Friday, 20 September 2013

John McCain’s beautiful J’accuse

McCain's hypocritical diatribe in Pravda today is such a beautiful piece. Whilst Putin addressed the  Americans as adults in New York Times, McCain decided to treat the Russians as ignorant infantiles. ‘Tis so beautiful it reads like the antithesis to Emile Zola’s J’Accuse. Of course, contrary to the frustrated French Jews and progressives being emboldended by Zola’s masterpiece, the anti-Putin strands in Russia – who were perhaps emboldened prior to the publication – must be despondently frustrated after reading this Arizonian work of genius. With friends like these, eh? In the face of such marvellous gobbledygook, even Magnitsky and Politkovskaya might have backed Putin.

McCain: the 21st century Zola 
There is no point in labouring on the mind-boggling hypocrisy that McCain’s article constitutes. This has been, and is being, abundandtly commented on throughout the media. I just hope more people would see the sheer magnificence in McCain trying to win the Russians over by telling them that that they are stupid, that their leader (who they’ve elected) is stupid, that he (McCain) understands Russia – probably better than the Russians (because they are stupid) – and knows how Russia should be best governed (whilst seemingly oblivious to the Russians remembering the last time the US gave them advice on governing – and the oligarchical evisceration of Mother Russia that ensued). 

All you commentators denouncing this piece as vacuous bigotry, try to appreciate it for the stuff of legend  it actually is. You go, McCain!

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Burqa and Niqab – a national age ban?

Following the recent initative of Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne, Simon Jenkins writes an interesting piece in The Guardian on this delicate issue of whether to ban or not to ban Muslim full-faced veils (niqab and burqa). An issue that can crudely be translated to one of state authoritarianism versus cultural relativism. Or to put it in nation-state terms: the French versus the British approach to such thorny issues, very much part of the modern multi-cultural state.
The crux of Jenkins’s piece is that this issue is not worthy of a national debate in the UK. Well, Jenkins is absolutely right in proportionalizing the issue. The percentage of women wearing full-faced veils are minute (in France, a country of 65 million, including a Muslim population of 5-6 million, about 2 000 women wore full-faced veils prior to the French ban in 2011). However, Jenkins seems to only see the debate in terms of local practicality and adult women, at least he does not differentiate the age variable. If one does, I believe it becomes primarily a matter of national principles to which the local practicality aspect is subordinate. Sure, the latter might be the main aspect with regard to adult women who can ‘independently’ decide to wear the full-faced veils (no need here to touch on the patriarchal underpinnings that condition these ‘independent’ choices). But for girls and young women who are not old enough to make such decisions, I think it justifiable to have a national discussion on an age ban (currently there are various age bans on various issues, mainly ranging from 16-21 years old).
Take female genital mutilation (FGM) on girls and young women. In that case, too, it is not a proportionally huge problem. Does that disqualify the issue from being suitable for a national debate and for furnishing national strategies? I grant that FGM and full-faced veils are not completely clear-cut comparables. But FGM removes a vital muscle from the girl. Which full-faced veils also does, removing the arguably most vital muscle we use in our daily life: the face, with all its fascinating and complex signals, a crucial tool in our development, almost as vital as speech as a means of communication in our quotidian interactions with fellow citizens – the full usage of the face ultimately, perhaps, central for becoming a full-fledged member of society.
As for the leftists who believe it commendably tolerant to support the adults who ‘insist’ on these girls wearing full-faced veils – purportedly believing that these girls are self-determining indviduals, independent of their community, able to refuse if they don’t want to – well, these leftists might very well come from the same regressive strand that in the 1970-1980’s wanted to decriminalize paedophilia (as natural love between child and adult), and questioned the criminalization of FGM (on grounds of inter-cultural tolerance).
So, to summarize: I think it legitimate to have a national discussion on an age ban on such intrusive, gendered clothings as the niqab and burqa. Such a ban would thus mean French state authoritarianism to a certain age, thereafter British cultural relativism. I’m afraid, Jenkins, that in this regard national principles trumps your local practicalities. A national debate on this matter is surely a debate worth having.

Saturday, 7 September 2013

Syria: US power, Catch-22 and Niall Ferguson's bombing liberalism

Regarding Niall Ferguson's piece in The Guardian

Well, I for one think  Ferguson should be given credit for not once mentioning “Hitler” or “appeasement”. Now that’s intellectual integrity right there.
On a more serious note, I don’t think US military power is always “bad”, no. It is ultimately under the protection of the US that western Europe (including its thriving left-wing strands) has since 1945 been able to enjoy an unparallelled era of prosperity and peace. Not only military protection, but also those Marshall aid dollars that were integral to the creation of the western European welfare states, including Clement Atlee’s.
Further, when Europe showed its squabbling impotence in dealing with ex-Yugoslavia, yes, the US under Clinton stepped in and managed to pacify the region (not only through military force, but also through diplomatic negotiations). Also, let’s not forget that Clinton’s and Blair’s 1999 bomb campaign was to save a Muslim population from being terrorized by a Christian population (it’s not a coincidence that parents in Kosovo name their children “Tonibler”).
But just because US military force has been right at times, doesn’t make it right at all times (see e g Vietnam, Iraq). Ferguson is of course of another opinion, seeing some kind of absolute correlation between universal ethics and all(?) US military actions/interests. I don’t see that correlation, and I very much support the non-intervention line on Syria, at least based on what we know so far (though I don’t think it prudent of the UK to in principle declare that even if the security council would sanction military action, the UK would not participate). Courtesy of Sykes-Picot, the Middle East is basically a muddled, complicated set of quarrels with borders. Hence, Syria should be approached in a wary, timid way. Just like Obama has done up till now. He wasn’t elected to go to war, but to end wars.
Of course, no matter what the US does it can never be right. Say, if the US would’ve intervened in Rwanda I’m sure both left- and right-wingers would’ve criticized it, just like left- and right-wingers did criticize it for not intervening. It’s that Catch-22 that fetters the US. Damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t.

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

Famous last words

The Irish poet and Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney has passed away. His final words, in the form of an SMS to his wife, were “Noli timere” – “Be not afraid”. This, combined with Guardian’s encouragement to its readers, made me think of other great final words.

Well, there are always Churchill’s preparatory words: "I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.” And Winnie's final words were reportedly: “I’m so bored with it all”. 

Napoleon’s last word is supposed to have been “Josephine”, the name of his first wife, preceded by “France, the Army, Head of the Army” (“France, l’armée, tête d’armée, Josephine”; getting his priorities right there, I guess).

Erskine Childers urged his firing squad to: “Take a step forward lads – it’ll be easier that way.” Another Erskine, General William Erskine, jumped to his death from a window, and on his way down queried: “Now why did I do that?”

There are the laconic ones, e g Thomas Carlyle's “So, this is death. Well!”, or Edvard Grieg’s “Well, if it must be so.”

Wilson Mizner’s last words, to a priest by his death bed after he momentarily regained conscience, were arguably: “Why should I talk to you? I’ve just been talking with your boss.” Whilst Heinrich Heine's final sentence was a reassuring one, stating that: “God will forgive me. It is his profession”. Another German, Friedrich Wilhelm I, is supposed to have exclaimed: “It’s not true! I’m going to die in this suit?”

Walter Raleigh urged his executioner to “Strike, man, strike!”, Rabelais stated that “I am off in search of the great perhaps”, and there’s of course Captain Oates epic “I am just going outside. I may be some time.”

As for my last words, they’ll probably not be “Slow down, Serena” or the likes, but more on the lines of Stalin’s gargling “”.