lunes, diciembre 31, 2007

LA SER

Despues de oir a los tertulianos de la SER hablar de Pakistan, ahora todos son expertos de la leche en Pakistan, me gustaria dejaros un articulo excepcional de Barry Rubin, que explica que es lo que pasa en Pakistan y en Oriente Medio y PORQUE:

Much will be said about Benazir Bhutto's assassination; little will be understood about what it truly means. I'm not speaking here about Pakistan, of course, as important as that country is, but rather the lesson - as if we needed any more - for that broad Middle East which begins in Pakistan and ends on the Atlantic Ocean coast.

The following is a true story. Back in 1946, an American diplomat asked an Iranian editor why his newspaper angrily criticized the United States but never the Soviet Union. The Iranian said it was obvious. "The Russians," he said, "they kill people."

A dozen years earlier, in 1933, Iraqi official Sami Shawkat gave a talk which became one of the most famous texts of Arab nationalism. "There is something more important than money and learning for preserving the honor of a nation and for keeping humiliation at bay," he stated. "That is strength... strength, as I use the word here, means to excel in the Profession of Death."

What, you might ask, was Shawkat's own profession? He was director-general of Iraq's Ministry of Education. This was how young people were to be taught and directed; this is where Saddam Hussein came from. Seventy-five years later, the subsequent history of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world shows just how well Shawkat did his job.

September 11 in the United States; the Bali bombing for Australia; the tube bombing for Britain; the commuter train bombing for Spain, these were all merely byproducts of this pathology. The pathology in question is not Western policy toward the Middle East but rather Middle Eastern policy toward the Middle East.

WHEN I read Shawkat's words as a student, the phrase "profession of death," which gave his article its title, struck me as a pun. On one hand, the word "profession" meant "career." To be a killer - note well that Shawkat was not talking specifically about soldiers, those who fight, but rather those who murder - was the highest calling of all. It was more important than being a teacher, who forms character; more important than being a businessperson, who enriches his country; more important than being a doctor who preserves the life of fellow-citizens.

Destruction was a higher calling than construction. And, for sure, in the Arabic-speaking world what has been reaped is what has been sowed.

But, also, the word "profession" here reminds me of "to profess," or "to preach." When the greatest value for an educator is to preach and glorify death, what kind of ideology, what kind of society, what kind of values, does such a priority produce? Look and see.

LIKE CHILDREN playing with dynamite, Western intellectuals, journalists and diplomats fantasize that they are achieving results in the Middle East with their words, promises, apologies, money and concessions. Yet how can such innocents cope despite - or perhaps because of - all their good intentions with polities and societies whose basic ruling ethos is that of the serial killer?

And what can be achieved when those who are the most forward-looking and most creative, who want to break with the ideas and methods creating a disastrous mess, the stagnant system which characterizes so much of the Middle East, are systematically murdered?

Read the roll: king Abdullah of Jordan, president Anwar Sadat of Egypt, former prime minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon, bold author Farouk Fawda in Egypt, Iraqi Sunnis who dare seek compromise, Palestinian moderates, Algerian modernists, and thousands of women who seek a moderate degree of freedom.

The radicals are right: Dying is a disincentive. And for every one killed, how many thousands give in; and for every one threatened, how many hundreds give in?

Seventy-five years after Shawkat, Hamas television teaches Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip that their highest aspiration should be to become a suicide bomber, with success measured by how many Jews are killed. And, by the way, the Palestinian Authority's television in the West Bank sends a similar message, albeit not quite as often.

Will billions of dollars in aid to the PA change anything when the men with the guns take what they want? Are PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, respectively a timid bureaucrat and a well-meaning economist, going to take a bullet for lifting one finger to get a compromise peace with Israel? How are you going to get a government of national conciliation in Iraq when the insurgents have shown they can gun down any Sunni politician or cleric who steps out of line?

THE CURRENT supporters of the Lebanese government are probably the bravest politicians in the Arabic-speaking world, men willing to defy death. But how can they stand firm when Western governments rush to engage with the Syrian government that murder them, and Western media proclaim the moderation of a Damascus ruler who systematically kills those who oppose him?

Can anyone really expect a stable society capable of progress in Pakistan when a large majority of the population expresses admiration for Bin Laden? And what about the Saudi system where, as one local writer put it, the big Osama put into practice what the little Osama learned in a Saudi school?

Get it? The radical forces in the region are not expecting to retain or gain power by negotiating, compromising, or being better understood. They believe they are going to shoot their way into power or, just as good, accept the surrender of those they have intimidated.

That is why so much of the Western analysis and strategies for dealing with the region are a bad joke. Osama bin Laden understands that, as he once said, people are going to back the strongest horse in the race. Yet according to all too many people in the Western elites, the way to win is to be the nicest horse.

DOESN'T THIS assessment sound terribly depressing and hopeless? Well, yes and no.

Radical Islamists like to proclaim that they will triumph because they love death while their enemies - that is, soon-to-be-victims - love life. But the Islamists need to be careful what they wish for, though, because they will probably get it.

For those who love death, the reward is death. For those who love life, the outcomes include decent educational systems, living standards, individual rights, and strong economic systems.

All these things, and others that go along with them, are what really produce strength. And isn't it interesting that, contrary to Shawkat, the nations that put the priority on these things enjoy far more honor and suffer far less humiliation than happens with his model.

The profession of death has wrecked most Middle Eastern societies. But it has never succeeded in defeating a free society. It is not an effective tactic for destroying others, only for devastating one's own people.

Who killed Benazir Bhutto? The Sami Shawkat philosophy: alike in its Arab nationalist, Islamist, and Pakistani authoritarian versions, which dominate Middle East politics.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (www.gloriacenter.org) at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. His latest book is The Truth About Syria

3 Comments:

Blogger Paurey said...

Excelente su vuelta al blog amigo, la esperaba con impaciencia. el artículo de pakistán es cojonudo.
Viva el Clamoxil!!!!

12:08 p. m.  
Blogger QRM said...

Sí señor. Pero sigo sin oir propuestas realistas de acción. ¿Qué hacemos?
A mí todo esto me huele a 1938. Se está armando una gorda, porque a este enemigo o se le vapulea a hostias o no va a dejar de dar pòr saco.
Una vez más, alabo la decisión estratégica de Bush de llevar la guerra a suelo enemigo, de crear un damero agobiante para los malos (israel, irak, afganistán controlaan los vecinos:irán, jordania, Arabia...y obligan a todos a retratarse).
También me gustaría ver a alguien criticar el escudo antimisiles; Irán y Afganistán son potenciales terroristas nucleares: ¿Ahora qué, mariprogres?

3:18 a. m.  
Blogger QRM said...

Sí señor. Pero sigo sin oir propuestas realistas de acción. ¿Qué hacemos?
A mí todo esto me huele a 1938. Se está armando una gorda, porque a este enemigo o se le vapulea a hostias o no va a dejar de dar pòr saco.
Una vez más, alabo la decisión estratégica de Bush de llevar la guerra a suelo enemigo, de crear un damero agobiante para los malos (israel, irak, afganistán controlaan los vecinos:irán, jordania, Arabia...y obligan a todos a retratarse).
También me gustaría ver a alguien criticar el escudo antimisiles; Irán y Afganistán son potenciales terroristas nucleares: ¿Ahora qué, mariprogres?

3:18 a. m.  

Publicar un comentario

<< Home