Repetitions of History

In last week's New Yorker, an article written by Salman Rushdie described his time in hiding after Ayatollah Khomeini declared fatwa against him, sentencing him to death, for writing the novel The Satanic Verses. The article is interesting in general but what really stuck was Rushdie's opinion that a lot of the offense and anger that was ginned up was done so for various individuals' and groups' political gain. In Mr. Rushdie's words:

The book that he had written would vanish and be replaced by one that scarcely existed, in which Rushdie referred to the Prophet and his companions as “scums and bums” (he didn’t, though he did allow the characters who persecuted the followers of his fictional Prophet to use abusive language), and called the wives of the Prophet whores (he hadn’t—although whores in a brothel in his imaginary city, Jahilia, take on the names of the Prophet’s wives to arouse their clients, the wives themselves are clearly described as living chastely in the harem). This nonexistent novel was the one against which the rage of Islam would be directed, and after that few people wished to talk about the real book, except, usually, to concur with Hermione Lee’s negative assessment.

In essence, much of the Muslim world was taking offense from a nonexistent book as they did not bother to read the real book, which was respectful of Islam. Then various leaders decided to take the deliberate misconception and utilize that to strengthen their own power bases. As stated by Rushdie:

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was on a state visit to China at the time, and it was speculated that destabilizing her administration had been the demonstrators’ real aim. Religious extremists had long suspected her of secularism, and they wanted to put her on the spot. Not for the last time, “The Satanic Verses” was being used as a football in a political game that had little or nothing to do with it. 

 What is striking is the similarities between the context of Salman Rushdie suffered through and what is currently occurring with the protests over the recent, inflammatory YouTube film "Innocence of Muslims." While, unlike "The Satanic Verses," the latter is clearly meant to be inflammatory, the exaggerated response seems to be the same. In a post-Qaddafi world, there is still a power vacuum that various factions are filling and, in a predominantly Muslim country, raising the ire of the electorate seems a good way to solidify a power base. A new football in the same political game. Further, much like the threatened violence that Rushdie faced, the protests launched against "Innocence of Muslims" was used as cover for a horrific terrorist attack against the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi; an attack in which a dedicated public servant, U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens lost his life.

I guess, despite the "Arab Spring," the more things change, the more they stay the same.

P.S.: I planned to go on about how the purposeful break from reality was also analogous to the entire modus operandi of Fox News, but I don't feel like going on a rant today and, as bad as that network is, they should not be compared to terrorists.

IMAGES: Google Images taken from somewhere else; and Google Images via Newsweek.

The Prodigal Son Returns... Yada Yada Yada, Clever Segue into Syria's Assad

Look, I've been regrettably absent for just about a month so kindly excuse my weak sauce title. My wholehearted apologies to my legions of four readers but the past month or two have been somewhat busier than anticipated. However (!), I hope to be more attentive in the coming months.

Meanwhile, during my absence, the decidedly unapologetic Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (see the even weaker tie in there?) has continued to indiscriminately shell and murder his own people. Although he is truly terrible person to whom human being shouldn't even be applied, I understand his motives to a degree. After what happened to Gaddafi, it would not be completely surprising that al-Assad might think he is not only fighting for his grip on power, but also his life (this, mind you, in no way excuses his actions. He and his supporters are despicable subhuman beings). In his fear, he is retreating to the methods of his father, which were effective at the time. This, however. is not 1982. The general Arab spring (and fall and winter) has shown the people that their continued rebellion can win in the long run and the fear and despair of an earlier time has seemingly dissipated. The people are emboldened and although, especially in Syria, the revolution has not been televised, it will also not be so easily tamped out.

Less understandable, even from a purely rational viewpoint, is the stance being taken by Russia and China. Sure neither want "the western world" nosing their way into the sovereign business of either nation, especially in regards to either human rights violations (both, but China really) or election fraud/lack of actual democratic processes (Russia). Sure Syria hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean region and buys large amounts of ruskie weapons. The intervention into Libya that led to the death of Gaddafi clearly freaked both nations out. But are these reasons really enough for these two nations to force themselves to stand apart from the rest of the world and back someone who is clearly killing scores of his own people to maintain an increasingly tenuous grip on power? As the positions of the opposition harden, even in the face of near constant shelling, abduction, torture, and death, it becomes increasingly unlikely that al-Assad will ever be able to peaceably hold power again. What could Russia and China possibly get by standing on the wrong side of history and with a murderer? Yet, there are still quotes like this:

At a news conference in Moscow, Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said he regretted that the Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia last week had failed to foster the conditions that would encourage all Syrians to engage in political dialogue, according to an official transcript.

“It’s not realistic to demand that the government end its action against militants and keep the militants free of any obligations whatsoever,” Mr. Lavrov said. He lauded the Syrian referendum as “movement toward democracy.”

 And this:

In Beijing, the official People’s Daily newspaper said the United States had no right to criticize Chinese and Russian policy. The Obama administration, the newspaper said, “has not considered how to allow the Syrian people to put an early end to this disaster at minimal cost.”

These Russian and Chinese officials are either completely divorced from reality or are simply sipping the al-Assad regime's kool-aid* despite all the evidence to the contrary. The situation in Syria is not something developing into a political discussion; it is a burgeoning civil war that is going to get much worse before it gets any better. The tragedy here is that if two of the four BRIC nations were not being obstinate in the name of a foreign policy power play, both could actually be power players by leading a transition of power that deposed al-Assad. Further, especially for Russia, this could be in their self-interest as they would, seemingly, be looked upon more favorably by whatever government replaced al-Assad.

This will be looked upon as a tragic situation that reflects poorly on the leaders of Russia and China and makes a  21st Century mass murderer of al-Assad.

* Does the name of this delicious drink strike anyone else as weird? Like it somehow aids you in being cool while forcing you to misspell? Anyway, I do not know where that came from and I clealry I digress...