Having talked about a number of negative events in the world news recently, I’d like to balance things a bit with some brief comments on two mostly positive events that have taken place in the past week or so in north Africa.
A few days ago, the Tunisian people succeeded in driving out the country’s long-time dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Ben Ali’s regime was corrupt and oppressive; his family blatantly enriched itself at public expense, and opponents of the government faced imprisonment and torture. The Internet police that the government used to crack down on dissident bloggers were as pervasive and technologically savvy as China’s. However, as a stable, pro-Western regime in one of the most prosperous African countries, Ben Ali’s Tunisia received relatively little pressure from the US and other Western countries to reform. It took street protest powered by the country’s educated youth to bring down Ben Ali, which they did with surprising swiftness, though not without bloodshed. The overthrowing of a dictator is always something to celebrate, and I’m glad to see it happened in Tunisia, a country I have a particular interest in (despite never having visited), due to my childhood fascination with ancient Carthage, located near Tunis, the modern capital. Unfortunately what’s not clear at the moment is what sort of government will replace Ben Ali’s, as most of those left in charge after his departure were his cronies, and the organized opposition is weak and divided after decades of oppression. A period of chaos is probably to be expected, but I hope Tunisia can eventually form a stable, relatively liberal government that respects the right to free speech.
Also in the past week, Southern Sudan completed its referendum on independence. Getting through the vote without any major problems is in and of itself a major accomplishment. Furthermore, it is probable that Southern Sudan has voted for independence, rectifying yet another idiotic early 20th century boundary drawing exercise by the British (Iraq being another classic example). Northern and Southern Sudan were never compatible and it never made sense for them to be part of the same country, which is why there has been almost constant conflict between the two regions for Sudan’s entire existence. Separating the two is the only logical thing to do However, in this situation there are still potential problems, some quite serious. One is the border region of Abyei, a region more sedentary residents are kin to people in Southern Sudan and want to be part of expected future state but which is also a traditional grazing area for nomadic Arab people aligned with the north. Another issue is the division of oil revenues, as most of the oil is in the south, but all the pipelines run through the north. Then there is the extreme poverty of the south, and its potential for internal dissension (the main unifying force being a desire for independence). All of these problems could potential lead to widespread conflict. Hopefully they can all be overcome or at least minimized, and what will be the world’s newest nation can become firmly established, incidentally showing once again the possibility of legitimate, peaceful separation from a larger nation, despite the efforts of countries such as China, Russia and Indonesia to deny that such a thing can be permitted.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Gabrielle Giffords, heated rhetoric, and guns
The big news from the US the past few days has been the shooting of Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The greatest tragedy was the six deaths (personally I found that of the nine-year-old girl most affecting, though any death like this is a great tragedy), and these victims should not be forgotten (nor should the people who leaped to stop the shooter or help the wounded), but the serious wound suffered by Giffords herself is almost as terrible a tragedy as the deaths, and it is natural that as a political figure and the apparent target she is receiving the most attention. However, in many commentaries on the incident, discussion has focused on broader topics, such as whether heated political rhetoric is directly or indirectly to blame.
From what we know so far of the assassin, it doesn’t appear that the connection between heated political rhetoric and the shooting is very direct. As this writer points out, many past assassins in the US have had motivations quite different from what might have been expected. I don’t agree with his implication that both sides of American politics are equally guilty of using violent imagery in their rhetoric – far, far more of it comes from the right wing, as Paul Krugman argues in his piece on the subject (though of course he is a liberal, so conservatives will no doubt just dismiss him as biased), but I agree that there is probably not a direct connection between the recent use of gun-related imagery by right-wing figures and the actions of this particular deranged individual. However, this does not mean that those public figures shouldn’t be receiving flak for their irresponsible talk. Even if they are not responsible for setting off this particular lunatic, they might be responsible for the next (in fact, there’s already been one case of a violent Glenn Beck fan taking his words too much to heart, though he was stopped before anyone was killed). And whatever Loughner’s political views (indications are they were all over the place, as might be expected from someone so clearly mentally ill), violence-tinged rhetoric might have at least encouraged him to think violence towards politicians was acceptable.
On the other hand, at least all of the major right-wing figures and organizations condemned the attack (while denying they shared any blame for it), and no one publicly praised the shooter (though since I avoided reading any comment boards, I can’t be sure that some more warped individuals might not have done so). This is a noticeable contrast to Pakistan, where a number of radicals and conservative religious organizations openly celebrated the assassination of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer. Perhaps there is some hope for the US yet (though if it ever does reach the state Pakistan is in now with respect to political climate, we can pretty much write it off as hopeless). Still, from some of the bizarre statements of a few on the right (such as claiming that Loughner was a liberal because he liked the Communist Manifesto – even though he also like Mein Kampf and Ayn Rand), it may be too much to hope for a real cooling down of the rhetoric. Also, as pointed out in this article from Slate, Sarah Palin is a hypocrite for denouncing the idea of collective guilt and asserting that only the individuals who commit crimes should be held responsible for them, as she herself holds Muslims collectively responsible for the September 11 attacks, as shown be her opposition to any mosque being built near the WTC site, no matter which Muslims build it.
Another debate which the shooting has re-energized is the one over gun control. Amazing numbers of people still try to argue that incidents like this don’t show a need for more gun control. Some right wingers bizarrely have gone so far as to claim that if Arizona’s gun laws were less restrictive the incident could have been prevented, even though it’s almost impossible to have less restrictive gun laws than Arizona, where someone as obviously disturbed as Loughner could buy a particularly deadly gun. More sensible commentators have focused on that gun, noting that there is no rational reason why a gun that can shoot over 30 rounds without reloading should be available to the general public. This contrasts with the tired argument which I saw a few pro-gun people trot out again, that crazy people like Loughner are the problem, not the weapons they use, and that they can still kill with knives or clubs. Yes, but they wouldn’t be able to kill nearly as many people. In this particular case, if he had only had a knife, the attacker might have been tackled before he could do more than wound anyone, if that. The issue of potentially dangerous mentally ill people also has to be address, but any rational person can see that making it much harder to get a hold of guns that can kill many people quickly would at least reduce the body count. If the members of Congress can manage to think logically and lose their fear of the NRA for once, maybe this incident can lead to more rational gun laws in the US.
From what we know so far of the assassin, it doesn’t appear that the connection between heated political rhetoric and the shooting is very direct. As this writer points out, many past assassins in the US have had motivations quite different from what might have been expected. I don’t agree with his implication that both sides of American politics are equally guilty of using violent imagery in their rhetoric – far, far more of it comes from the right wing, as Paul Krugman argues in his piece on the subject (though of course he is a liberal, so conservatives will no doubt just dismiss him as biased), but I agree that there is probably not a direct connection between the recent use of gun-related imagery by right-wing figures and the actions of this particular deranged individual. However, this does not mean that those public figures shouldn’t be receiving flak for their irresponsible talk. Even if they are not responsible for setting off this particular lunatic, they might be responsible for the next (in fact, there’s already been one case of a violent Glenn Beck fan taking his words too much to heart, though he was stopped before anyone was killed). And whatever Loughner’s political views (indications are they were all over the place, as might be expected from someone so clearly mentally ill), violence-tinged rhetoric might have at least encouraged him to think violence towards politicians was acceptable.
On the other hand, at least all of the major right-wing figures and organizations condemned the attack (while denying they shared any blame for it), and no one publicly praised the shooter (though since I avoided reading any comment boards, I can’t be sure that some more warped individuals might not have done so). This is a noticeable contrast to Pakistan, where a number of radicals and conservative religious organizations openly celebrated the assassination of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer. Perhaps there is some hope for the US yet (though if it ever does reach the state Pakistan is in now with respect to political climate, we can pretty much write it off as hopeless). Still, from some of the bizarre statements of a few on the right (such as claiming that Loughner was a liberal because he liked the Communist Manifesto – even though he also like Mein Kampf and Ayn Rand), it may be too much to hope for a real cooling down of the rhetoric. Also, as pointed out in this article from Slate, Sarah Palin is a hypocrite for denouncing the idea of collective guilt and asserting that only the individuals who commit crimes should be held responsible for them, as she herself holds Muslims collectively responsible for the September 11 attacks, as shown be her opposition to any mosque being built near the WTC site, no matter which Muslims build it.
Another debate which the shooting has re-energized is the one over gun control. Amazing numbers of people still try to argue that incidents like this don’t show a need for more gun control. Some right wingers bizarrely have gone so far as to claim that if Arizona’s gun laws were less restrictive the incident could have been prevented, even though it’s almost impossible to have less restrictive gun laws than Arizona, where someone as obviously disturbed as Loughner could buy a particularly deadly gun. More sensible commentators have focused on that gun, noting that there is no rational reason why a gun that can shoot over 30 rounds without reloading should be available to the general public. This contrasts with the tired argument which I saw a few pro-gun people trot out again, that crazy people like Loughner are the problem, not the weapons they use, and that they can still kill with knives or clubs. Yes, but they wouldn’t be able to kill nearly as many people. In this particular case, if he had only had a knife, the attacker might have been tackled before he could do more than wound anyone, if that. The issue of potentially dangerous mentally ill people also has to be address, but any rational person can see that making it much harder to get a hold of guns that can kill many people quickly would at least reduce the body count. If the members of Congress can manage to think logically and lose their fear of the NRA for once, maybe this incident can lead to more rational gun laws in the US.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The State of the World
A lot has been happening around the world as we enter 2011. Many of the notable events of the past few weeks, unfortunately, have not only been bad in and of themselves, but are negative signs for the future.
One crisis that's been dominating international news for some time now is the situation in Ivory Coast (or Côte d'Ivoire, to use the official French name). The incumbent President, Laurent Gbagbo, is still refusing to accept that he lost the recent election to Alassane Ouattara. He and his supporters in the Constitutional Council used reports of violence and intimidation in regions that favored Ouattara to invalidate votes from those regions. While it is certainly possible that there really were problems in those areas, they are unlikely to have been any worse than similar problems in areas dominated by Gbagbo. Independent observers agreed that the elections were substantially fair, and the country's election commission declared Ouattara the winner by a large margin. Notably, before and immediately after the election, Gbagbo and his campaign preemptively complained about problems in three pro-Ouattara regions, seemingly with an eye to declaring votes from those regions invalid. While this alone doesn't prove that their complaints weren't valid, what gives it away is that when the results had actually been tallied by the election commission, Gbagbo's supporters on the Constitutional Council had to belatedly add a fourth region to the three they had originally said had problems, because if they had only invalidated votes from those three regions, Ouattara would have still had more votes.
But while it is blatantly obvious that Ouattara won the election, it's still not clear that he will be able to take power without major violence breaking out, whether in the form of civil war or intervention by Ivory Coast's neighbors to force Gbagbo out. What's more, this whole mess, as at least one commentary I read pointed out, shows that once more the US and other Western powers have foolishly treated the simple act of having elections as a panacea for a deeply divided country. Elections are good in principle, but if the underlying divisions aren't addressed, they won't solve anything. Indeed, they may even exacerbate the problem. Granted, there is no simple solution to deep ethnic or religious divisions like those that plague many countries, but the international community has to recognize that in situations like this, elections alone aren't enough. For now, we can only hope that Gbagbo cedes power soon and without a violent struggle, and that Ouattara has the sense to conciliate Gbagbo's supporters once he is in charge.
Another reason for pessimism about the future of human rights and freedom of speech in Russia came with the conviction of former Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, already in prison for alleged tax evasion, on charges of stealing oil from his own company, clearly exaggerated if not made up entirely, especially since by some accounts the amount he was accused of stealing exceeded his company's production (and it isn't as if his customers didn't receive any oil), and his earlier conviction was for evading taxes on oil profits (which came from selling the oil he supposedly stole). Whatever Khodorkovsky may really have been guilty of (and there probably aren't many rich Russian businessmen who are completely clean), virtually all neutral observers agree the real reason he is in prison is because he challenged Putin by funding his opponents and opposition media. Even before the judge handed down his ruling (much of which simply copied prosecutors' arguments), Putin publicly stated his opinion that "a thief should be in prison", earning a rebuke from current President Medvedev (though the final judgment led most to believe it's still Putin who's calling the shots) and causing one critic to remark that Putin himself is the biggest thief, as he essentially stole Khodorkovsky's whole company. But as farcical as the whole spectacle was, it's still a sign that not only is the more authoritarian Putin in charge, but Russia has a long ways to go in terms of respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Of course Russia is hardly the only country to have wrongfully convicted someone recently. A number of other recent cases didn't get nearly as much attention (I didn't know about them myself until the last couple of days), but are just as disturbing, if not more so. Unsurprisingly China, now the only country to be keeping a Nobel Peace Prize winner in prison, is one of the guilty countries, recently sentencing three Tibetan writers to prison terms of three to four years for "inciting activities to split the nation" (in other words, legitimate expression of opinion in favor of their people's freedom from Chinese colonial rule). Worse yet, China also sentenced a young Uighur woman to death in a secret trial for supposed involvement in the riots in Urumqi, when by some accounts she was merely a bystander, and the real reason she was chosen to have an example made of her was because her grandfather was a freedom fighter.
But such behavior from China, while terrible, is to be expected. However, even supposedly democratic India had a recent case of a questionable and seemingly politically motivated conviction. As related in this article from the Washington Post, pediatrician Binayak Sen is a long-time activist who has worked for years to help refugees from civil conflict and those displaced by government land seizures. He was recently sentenced to life in prison for supposedly aiding Marxist rebels, even though he is dedicated to non-violence. Many found the accusations less than credible, including a former attorney general, who called the ruling "shocking". As the article notes, Sen has been imprisoned by the Indian government in spite of widespread support before: "In 2008, an effort led by 22 Nobel laureates failed to secure Sen's release on bail so he could travel to Washington to receive the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for his efforts to reduce the infant mortality rate and deaths from diarrhea." Even if it is true that Sen gave some moral support to Marxist rebels (which though unlikely would be somewhat understandable as from his perspective they may seem better than the government, despite their violent behavior), the sentence was clearly excessive, especially in light of all the good he has done. That a country like India would still have this kind of blatant injustice going on is disturbing, to say the least.
Other recent news items illustrate the continuing problem of Muslim extremism, and bode ill for the countries they took place in. Before going into specifics, however, let me note again that religious extremism -- even violent religious extremism -- is not limited to Islam. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism also suffer from this problem, and extremists from these religions cause severe problems in some countries. It's also worth pointing out that historically speaking, Islam is not more extremist or violent than Christianity, for example. In fact, a millennium ago, it was in many senses notably more enlightened. However, it is also an unfortunate fact that today violent Muslim extremism is a more widespread problem than similar problems in other religions.
One recent tragedy took place in Egypt, where a bombing (by some accounts a car bombing, though the government said it was a suicide bombing) outside a Coptic Christian church killed over a score of people (21 in the initial attack, though more died later from their injuries) and injured nearly a hundred. This is not the first instance of violence being directed at Christians in Egypt over the past few years, though it is the worst in terms of fatalities. Muslim extremists inside and outside Egypt have been agitating against Christians for some time, and while the Christians may not have been totally innocent in some of the previous clashes, a murderous attack like this one is completely indefensible by any standards.
Unfortunately, Egypt's authoritarian government, already well known for its ruthless suppression of any opposition, has shown little real interest in the plight of the Christians (who make up somewhere around 10% of the population, though estimates vary widely), and has in some cases directly oppressed them, such as when it slaughtered all of the country's pigs (which formed the livelihood of many Christian families) in an absurd overreaction to the "swine flu" scare. What's more, Egyptian law is biased against Christians in a number of ways; for instance, it is legal to convert from Christianity to Islam but not the other way around. Ironically, the Coptic Christians' history in Egypt goes back well before Islam even existed. The Coptic church split off from the Eastern Orthodox church in the mid-5th century under the Eastern Roman (also known as Byzantine) Empire. The Coptic language, still used in services though not as a daily language, is descended from ancient Egyptian. Of course even if the Copts, as they are known, had only recently appeared in Egypt, their rights would be equally deserving of protection, but their historical presence in the country makes the attempts of radical Islamists to destroy them or drive them out even more reprehensible, if that is possible. The Egyptian government's neglect of this issue is just another reason (if one was needed, considering their brutality towards dissidents) the US should rethink its massive expenditures in their favor (only Israel receives more in military aid than Egypt). In any case, this bombing, the ethnic and religious tension behind it, and the government's unwillingness or inability to do anything about it are not a good portent for Egypt's future.
The recent atrocity perpetrated by Muslim extremists in Pakistan, while less serious in terms of its toll in human lives, may be an even worse sign for the future of its country. Salmaan Taseer, the governor of the Pakistani province of Punjab, was assassinated by a police officer assigned to guard him. Taseer, while a Muslim, was an outspoken defender of secular values and religious freedom. Most notably, he was the most prominent politician to speak out strongly against Pakistan's absurd blasphemy law, which has been used frequently by reactionary Muslims to persecute religious minorities, and most recently has resulted in a Christian woman receiving the death sentence because some Muslim women, some of whom apparently held a grudge against her, claimed she had blasphemed Muhammad. Apparently, Taseer's assassin was angry at his defense of the convicted woman and his criticism of the blasphemy law. What's even more disturbing is that a substantial number of similarly deranged people openly praised the assassin, though he was also condemned by many. Some hope the assassination will cause more people to stand up against extremism, but many fear that it will have the opposite effect, as even fewer will dare to speak out against the lunatic fringe that increasingly dominates discussion of religious issues in Pakistan (come to think of it, it's like a more extreme, more violent version of the US, where the lunatic fringe also gets far more attention than it should). This is certainly not a good sign for the future, especially considering Pakistan's size and strategic importance. Though there is no simple way to do it, the US, as Pakistan's main ally, should do its best to push Pakistan away from extremism, and particularly encourage it to do away with the abusive blasphemy law.
I have to hope that all of the above events are not signs of worst to come as well as tragedies in their right. It's difficult to be very optimistic, considering the deeply ingrained nature of the problems behind them. But there is still some hope. If these events help motivate more liberal and moderate people to take stronger action, then maybe things will improve in the long run in all of these places.
One crisis that's been dominating international news for some time now is the situation in Ivory Coast (or Côte d'Ivoire, to use the official French name). The incumbent President, Laurent Gbagbo, is still refusing to accept that he lost the recent election to Alassane Ouattara. He and his supporters in the Constitutional Council used reports of violence and intimidation in regions that favored Ouattara to invalidate votes from those regions. While it is certainly possible that there really were problems in those areas, they are unlikely to have been any worse than similar problems in areas dominated by Gbagbo. Independent observers agreed that the elections were substantially fair, and the country's election commission declared Ouattara the winner by a large margin. Notably, before and immediately after the election, Gbagbo and his campaign preemptively complained about problems in three pro-Ouattara regions, seemingly with an eye to declaring votes from those regions invalid. While this alone doesn't prove that their complaints weren't valid, what gives it away is that when the results had actually been tallied by the election commission, Gbagbo's supporters on the Constitutional Council had to belatedly add a fourth region to the three they had originally said had problems, because if they had only invalidated votes from those three regions, Ouattara would have still had more votes.
But while it is blatantly obvious that Ouattara won the election, it's still not clear that he will be able to take power without major violence breaking out, whether in the form of civil war or intervention by Ivory Coast's neighbors to force Gbagbo out. What's more, this whole mess, as at least one commentary I read pointed out, shows that once more the US and other Western powers have foolishly treated the simple act of having elections as a panacea for a deeply divided country. Elections are good in principle, but if the underlying divisions aren't addressed, they won't solve anything. Indeed, they may even exacerbate the problem. Granted, there is no simple solution to deep ethnic or religious divisions like those that plague many countries, but the international community has to recognize that in situations like this, elections alone aren't enough. For now, we can only hope that Gbagbo cedes power soon and without a violent struggle, and that Ouattara has the sense to conciliate Gbagbo's supporters once he is in charge.
Another reason for pessimism about the future of human rights and freedom of speech in Russia came with the conviction of former Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, already in prison for alleged tax evasion, on charges of stealing oil from his own company, clearly exaggerated if not made up entirely, especially since by some accounts the amount he was accused of stealing exceeded his company's production (and it isn't as if his customers didn't receive any oil), and his earlier conviction was for evading taxes on oil profits (which came from selling the oil he supposedly stole). Whatever Khodorkovsky may really have been guilty of (and there probably aren't many rich Russian businessmen who are completely clean), virtually all neutral observers agree the real reason he is in prison is because he challenged Putin by funding his opponents and opposition media. Even before the judge handed down his ruling (much of which simply copied prosecutors' arguments), Putin publicly stated his opinion that "a thief should be in prison", earning a rebuke from current President Medvedev (though the final judgment led most to believe it's still Putin who's calling the shots) and causing one critic to remark that Putin himself is the biggest thief, as he essentially stole Khodorkovsky's whole company. But as farcical as the whole spectacle was, it's still a sign that not only is the more authoritarian Putin in charge, but Russia has a long ways to go in terms of respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Of course Russia is hardly the only country to have wrongfully convicted someone recently. A number of other recent cases didn't get nearly as much attention (I didn't know about them myself until the last couple of days), but are just as disturbing, if not more so. Unsurprisingly China, now the only country to be keeping a Nobel Peace Prize winner in prison, is one of the guilty countries, recently sentencing three Tibetan writers to prison terms of three to four years for "inciting activities to split the nation" (in other words, legitimate expression of opinion in favor of their people's freedom from Chinese colonial rule). Worse yet, China also sentenced a young Uighur woman to death in a secret trial for supposed involvement in the riots in Urumqi, when by some accounts she was merely a bystander, and the real reason she was chosen to have an example made of her was because her grandfather was a freedom fighter.
But such behavior from China, while terrible, is to be expected. However, even supposedly democratic India had a recent case of a questionable and seemingly politically motivated conviction. As related in this article from the Washington Post, pediatrician Binayak Sen is a long-time activist who has worked for years to help refugees from civil conflict and those displaced by government land seizures. He was recently sentenced to life in prison for supposedly aiding Marxist rebels, even though he is dedicated to non-violence. Many found the accusations less than credible, including a former attorney general, who called the ruling "shocking". As the article notes, Sen has been imprisoned by the Indian government in spite of widespread support before: "In 2008, an effort led by 22 Nobel laureates failed to secure Sen's release on bail so he could travel to Washington to receive the prestigious Jonathan Mann Award for his efforts to reduce the infant mortality rate and deaths from diarrhea." Even if it is true that Sen gave some moral support to Marxist rebels (which though unlikely would be somewhat understandable as from his perspective they may seem better than the government, despite their violent behavior), the sentence was clearly excessive, especially in light of all the good he has done. That a country like India would still have this kind of blatant injustice going on is disturbing, to say the least.
Other recent news items illustrate the continuing problem of Muslim extremism, and bode ill for the countries they took place in. Before going into specifics, however, let me note again that religious extremism -- even violent religious extremism -- is not limited to Islam. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism also suffer from this problem, and extremists from these religions cause severe problems in some countries. It's also worth pointing out that historically speaking, Islam is not more extremist or violent than Christianity, for example. In fact, a millennium ago, it was in many senses notably more enlightened. However, it is also an unfortunate fact that today violent Muslim extremism is a more widespread problem than similar problems in other religions.
One recent tragedy took place in Egypt, where a bombing (by some accounts a car bombing, though the government said it was a suicide bombing) outside a Coptic Christian church killed over a score of people (21 in the initial attack, though more died later from their injuries) and injured nearly a hundred. This is not the first instance of violence being directed at Christians in Egypt over the past few years, though it is the worst in terms of fatalities. Muslim extremists inside and outside Egypt have been agitating against Christians for some time, and while the Christians may not have been totally innocent in some of the previous clashes, a murderous attack like this one is completely indefensible by any standards.
Unfortunately, Egypt's authoritarian government, already well known for its ruthless suppression of any opposition, has shown little real interest in the plight of the Christians (who make up somewhere around 10% of the population, though estimates vary widely), and has in some cases directly oppressed them, such as when it slaughtered all of the country's pigs (which formed the livelihood of many Christian families) in an absurd overreaction to the "swine flu" scare. What's more, Egyptian law is biased against Christians in a number of ways; for instance, it is legal to convert from Christianity to Islam but not the other way around. Ironically, the Coptic Christians' history in Egypt goes back well before Islam even existed. The Coptic church split off from the Eastern Orthodox church in the mid-5th century under the Eastern Roman (also known as Byzantine) Empire. The Coptic language, still used in services though not as a daily language, is descended from ancient Egyptian. Of course even if the Copts, as they are known, had only recently appeared in Egypt, their rights would be equally deserving of protection, but their historical presence in the country makes the attempts of radical Islamists to destroy them or drive them out even more reprehensible, if that is possible. The Egyptian government's neglect of this issue is just another reason (if one was needed, considering their brutality towards dissidents) the US should rethink its massive expenditures in their favor (only Israel receives more in military aid than Egypt). In any case, this bombing, the ethnic and religious tension behind it, and the government's unwillingness or inability to do anything about it are not a good portent for Egypt's future.
The recent atrocity perpetrated by Muslim extremists in Pakistan, while less serious in terms of its toll in human lives, may be an even worse sign for the future of its country. Salmaan Taseer, the governor of the Pakistani province of Punjab, was assassinated by a police officer assigned to guard him. Taseer, while a Muslim, was an outspoken defender of secular values and religious freedom. Most notably, he was the most prominent politician to speak out strongly against Pakistan's absurd blasphemy law, which has been used frequently by reactionary Muslims to persecute religious minorities, and most recently has resulted in a Christian woman receiving the death sentence because some Muslim women, some of whom apparently held a grudge against her, claimed she had blasphemed Muhammad. Apparently, Taseer's assassin was angry at his defense of the convicted woman and his criticism of the blasphemy law. What's even more disturbing is that a substantial number of similarly deranged people openly praised the assassin, though he was also condemned by many. Some hope the assassination will cause more people to stand up against extremism, but many fear that it will have the opposite effect, as even fewer will dare to speak out against the lunatic fringe that increasingly dominates discussion of religious issues in Pakistan (come to think of it, it's like a more extreme, more violent version of the US, where the lunatic fringe also gets far more attention than it should). This is certainly not a good sign for the future, especially considering Pakistan's size and strategic importance. Though there is no simple way to do it, the US, as Pakistan's main ally, should do its best to push Pakistan away from extremism, and particularly encourage it to do away with the abusive blasphemy law.
I have to hope that all of the above events are not signs of worst to come as well as tragedies in their right. It's difficult to be very optimistic, considering the deeply ingrained nature of the problems behind them. But there is still some hope. If these events help motivate more liberal and moderate people to take stronger action, then maybe things will improve in the long run in all of these places.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
