus, as if the invasion of Iraq hadn’t already done enough to confirm many people’s worst fears regarding US intentions for the region. The images at Abu Ghraib have been irrevocably seared into people’s memories and the degrading and dehumanizing tactics supposedly employed in order to garner intelligence have been exposed for the grotesque psycho-sexual manipulations and effronteries to human dignity they indisputably are.
The US practice of torture abroad has justifiably received a considerable amount of media attention in recent years. Apart from scores of articles and op-ed pieces in the mainstream press, the cinematic domain has shone a much needed light onto the US abuse of detainees; the film Rendition starring Meryl Streep and Jake Gyllenhall, and the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side, awarded Best Documentary Feature at the Oscars, have pointed to the stark reality of both torture by proxy and the fate of many detainees held in US captivity who’ve been subject to arbitrary arrest and denied due process. Taxi to the Dark Side takes its point of departure from the death of a young Afghan man, Dilawar, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was consequently beaten to death by American soldiers while being held in extrajudicial detention at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan.
The poll adduced at the opening of this piece shows that a clear majority of us, from disparate backgrounds, religions and ethnicities abhor the use of torture (when framed in clear terms not skewed to mesh with the nightmarish scenarios starring Jack Bauer & Co) and in light of such patent disapproval we must surely continue to draw attention to and criticize in no uncertain terms the practice of torture wherever it rears its ugly head and unmask the desensitized lexicon which lulls us into acceptance of a inhumane, morally reprehensible and degrading practice.
[1] "Torture Memo" Author John Yoo Responds to This Week's Revelations, John H. Richardson, Esquire, April 3, 2008
[2] World Citizens Reject Torture, BBC Global Poll Reveals, October 18, 2006, worldpublicopinion.org
[3] The legal black hole and lingo of ‘enemy combatants’ being just one such issue.
[4] United States: Trade in Torture, Stephen Grey, Le Monde Diplomatique, April 2005
[5] Quoted in Ibid
[6] Torture and Democracy, Darius Rejali, Princeton University Press, 2007, p504
[7] A Dangerous Shift of Norms, Brita Sydhoff, Le Monde Diplomatique, May 2006
[8] Poll finds broad approval of terrorist torture, Associated Press, Dec. 9, 2005
[9] Quoted in Responsibility for the Last Seven Years, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, April 11, 2008
[10] For more info see Torture in Iraq, Human Rights Watch, New York Review of Books, Volume 52, Number 17, November 3, 2005
[11] US standing in the Arab world since last year has declined markedly. 64 percent, of more than 4,000 respondents in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) said they held a "very unfavorable" attitude of the United States, up from 57 percent in late 2006. (Attitudes Toward U.S. Worsen in Arab World, Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, April 14 2008)
© Sadegh Kabeer
Monday, April 14, 2008
Montazeri Rejects Description of Parliamentary Elections as 'Free and Fair'
Excerpt from Associated Press story by Ali Akbar Dareini, April 14 2008:
"Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri accused the country's ruling Islamic establishment of imposing dictatorship in the name of Islam, according to a statement provided to The Associated Press by his office Monday.
Hard-line allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won most of parliament's 290 seats in last month's elections after most reformist candidates were thrown out by Iran's clerical leadership. Reformists won enough to expand their small bloc. A second round of voting for the remaining 81 seats is due April 25.
Montazeri said that "committed and serving individuals are barred" from running in elections "in the name of Islam" and that because of the disqualifications, the election was "neither free nor fair.""
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-14-iran-cleric_N.htm?csp=34
Excerpts from Joe Lauria's The Coming War with Iran: It's About the Oil, Stupid, The Huffington Post, April 13, 2008
Joe Lauria's article in The Huffington Post is trenchant yet simple; what can I say other than it pinpoints the real motivations driving Bush-Cheney et al to push for their next imperial disaster. Here are some excerpts:
"World civilization is based on oil. The world is running out of oil. The oil companies and governments are not telling the truth about how close we are to the end. Dick Cheney knew about peak oil back in 1999 when he spoke to the London Petroleum Institute as Halliburton CEO. He predicted it would come in 2010. After that it's just a matter of years before it runs out. Whoever controls the remaining oil determines who lives and who dies.
Sixty percent of this oil is under a triangular area of the Middle East the size of Kansas. In that speech Cheney said: "The Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.""
"It's been known for at least thirty years that America needs alternative energy sources. But instead of an alternative energy plan we got the invasion of Iraq by oilmen wedded to a dying business, willing to kill hundreds of thousands to cling to the last drop. The US is never leaving the region or withdrawing from Iraq. McCain is right about staying, but 100 years is too long. The oil won't last that long.
Iran is next. Lieberman set up Petraeus to testify last week that Iranian-backed groups are murdering hundreds of American servicemen in Iraq. On Friday Gates called Iran's influence in Iraq "malign" and Bush said if Iran keeps meddling in Iraq "then we'll deal with them." They are building their case for war with resolutions in the Senate and at the UN. It's only western Iran, from the Iraq border to 150 miles inside the country that the U.S. will have to occupy. That's where Iran's oil is. But the U.S. will have a nasty battle on their hands in Iran even if they restore a Shah-like puppet in Tehran 30 years after the revolution. The Saudis would not mind seeing the Iranian regime go. But the Saudis may also be on the list. The US may have to destabilize and control Saudi Arabia some day too. The Wall Street Journal a few years ago revealed that in the 1970s under Nixon, Kissinger had plans drawn up for the US invasion and occupation of the Saudi oil fields. Those plans can be dusted off.
The American oil wars are being launched out of weakness, not strength. The American economy is teetering and without control of the remaining oil it will collapse. There will be massive chaos in any case, when only enough oil remains for the American elite and whomever they choose to share it with.
That will leave an oil-starved China and India, both with nuclear weapons, with no alternative but to bow to America or go to war.
It's not about greed any more. It's about survival. Because the leadership of this country was initially too greedy to switch from oil to solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable alternatives, it may now be too late. Had the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the invasion and occupation of Iraq been put into alternative energy the world might have had a fighting chance. Now that is far from certain.
What is certain is that these wars are not about democracy. They are not about WMD. The coming one will not even be about Iran's nuclear weapons project. It's about the oil, stupid."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/the-coming-war-with-iran_b_96428.html
"World civilization is based on oil. The world is running out of oil. The oil companies and governments are not telling the truth about how close we are to the end. Dick Cheney knew about peak oil back in 1999 when he spoke to the London Petroleum Institute as Halliburton CEO. He predicted it would come in 2010. After that it's just a matter of years before it runs out. Whoever controls the remaining oil determines who lives and who dies.
Sixty percent of this oil is under a triangular area of the Middle East the size of Kansas. In that speech Cheney said: "The Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.""
"It's been known for at least thirty years that America needs alternative energy sources. But instead of an alternative energy plan we got the invasion of Iraq by oilmen wedded to a dying business, willing to kill hundreds of thousands to cling to the last drop. The US is never leaving the region or withdrawing from Iraq. McCain is right about staying, but 100 years is too long. The oil won't last that long.
Iran is next. Lieberman set up Petraeus to testify last week that Iranian-backed groups are murdering hundreds of American servicemen in Iraq. On Friday Gates called Iran's influence in Iraq "malign" and Bush said if Iran keeps meddling in Iraq "then we'll deal with them." They are building their case for war with resolutions in the Senate and at the UN. It's only western Iran, from the Iraq border to 150 miles inside the country that the U.S. will have to occupy. That's where Iran's oil is. But the U.S. will have a nasty battle on their hands in Iran even if they restore a Shah-like puppet in Tehran 30 years after the revolution. The Saudis would not mind seeing the Iranian regime go. But the Saudis may also be on the list. The US may have to destabilize and control Saudi Arabia some day too. The Wall Street Journal a few years ago revealed that in the 1970s under Nixon, Kissinger had plans drawn up for the US invasion and occupation of the Saudi oil fields. Those plans can be dusted off.
The American oil wars are being launched out of weakness, not strength. The American economy is teetering and without control of the remaining oil it will collapse. There will be massive chaos in any case, when only enough oil remains for the American elite and whomever they choose to share it with.
That will leave an oil-starved China and India, both with nuclear weapons, with no alternative but to bow to America or go to war.
It's not about greed any more. It's about survival. Because the leadership of this country was initially too greedy to switch from oil to solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable alternatives, it may now be too late. Had the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the invasion and occupation of Iraq been put into alternative energy the world might have had a fighting chance. Now that is far from certain.
What is certain is that these wars are not about democracy. They are not about WMD. The coming one will not even be about Iran's nuclear weapons project. It's about the oil, stupid."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/the-coming-war-with-iran_b_96428.html
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Is there such a thing as a religious intellectual? Excerpt from an interview with Ramin Jahanbegloo.
یکی از ویژگیهای روشنفکر این است که نسبت به همه چیز شک میکند. اما یک فرد مذهبی خیلی از ارزشهای انسانی را باور دارد، بدون هیچ شک و بدون هیچ پرسشی. حالا این سوال پیش میآید که یک «روشنفکر مذهبی»، چه ویژگیهایی میتواند داشته باشد؟ چه حضور اجتماعی میتواند داشته باشد و این اصطلاح با توجه به ویژگیهایی که بین روشنفکر و فرد مذهبی در مفهوم و تعریف جهانی آن وجود دارد، آیا معنی دارد ؟
رامين جهانبگلو: من خودم دربارهی این موضوع خیلی بحث داشتم با روشنفکران دینی ایران و همانطور که همیشه گفتم، فکر میکنم که شما نمیتوانید دربارهی روشنفکری دینی صحبت بکنید، والا مجبور هستید دربارهی نقاش دینی یا پیانیست دینی هم صحبت بکنید که بیمعنی است اصلا. یعنی چه که یک کسی نقاش دینی است؟ من فکر میکنم که معنویت بسیار امر مهمی است در تاریخ بشری و اصولا در زندگی بشر خیلی نقش مهمی دارد. برای اینکه معنا میدهد به زندگی او و یک نوع جستجوی معناست و روشنفکران به دنبال جستجوی معنا هستند. ولی اگر روشنفکری بیاید و خودش را درگیر یک نوع ایدئولوژی دینی بکند و از قبل بگوید که من در حقیقت مفاهیم اجتماعی یا مفاهیم فکری را میخواهم در این یک قالب فقط ببینم و نه در قالبهای دیگر؛ من فکر میکنم به یک نوعی از توسعه فکر نقادانه جلوگیری کرده برای خودش و برای دیگران. او به نوعی نمیتواند فراسوی مسائل را ببیند. یا مجبور میشود که همیشه آن مسائل را در قالبی که میخواهد فقط ببیند. و آنجا من فکر میکنم که روشنفکری باید یک حقیقتجویی آزاد باشد، بدون اینکه بگوید من به هیچ حقیقتی دست پیدا کردم و مطلق کردم آن را. وقتی یک حقیقتجویی مستمر و آزاد باشد، آنجاست که روشنفکری میتواند نقادانه باشد و روشنفکری میتواند متحول باشد و روشنفکری میتواند کمک کند به پیشرفت تاریخ بشر
He of course has a point, a very important one in fact. That nothwithstanding, I think it's fair to say that he grossly oversimplifies the matter. His analogy is also very weak, and simply doesn't hold water under scrutiny.
The other obvious point which they overlook is that you could also be a god-denying communist and fit the same profile; Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-il, some of the ex-Trotskyite neocons etc...It's a matter of unquestioned fidelity to a particular world-view or ideology, which has no room for query or question. In short it's about dogmatism and not religion. Perhaps religion is just one social form with a particular propensity for dogmatism. 'Religion' in the sense outlined by Jahanbegloo and the interviewer is merely one manifestation of a broader phenonmenon in my view. And in any case 'religion' is a straw man as cast in the interview. One simply can't pigeon-hole religious thinkers in such a manner; contributions to human thought, art and genius haven't been solely the province of secularists. In fact the direct opposite seems to be true. Pascal, Augustine, Aquinas and Plato are as important as Freud, Marx and Nietzsche, and in the Iranian case the importance of Soroush on the one hand and Kasravi on the other is undeniable; both have made essential contributions to the development of the human spirit and Iranian culture.
Robert Fisk: Semantics can't mask Bush's chicanery, Saturday, 12 April 2008 (Selections)
Excerpts from Robert Fisk's article in The Independent.
"After his latest shenanigans, I've come to the conclusion that George Bush is the first US president to march backwards. First we had weapons of mass destruction. Then, when they proved to be a myth, Bush told us we had stopped Saddam's "programmes" for weapons of mass destruction (which happened to be another lie).
Now he's gone a stage further. After announcing victory in Iraq in 2003 and "mission accomplished" and telling us how this enormous achievement would lead the 21st century into a "shining age of human liberty", George Bush told us this week that "thanks to the surge, we've renewed and revived the prospect of success".
Now let's take a look at this piece of chicanery and subject it to a little linguistic analysis. Five years ago, it was victory – ie success – but this has now been transmogrified into a mere "prospect" of success. And not a "prospect", mark you, that has even been glimpsed. No, we have "renewed" and "revived" this prospect. "Revived", as in "brought back from the dead". Am I the only one to be sickened by this obscene semantics? How on earth can you "renew" a "prospect", let alone a prospect that continues to be bathed in Iraqi blood, a subject Bush wisely chose to avoid?
Note, too, the constant use of words that begin with "re -". Renew. Revive. And – incredibly – Bush also told us that "we actually re-liberated certain communities". This, folks, goes beyond hollow laughter. Since when did armies go around "re-liberating" anything? And what does that credibility-sapping "actually" mean? I suspect it was an attempt by the White House speech writer to suggest – by sleight of hand, of course – that Bush was really – really – telling the truth this time. But by putting "actually" in front of "re-liberate" – as opposed to just "liberate" – the whole grammatical construction falls apart. Rather like Iraq.
For by my reckoning, we have now "re-liberated" Fallujah twice. We have "re-liberated" Mosul three times and "re-liberated" Ramadi four times. The scorecard goes on. My files show that Sadr City may have been "re-liberated" five times, while Baghdad is "re-liberated" on an almost daily basis. General David Petraeus, in his pitiful appearance before the US Senate armed services committee, was bound to admit his disappointment at the military failure of the equally pitiful Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Basra. He had not followed Petraeus' advice; which was presumably to "re-liberate" the city (for the fourth time, by my calculation but with a bit more planning)."
"So here are a few Appenzeller factoids (glossed by Fisk, so the responsibility is mine!). The correct ratios for wounded in action vs killed in action for Iraq and Afghanistan is 8.13 to 1; for Korea, it's 7.38 to 1 and for Vietnam it's 6.43 to 1."
"But this does not include the kind of figure that the Pentagon and Bush always keep secret: an astonishing 1,000 or more Western-hired mercenaries, killed in Iraq while fighting or killing for "our" side."
"No, Iraq has not yet reached Korea and Vietnam proportions. The three-year Korean war resulted in 33,686 US battle deaths and about 250,000 US wounds, an average of 94,562 casualties per year. The American phase of the Vietnam war lasted 14 years and resulted in 47,378 US battle deaths and 304,704 US wounds, an average of 25,149 casualties per year and an average of 66,792 during the four years of 1966-1969, the height of American fighting.
The Iraq war has lasted five years and has resulted in 3,251 battle deaths and 29,395 wounds, an average of 6,529 casualties per year. "Thus, the average number of killed and wounded during the Korean war was three times the total number of killed and wounded in the five years of the Iraq war. The average number of killed and wounded during each of the most difficult years of the Vietnam war was twice the total for the five years of the Iraq war."
"Now for much more blood, the civilian variety. According to George, "About 1,600,000 were killed in the Korean war, 365,000 (according to American authorities) and four million (according to the Vietnamese government) during the American phase of the Vietnam war, and who knows how many in Iraq. No fewer than 250,000, certainly.""
"After his latest shenanigans, I've come to the conclusion that George Bush is the first US president to march backwards. First we had weapons of mass destruction. Then, when they proved to be a myth, Bush told us we had stopped Saddam's "programmes" for weapons of mass destruction (which happened to be another lie).
Now he's gone a stage further. After announcing victory in Iraq in 2003 and "mission accomplished" and telling us how this enormous achievement would lead the 21st century into a "shining age of human liberty", George Bush told us this week that "thanks to the surge, we've renewed and revived the prospect of success".
Now let's take a look at this piece of chicanery and subject it to a little linguistic analysis. Five years ago, it was victory – ie success – but this has now been transmogrified into a mere "prospect" of success. And not a "prospect", mark you, that has even been glimpsed. No, we have "renewed" and "revived" this prospect. "Revived", as in "brought back from the dead". Am I the only one to be sickened by this obscene semantics? How on earth can you "renew" a "prospect", let alone a prospect that continues to be bathed in Iraqi blood, a subject Bush wisely chose to avoid?
Note, too, the constant use of words that begin with "re -". Renew. Revive. And – incredibly – Bush also told us that "we actually re-liberated certain communities". This, folks, goes beyond hollow laughter. Since when did armies go around "re-liberating" anything? And what does that credibility-sapping "actually" mean? I suspect it was an attempt by the White House speech writer to suggest – by sleight of hand, of course – that Bush was really – really – telling the truth this time. But by putting "actually" in front of "re-liberate" – as opposed to just "liberate" – the whole grammatical construction falls apart. Rather like Iraq.
For by my reckoning, we have now "re-liberated" Fallujah twice. We have "re-liberated" Mosul three times and "re-liberated" Ramadi four times. The scorecard goes on. My files show that Sadr City may have been "re-liberated" five times, while Baghdad is "re-liberated" on an almost daily basis. General David Petraeus, in his pitiful appearance before the US Senate armed services committee, was bound to admit his disappointment at the military failure of the equally pitiful Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Basra. He had not followed Petraeus' advice; which was presumably to "re-liberate" the city (for the fourth time, by my calculation but with a bit more planning)."
"So here are a few Appenzeller factoids (glossed by Fisk, so the responsibility is mine!). The correct ratios for wounded in action vs killed in action for Iraq and Afghanistan is 8.13 to 1; for Korea, it's 7.38 to 1 and for Vietnam it's 6.43 to 1."
"But this does not include the kind of figure that the Pentagon and Bush always keep secret: an astonishing 1,000 or more Western-hired mercenaries, killed in Iraq while fighting or killing for "our" side."
"No, Iraq has not yet reached Korea and Vietnam proportions. The three-year Korean war resulted in 33,686 US battle deaths and about 250,000 US wounds, an average of 94,562 casualties per year. The American phase of the Vietnam war lasted 14 years and resulted in 47,378 US battle deaths and 304,704 US wounds, an average of 25,149 casualties per year and an average of 66,792 during the four years of 1966-1969, the height of American fighting.
The Iraq war has lasted five years and has resulted in 3,251 battle deaths and 29,395 wounds, an average of 6,529 casualties per year. "Thus, the average number of killed and wounded during the Korean war was three times the total number of killed and wounded in the five years of the Iraq war. The average number of killed and wounded during each of the most difficult years of the Vietnam war was twice the total for the five years of the Iraq war."
"Now for much more blood, the civilian variety. According to George, "About 1,600,000 were killed in the Korean war, 365,000 (according to American authorities) and four million (according to the Vietnamese government) during the American phase of the Vietnam war, and who knows how many in Iraq. No fewer than 250,000, certainly.""
Deadly blast strikes Iran mosque: Negligence or Terrorism?
"Ten people have been killed and 160 wounded in an explosion at a mosque in southern Iran, local media reports say.
Authorities in the city of Shiraz were investigating the blast, which some early reports had blamed on a bomb.
But a local police chief told Fars news agency that he had ruled out sabotage, and that "negligence" involving old war munitions might be the cause.
The explosion occurred at around 2100 (1630 GMT) on Saturday and was heard a mile (1.5km) away, the agency reported.
"The incident could have happened as a result of negligence. A while ago at this site there was an exhibition commemorating the [1980-1988] Iran-Iraq war," Commander Ali Moayeri, police chief of Fars province, told Fars news agency."
"Most of those inside the Hoseyniyeh Shohada mosque when the explosion took place were young boys and girls affiliated to the Rahpoyan-e Vesal Association, which "holds weekly meetings every Saturday regarding misguided groups, including Wahhabis and Bahais", Fars said."
"The last major bombing, in the south-eastern city of Zahedan in February last year, is believed to have been carried out by the Sunni Baluchi militant group, Jundallah."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7344780.stm
Authorities in the city of Shiraz were investigating the blast, which some early reports had blamed on a bomb.
But a local police chief told Fars news agency that he had ruled out sabotage, and that "negligence" involving old war munitions might be the cause.
The explosion occurred at around 2100 (1630 GMT) on Saturday and was heard a mile (1.5km) away, the agency reported.
"The incident could have happened as a result of negligence. A while ago at this site there was an exhibition commemorating the [1980-1988] Iran-Iraq war," Commander Ali Moayeri, police chief of Fars province, told Fars news agency."
"Most of those inside the Hoseyniyeh Shohada mosque when the explosion took place were young boys and girls affiliated to the Rahpoyan-e Vesal Association, which "holds weekly meetings every Saturday regarding misguided groups, including Wahhabis and Bahais", Fars said."
"The last major bombing, in the south-eastern city of Zahedan in February last year, is believed to have been carried out by the Sunni Baluchi militant group, Jundallah."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7344780.stm
Friday, April 11, 2008
Norooz for Reza and Mahmoud
This email has been making the rounds and I just received about an hour or so from a friend of mine. Check your inbox, you may well have received it yourself, as emails seem to circulate the now global Iranian community at light speed. The forwarded email in question is rather quaintly entitled Norooz for Reza and Mahmoud. Before I continue I wish to stress that this little essay isn’t intended as a polemic or diatribe against any of the parties involved. I merely desire to say th
at the email as a sort of cultural artifact, if I may call it that, strikes me as problematic for a number of reasons.
In the first photo we find the Pahlavi women and children unveiled, made-up and for the most part indistinguishable, from many other emancipated women you’re likely to come by in the western world. Reza sports an impeccable suit, crisp tie and is of course clean shaven. The family is happy and all appears well. Let me just unequivocally state that I am not fo
r one moment or in the slightest criticizing or taking issue with any of this, Please make sure you take heed of this qualification before launching into hateful and bilious insults.
Pasted below the picture of the Pahlavis is Norooz at the Ahamdinejad home. The woman can hardly be espied as they remain ensconced within their all-encompassing chadors. Rather than all the modern trappings of a fine dining table and silverware, in traditional fashion they kneel and squat in a small circle on their no doubt finely woven Persian rug. Ahmadinejad and his two sons all have facial hair which has clearly been left unattended for several days.
Firstly, implicit within the ideological mise-en-scene, made all the more palpable by the juxtaposition of the two photos, is the fairly prevalent attitude amongst the Iranian middle class and some of the diaspora which goes something like this: ‘hey, take a look at these dāhātihā, one of whom is our laughable joke of a president’. The comparison with the model secular family as exemplified by the Pahlavis is surely supposed to elicit such a reaction, or something thereabouts. Many will continue I’m sure: ‘Look what we had, and look what we’re stuck with today!’ Such reactions are certainly on some level understandable and legitimate from the point of view of those espousing them; my only intent here is to try and problematize some of the unfortunate assumptions and preconceptions that underpin such a reaction, how the set up is clearly value-laden and a vehicle for a particular ideological position which has surreptitiously insinuated itself into the background against which we come to read the email.
Prima facie it’s fair to say that in the eyes of the sender and the audience for whom it was intended, the photo of the Pahlavis represents the virtues of ‘progress’ and ‘civilization’ while the photo of the Ahmadinejads is cast in the role of ‘backwardness’ and ‘crudity’. In this patently ideological figuration one fails to see that both at least on the surface of it, appear happy, jovial and content on what is after all a national celebration. Are we really qualified to impugn a family’s apparent happiness, even if it may well be a façade artfully crafted for public consumption?
The problem with a value-laden, ideological construct such as this is that its makers arguably on some level evince either a tad of self-loathing or a pointed denial of the fact that the ‘lifestyle’ of the Ahmadinejads, at least as presented in the photograph, is one which the vast majority of Iranians live and relate to. Though the populist politics of Ahmadinejad are at times highly objectionable and a mere cover for the IRI’s ongoing authoritarian governance, the denial that he has a constituency or that only the ‘clean-shaven’ middle-classes in either Iran or western capitals have a monopoly on Iranian identity, heritage, nationalism etcetera, is hugely short-sighted and terribly arrogant.
Rather than a straightforward religious-secular divide, the case of Ahmadinejad, unlike the ulema who have since the revolution emerged ‘fat cats’ and ‘captains of industry’, poses the more troubling question of class divisions and the considerable cultural, aesthetic and economic differences which separate Tehran’s variegated middle classes and those who continue to eke out their existence in the provinces and the shanty towns which line the outskirts of Iran’s metropolises. I’m not claiming that one group or section of society should take precedence at the expense of the other or that one’s demands is superior and should be implemented, while neglecting other people’s and groups’ claims. To put it somewhat superficially, there’s no reason why greater freedom of expression and association should be incompatible with an alleviation of the endemic poverty and destitution plaguing many families within the provinces as a result of rapid urbanization and urban migration.
Ignoring and systematically undermining the desires and demands of Iran’s middle classes obviously has had devastating repercussions for the country. The corollaries of Iranian brain drain, the abuse of fundamental human and civil rights, gender discrimination, as well as a host of other debilitating afflictions of this kind, are felt on a daily basis and will continue into the future to severely damage Iran’s economic and social standing in the region and on the international stage.[1]
My main concern here however, is with the implicit repudiation of the Ahmadinejads as dāhātihā. In this instance, I’m not interested in the man and the crimes he may or may have not committed. It’s the snobbery and disdain toward a sizeable section of kind, good-humored and gentle people who make up the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people and who continue to live in similarly humble and unassuming circumstances. Such snobbery, derision, or maybe just benign misunderstanding, acts not only as a gross insult to millions of Iranians, but in my view is a shameful preponderance of the gaping chasm that later became evident between the late Shah’s image of his relationship to the Iranian people and the stark reality of that relationship, which ended in revolt and hatred.
Not only is such disdain problematic but belies the fact that ‘Iran’ has managed to exist in multiple guises and imaginaries for multiple individuals, political and social groups, classes, ethnic and religious groups. Persian ethnocentrism and the exaltation of our Archimedean imperial past has as much claim to speak for ‘Iran’ and ‘Iranians’ as the religious nationalism of individuals such as Ahmadinejad, and vice versa. There are of course many other images, associations and identities with a legitimate claim to define and speak about our heritage and history and whom are rightfully entitled to articulate their vision of Iran as a nation and a people: Jews, urban secularists, Baluchis, religious peasantry, Kurds, Shi’ites, women, Sunnis, secular peasantry, religious bazaaris, Zoroastrians, Azeris, Bahais, Arabs and Armenians etc...
From this it’s clear than no political faction, class, gender, ethnicity etcetera has an unassailable monopoly on ‘Iranian-ness’ and the plethora of meanings that a rich heritage affords. It is exactly because Iranian history is so vast and hotly contested that no single individual or entity can claim to speak for it in its entirety. All of the aforesaid groups and many others have played a part in our national evolution and the development of a multi-faceted, plurivocal and dynamic cultural consciousness. All of which have and continue to contribute in some way or another to the tributary of how we interpret ourselves and the world within we dwell and co-exist.
[1] I am not saying the issues of gender and civil rights are solely the concern of the middle classes; that’s patently untrue. The fact remains however that the prime objective of Iran’s underclass is the betterment of its economic standing and standard of living as opposed to the lofty rhetoric of ‘a dialogue of civilizations’.
at the email as a sort of cultural artifact, if I may call it that, strikes me as problematic for a number of reasons.In the first photo we find the Pahlavi women and children unveiled, made-up and for the most part indistinguishable, from many other emancipated women you’re likely to come by in the western world. Reza sports an impeccable suit, crisp tie and is of course clean shaven. The family is happy and all appears well. Let me just unequivocally state that I am not fo
r one moment or in the slightest criticizing or taking issue with any of this, Please make sure you take heed of this qualification before launching into hateful and bilious insults.Pasted below the picture of the Pahlavis is Norooz at the Ahamdinejad home. The woman can hardly be espied as they remain ensconced within their all-encompassing chadors. Rather than all the modern trappings of a fine dining table and silverware, in traditional fashion they kneel and squat in a small circle on their no doubt finely woven Persian rug. Ahmadinejad and his two sons all have facial hair which has clearly been left unattended for several days.
Firstly, implicit within the ideological mise-en-scene, made all the more palpable by the juxtaposition of the two photos, is the fairly prevalent attitude amongst the Iranian middle class and some of the diaspora which goes something like this: ‘hey, take a look at these dāhātihā, one of whom is our laughable joke of a president’. The comparison with the model secular family as exemplified by the Pahlavis is surely supposed to elicit such a reaction, or something thereabouts. Many will continue I’m sure: ‘Look what we had, and look what we’re stuck with today!’ Such reactions are certainly on some level understandable and legitimate from the point of view of those espousing them; my only intent here is to try and problematize some of the unfortunate assumptions and preconceptions that underpin such a reaction, how the set up is clearly value-laden and a vehicle for a particular ideological position which has surreptitiously insinuated itself into the background against which we come to read the email.
Prima facie it’s fair to say that in the eyes of the sender and the audience for whom it was intended, the photo of the Pahlavis represents the virtues of ‘progress’ and ‘civilization’ while the photo of the Ahmadinejads is cast in the role of ‘backwardness’ and ‘crudity’. In this patently ideological figuration one fails to see that both at least on the surface of it, appear happy, jovial and content on what is after all a national celebration. Are we really qualified to impugn a family’s apparent happiness, even if it may well be a façade artfully crafted for public consumption?
The problem with a value-laden, ideological construct such as this is that its makers arguably on some level evince either a tad of self-loathing or a pointed denial of the fact that the ‘lifestyle’ of the Ahmadinejads, at least as presented in the photograph, is one which the vast majority of Iranians live and relate to. Though the populist politics of Ahmadinejad are at times highly objectionable and a mere cover for the IRI’s ongoing authoritarian governance, the denial that he has a constituency or that only the ‘clean-shaven’ middle-classes in either Iran or western capitals have a monopoly on Iranian identity, heritage, nationalism etcetera, is hugely short-sighted and terribly arrogant.
Rather than a straightforward religious-secular divide, the case of Ahmadinejad, unlike the ulema who have since the revolution emerged ‘fat cats’ and ‘captains of industry’, poses the more troubling question of class divisions and the considerable cultural, aesthetic and economic differences which separate Tehran’s variegated middle classes and those who continue to eke out their existence in the provinces and the shanty towns which line the outskirts of Iran’s metropolises. I’m not claiming that one group or section of society should take precedence at the expense of the other or that one’s demands is superior and should be implemented, while neglecting other people’s and groups’ claims. To put it somewhat superficially, there’s no reason why greater freedom of expression and association should be incompatible with an alleviation of the endemic poverty and destitution plaguing many families within the provinces as a result of rapid urbanization and urban migration.
Ignoring and systematically undermining the desires and demands of Iran’s middle classes obviously has had devastating repercussions for the country. The corollaries of Iranian brain drain, the abuse of fundamental human and civil rights, gender discrimination, as well as a host of other debilitating afflictions of this kind, are felt on a daily basis and will continue into the future to severely damage Iran’s economic and social standing in the region and on the international stage.[1]
My main concern here however, is with the implicit repudiation of the Ahmadinejads as dāhātihā. In this instance, I’m not interested in the man and the crimes he may or may have not committed. It’s the snobbery and disdain toward a sizeable section of kind, good-humored and gentle people who make up the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people and who continue to live in similarly humble and unassuming circumstances. Such snobbery, derision, or maybe just benign misunderstanding, acts not only as a gross insult to millions of Iranians, but in my view is a shameful preponderance of the gaping chasm that later became evident between the late Shah’s image of his relationship to the Iranian people and the stark reality of that relationship, which ended in revolt and hatred.
Not only is such disdain problematic but belies the fact that ‘Iran’ has managed to exist in multiple guises and imaginaries for multiple individuals, political and social groups, classes, ethnic and religious groups. Persian ethnocentrism and the exaltation of our Archimedean imperial past has as much claim to speak for ‘Iran’ and ‘Iranians’ as the religious nationalism of individuals such as Ahmadinejad, and vice versa. There are of course many other images, associations and identities with a legitimate claim to define and speak about our heritage and history and whom are rightfully entitled to articulate their vision of Iran as a nation and a people: Jews, urban secularists, Baluchis, religious peasantry, Kurds, Shi’ites, women, Sunnis, secular peasantry, religious bazaaris, Zoroastrians, Azeris, Bahais, Arabs and Armenians etc...
From this it’s clear than no political faction, class, gender, ethnicity etcetera has an unassailable monopoly on ‘Iranian-ness’ and the plethora of meanings that a rich heritage affords. It is exactly because Iranian history is so vast and hotly contested that no single individual or entity can claim to speak for it in its entirety. All of the aforesaid groups and many others have played a part in our national evolution and the development of a multi-faceted, plurivocal and dynamic cultural consciousness. All of which have and continue to contribute in some way or another to the tributary of how we interpret ourselves and the world within we dwell and co-exist.
[1] I am not saying the issues of gender and civil rights are solely the concern of the middle classes; that’s patently untrue. The fact remains however that the prime objective of Iran’s underclass is the betterment of its economic standing and standard of living as opposed to the lofty rhetoric of ‘a dialogue of civilizations’.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Fertility Treatment in Iran
Here's an interesting article by Elizabeth O’Donnell in Le Monde Diplomatique regarding the growth and development of fertility treatments in Iran. I've pasted some paragraphs that were of particular interest regarding the flexibility of the Iranian legal system, the shattering of certain taboos vis-a-vis sperm and egg donation, and also the patriarchal instinct so deeply rooted in Iranian culture to hold women, rather than their male counterparts, responsibile for marriages which fail to bear children. Is this evidence of the Iranian symbolic register's propensity to associate barrenness with feminity? If so, we need to try our best to undo this often unconscious and highly objectionable association.
"According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), infertility affects approximately 8-12% of couples of reproductive age (15-49 years) worldwide. A 2000 study suggests that in Tehran infertility is about 12%, in line with WHO calculations. Infertility is defined as the inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse. It is also the inability to carry a baby to term or have a family – and the feeling of exclusion from the human experience that can bring. Although male and female factors contribute equally to infertility, the term has historically and unfairly been used to describe the reproductive status of women, since they become pregnant and give birth."
"Until the mid-1960s reproductive freedom was essentially unchallenged in Iran. By 1967 this had changed based on census data that showed a population growth rate of 3%, and concerns for overpopulation led to a government-sponsored family planning initiative. Following the 1978 revolution fertility climbed and by 1986 population growth was 3.9%. Fear for Iran’s ability to sustain itself resurfaced and a public education campaign ensued. Family planning became an integral part of the healthcare mandate and by the end of the 1990s the birth rate per 1,000 had gone from 48 in 1978 to less than 30.
The commitment to family planning is a religious and political edict in Iran and part of a progressive initiative that has extended urbanisation, influenced healthcare and mortality rates, and educated the public on the cost of overpopulation to families and the planet. Islam does not forbid the use of contraception and no direct references to it not being permitted are found in the Qur’an. So a space has been made for the use of birth control in Muslim life.
Like birth control, infertility and its treatment comes under the auspices of Jurist rule in Iran, represented by the absolute guardianship of the Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein Khamenei. Currently – and this may surprise people in the West – Iran has the most progressive stance toward infertility treatment and the use of the assisted reproductive technologies (ART) of any Muslim country."
"The use of donor egg or sperm has tremendous significance for anyone contemplating infertility treatment. In most Muslim countries formal adoption is typically forbidden. (Iran has also begun to reconsider its position on adoption.) For couples who have no chance of conceiving via their own egg or sperm, using a donor presents a resurrection of hope, as well as the opportunity to experience pregnancy and birth. But Sunni Islam has categorically forbidden the use of third-party reproductive practices, comparing it to adultery (zina) as a violation of the marital commitment to fidelity.
Several Shia scholars are of the same opinion. However, Iran’s Supreme Leader has decreed it permissible – despite the “official” Iranian position that sperm or egg donation is not acceptable. Khamenei’s fatwa speaks to the intention of couples seeking treatment, which is to have a family. Rather than use a literal or reductive explanation, Khamenei has applied an enlightened and compassionate view of infertility. A view that not only stands in significant opposition to many other Muslim clerics (inside and outside of Iran) but also challenges the West’s view of Iran as an absolute and archaic society whose principles take no account of the dilemmas of modern life. Clearly there is dissonance between the theoretical and practical application of ART as it relates to the third-party parenting practices."
"It is too soon for Firoz to imagine his wife pregnant with the sperm of another man. He has never told Salma that his father blames her for their lack of children; “Well, it’s not you,” he has said to Firoz many times, firm in his blame of Salma. Salma has slowly retreated from the world, preferring to sit at home reading books on natural cures and remedies rather than go to family dinners.
Resolving the problem of infertility by using donated gametes creates more than the abstract possibility that a couple could be accused of committing adultery. Using the sperm or egg provided by a third party changes the biological relationship between parents and offspring and has a profound impact on the transition of lineage, and preserving the integrity of lineage or kinship is important in both the Shia and Sunni traditions. One of the ways in which the issue of marriage has been addressed in third-party parenting arrangements in Shia Islam has been via the use of temporary marriage (mut’a) which does not exist in Sunni Islam.
However, Khamenei’s fatwa does not mandate the use of mut’a. In 2003 the Iranian parliament ratified the Embryo Donation to Infertile Spouses Act, which allows married couples to donate embryos (fertilised from the husband’s sperm and wife’s egg) to another married couple with a documented difficulty conceiving. Although the act does not specifically permit sperm and egg donation, that too is implied and, according to Soraya Tremayne, director of the Fertility and Reproduction Studies Group at Oxford University, “the likelihood of an ensuing fatwa allowing donation by strangers is high”."
"Infertility treatment involves the consideration of biological, medical, social, psychological, religious, legal, ethical and cultural factors. Shia Islam has not attempted to shy away from or forbid treatment of infertility using advanced technology. Instead there has been a burgeoning interest in the application of hadith to manage all human dilemmas.
The attitude towards infertility treatment in Iran is symbolic of the complicated relationship that exists within Islam, and between Islam and the West. It is an attitude that reflects a willingness by many Iranians to push from the inside. When Shirin Ebadi won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2003 she said that change in Iran had to come from within. Since the 1978 revolution many Iranian women have resisted discrimination, some paying with their lives. (Like human rights, infertility and its treatment have been an area of disenfranchisement for women all over the world.) But though Iran does not invite the opinion of outsiders, this does not mean that change isn’t happening."
"According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), infertility affects approximately 8-12% of couples of reproductive age (15-49 years) worldwide. A 2000 study suggests that in Tehran infertility is about 12%, in line with WHO calculations. Infertility is defined as the inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse. It is also the inability to carry a baby to term or have a family – and the feeling of exclusion from the human experience that can bring. Although male and female factors contribute equally to infertility, the term has historically and unfairly been used to describe the reproductive status of women, since they become pregnant and give birth."
"Until the mid-1960s reproductive freedom was essentially unchallenged in Iran. By 1967 this had changed based on census data that showed a population growth rate of 3%, and concerns for overpopulation led to a government-sponsored family planning initiative. Following the 1978 revolution fertility climbed and by 1986 population growth was 3.9%. Fear for Iran’s ability to sustain itself resurfaced and a public education campaign ensued. Family planning became an integral part of the healthcare mandate and by the end of the 1990s the birth rate per 1,000 had gone from 48 in 1978 to less than 30.
The commitment to family planning is a religious and political edict in Iran and part of a progressive initiative that has extended urbanisation, influenced healthcare and mortality rates, and educated the public on the cost of overpopulation to families and the planet. Islam does not forbid the use of contraception and no direct references to it not being permitted are found in the Qur’an. So a space has been made for the use of birth control in Muslim life.
Like birth control, infertility and its treatment comes under the auspices of Jurist rule in Iran, represented by the absolute guardianship of the Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein Khamenei. Currently – and this may surprise people in the West – Iran has the most progressive stance toward infertility treatment and the use of the assisted reproductive technologies (ART) of any Muslim country."
"The use of donor egg or sperm has tremendous significance for anyone contemplating infertility treatment. In most Muslim countries formal adoption is typically forbidden. (Iran has also begun to reconsider its position on adoption.) For couples who have no chance of conceiving via their own egg or sperm, using a donor presents a resurrection of hope, as well as the opportunity to experience pregnancy and birth. But Sunni Islam has categorically forbidden the use of third-party reproductive practices, comparing it to adultery (zina) as a violation of the marital commitment to fidelity.
Several Shia scholars are of the same opinion. However, Iran’s Supreme Leader has decreed it permissible – despite the “official” Iranian position that sperm or egg donation is not acceptable. Khamenei’s fatwa speaks to the intention of couples seeking treatment, which is to have a family. Rather than use a literal or reductive explanation, Khamenei has applied an enlightened and compassionate view of infertility. A view that not only stands in significant opposition to many other Muslim clerics (inside and outside of Iran) but also challenges the West’s view of Iran as an absolute and archaic society whose principles take no account of the dilemmas of modern life. Clearly there is dissonance between the theoretical and practical application of ART as it relates to the third-party parenting practices."
"It is too soon for Firoz to imagine his wife pregnant with the sperm of another man. He has never told Salma that his father blames her for their lack of children; “Well, it’s not you,” he has said to Firoz many times, firm in his blame of Salma. Salma has slowly retreated from the world, preferring to sit at home reading books on natural cures and remedies rather than go to family dinners.
Resolving the problem of infertility by using donated gametes creates more than the abstract possibility that a couple could be accused of committing adultery. Using the sperm or egg provided by a third party changes the biological relationship between parents and offspring and has a profound impact on the transition of lineage, and preserving the integrity of lineage or kinship is important in both the Shia and Sunni traditions. One of the ways in which the issue of marriage has been addressed in third-party parenting arrangements in Shia Islam has been via the use of temporary marriage (mut’a) which does not exist in Sunni Islam.
However, Khamenei’s fatwa does not mandate the use of mut’a. In 2003 the Iranian parliament ratified the Embryo Donation to Infertile Spouses Act, which allows married couples to donate embryos (fertilised from the husband’s sperm and wife’s egg) to another married couple with a documented difficulty conceiving. Although the act does not specifically permit sperm and egg donation, that too is implied and, according to Soraya Tremayne, director of the Fertility and Reproduction Studies Group at Oxford University, “the likelihood of an ensuing fatwa allowing donation by strangers is high”."
"Infertility treatment involves the consideration of biological, medical, social, psychological, religious, legal, ethical and cultural factors. Shia Islam has not attempted to shy away from or forbid treatment of infertility using advanced technology. Instead there has been a burgeoning interest in the application of hadith to manage all human dilemmas.
The attitude towards infertility treatment in Iran is symbolic of the complicated relationship that exists within Islam, and between Islam and the West. It is an attitude that reflects a willingness by many Iranians to push from the inside. When Shirin Ebadi won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2003 she said that change in Iran had to come from within. Since the 1978 revolution many Iranian women have resisted discrimination, some paying with their lives. (Like human rights, infertility and its treatment have been an area of disenfranchisement for women all over the world.) But though Iran does not invite the opinion of outsiders, this does not mean that change isn’t happening."
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Israeli Cabinet Minister Threatens to Wipe Iran Off the Map
Will an Israeli Cabinet Minister's threat of the 'destruction of the Iranian nation' receive as much attention as Ahmadi-Nejad's mistranslated threat against Israel? Check out Arash Norouzi's trenchant deconstruction of the international media's sensationalist reception of Ahmadi-Nejad's comments vis-a-vis Israel here. He fittingly calls it 'the rumor of the century'. My question of whether Ben-Eliezer's comments will be met with equal controversy is obviously a rhetorical one since we know that such threats will attract scant attention in the western media. The threat of 'retaliatory' genocide will almost certainly go unchallenged by the same pundits whom couldn't help themselves but warn the world on a 24/7 loop of the 'genocidal ambitions' harbored by the IRI. Even if one thoroughly detests the IRI, threats such as these against the Iranian people must be unequivocally denounced and exposed for what they are.
Israeli Cabinet minister warns Iran will be destroyed if it attacks Israel
The Associated Press
Monday, April 7, 2008
JERUSALEM: An Israeli Cabinet minister warned Iran on Monday that any attack on the Jewish state would result in the "destruction of the Iranian nation," his office said.
The comments by Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a former defense minister, came as Israel held a weeklong countrywide civil defense exercise to practice government and military responses to a national emergency, such as an attack by militant groups or enemy state.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and backs Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas who fought a monthlong war with Israel in 2006.
"An Iranian attack would result in a harsh Israeli reaction that would cause the destruction of the Iranian nation," Ben-Eliezer said during the exercise, according to a statement from his office. "They are definitely aware of our power."
Iran is pursuing nuclear technology it says would be used to generate electricity. The U.S., EU and Israel believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons instead.
Iran says it already has long-range missiles that can reach Israel.
Israel is widely believed to have a large stockpile of nuclear weapons but follows a policy it calls "nuclear ambiguity," and has never acknowledged or denied having a nuclear weapons program.
Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have declared that the civil defense exercise is not meant to increase tensions in the region.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/07/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Iran.php
Israeli Cabinet minister warns Iran will be destroyed if it attacks Israel
The Associated Press
Monday, April 7, 2008
JERUSALEM: An Israeli Cabinet minister warned Iran on Monday that any attack on the Jewish state would result in the "destruction of the Iranian nation," his office said.
The comments by Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a former defense minister, came as Israel held a weeklong countrywide civil defense exercise to practice government and military responses to a national emergency, such as an attack by militant groups or enemy state.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and backs Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas who fought a monthlong war with Israel in 2006.
"An Iranian attack would result in a harsh Israeli reaction that would cause the destruction of the Iranian nation," Ben-Eliezer said during the exercise, according to a statement from his office. "They are definitely aware of our power."
Iran is pursuing nuclear technology it says would be used to generate electricity. The U.S., EU and Israel believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons instead.
Iran says it already has long-range missiles that can reach Israel.
Israel is widely believed to have a large stockpile of nuclear weapons but follows a policy it calls "nuclear ambiguity," and has never acknowledged or denied having a nuclear weapons program.
Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have declared that the civil defense exercise is not meant to increase tensions in the region.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/07/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Iran.php
Monday, April 7, 2008
Iranian Rate of Oil Production In Next Ten Years to be Outstripped by Domestic Consumption
Make sure you check out this important report by Professor Roger Stern of Johns Hopkins University regarding Iran's oil reserves. In a nutshell the paper entitled, The Iranian Petroleum Crisis and United States National Security, concludes that Iranian oil production in the next ten years will impair, perhaps irreparably Iran's capacity to export oil and with increasing domestic demand as a result of a rising population, Iran's reserves will be predominantly utilized for satisfying domestic consumption.
If this is correct it clearly exposes Cheney's sophistry, since one of his go-to arguments in drumming up support for his next imperialist misadventure is that Iran could only be pursuing a nuclear weapons program since as the mendacious rhetorical question goes: what need does Iran have for peaceful nuclear energy with huge oil reserves at its disposal? This is little more than specious sophistry; the exact same kind of sophistry invoked by Cheney and his zealous neocon foot-soldiers to ready the US public and a compliant media for war against Iraq. Please let's not be duped and lied to once again.
If this is correct it clearly exposes Cheney's sophistry, since one of his go-to arguments in drumming up support for his next imperialist misadventure is that Iran could only be pursuing a nuclear weapons program since as the mendacious rhetorical question goes: what need does Iran have for peaceful nuclear energy with huge oil reserves at its disposal? This is little more than specious sophistry; the exact same kind of sophistry invoked by Cheney and his zealous neocon foot-soldiers to ready the US public and a compliant media for war against Iraq. Please let's not be duped and lied to once again.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Al Qaeda #2: We'll Attack Iran
What does John McCain have to say about this?
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/al-qaeda-2-well.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/al-qaeda-2-well.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Share
Slideshow
Posts
