Month: November 2011
Eid Mubarak!
Tomorrow evening begins Eid al-Adha, the Muslim feast of the sacrifice, commemorating Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, as commanded by God. So I’ve spent a bit of time refreshing my familiarity with this tale in the Bible and the Qur’an.
Abraham is where Judaism, Christianity and Islam intersect. The “Abrahamic” religions all share a commitment to monotheism and this (to me horrifying) story of supreme faith.
But the story is not identical in all three religions. The five books of Moses (Torah, Old Testament to Christians) say Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac, son of Sarah. The Qur’an says it was Ishmael, son of Hagar, whom Abraham was prepared to sacrifice. The Christians follow the Old Testament version, which has an obvious parallel in the story of Christ–son of God–and his death on the cross.
There is a seldom remembered coda as well, according to the Torah: Abraham’s “sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah,” which today is in Hebron (Tomb of the Patriarchs to Jews and the Sanctuary of Abraham to Muslims). In the Qur’an, too, Ishmael and Isaac are mentioned repeatedly in the same breath.
I like to think there is nothing that would get me to sacrifice one of my two sons, and certainly not some voice inside my head. Apologies to the devout among us, but Abraham would be a nut case in the modern world.
This coda is worth remembering though: it implies reconciliation of Isaac and Ishmael, with obvious parallels in modern times between Jews and Arabs, who regard themselves as descendants of the two sons of Abraham by different mothers. Unlikely as it seems, that is something worth having faith in.
Eid Mubarak!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Useless idiots have their purposes
Tweeter Hani Sabra:
there’s no nice way to say this, so here goes: anybody who thinks damascus would abide by the plan is total, useless idiot.
I agree with the sentiment, but why then did the Arab League propose the plan, and why did Bashar al Assad accept it?
They aren’t idiots, and the plan serves their useful purposes. The Arab League is certainly not on the side of the protesters. Most of its members either already have, or would if the occasion arose, repress demonstrations like the ones occurring in Syria.
What the Arab League is trying to do is help Bashar. He understood the gesture: you pretend to give me a plan to end the violence, and I’ll pretend to end the violence. No one is fooled, but it at least buys a week, two or even three while the Arab League pretends to wait for implementation and Bashar pretends to implement. In the meanwhile, a lot of demonstrators get killed, hurt and discouraged. Maybe some of them will even agree to the dialogue with the government proposed in the plan. That would buy some more time.
What happens when this charade gets boring? Likely not much, unless the Arab League or the Security Council can be convinced to take more serious action. As regular readers know, my favorite proposal is diplomatic observers. If the Arab League were serious, it would have insisted on verification.
Why would Bashar accept? Only if he thinks he has things under control and can rehabilitate himself internationally by agreeing. What if he rejects? That at least shows him up for the lying bastard he is.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Save me from Mickey Mouse!
Mickey Mouse is what my generation calls something superfluous, silly or trite. Morning Edition today brought me news of American efforts to revitalize tourism in Pakistan’s Swat Valley:
That’s the Mickey Mouse I’d like to be saved from, because it is the kind of international assistance that gives international assistance a bad name. I’m not against Pakistanis vacationing in nice hotels, but I can’t think of any reason at all why U.S. taxpayer money should be spent trying to make it happen. And there are at least 137 million reasons why it should not (that’s the number of U.S. income tax returns).
This example raises broader questions about American assistance to Pakistan. Christine Fair suggested in testimony yesterday:
U.S. efforts to elicit changes in Pakistani society through its USAID program are misguided. First USAID’s efficacy can be and should be questioned. The U.S. Congress has had numerous hearings about aid to Pakistan—and Afghanistan—and the objective results of these engagements have been less than satisfactory given the price tag. This does not mean that the United States should not continue to help Pakistan with its problems. However, it should do so with less publicity and with greater focus on projects that are executable such as power, roads and other infrastructure.
I don’t agree with Christine’s emphasis on infrastructure, as I’d rather see that done through competent multilateral organizations (she is sympathetic with that option as well). U.S. assistance should be focused more on civil society and democracy support. If that means we can’t spend the $1 billion and more appropriated for assistance to Pakistan, fine with me.
Christine’s broader point is that we should stop expecting Pakistan to forge a broad, strategic relationship with the United States when our strategic interests diverge. Instead, she recommends a more transactional relationship–deals that involve a well-defined quid pro quo in which what each side gives and gets is clear and verifiable.
I have my doubts that will work either. But it is certainly a direction worth trying before we deep six the relationship with Pakistan altogether, which the Congress may be tempted to do (and has done several times in the past). If we get even a 50 per cent return on our money, it would be better than we are doing today.
In the meanwhile, let’s get rid of Mickey Mouse projects, which put at risk the already minimal 1 per cent of the Federal budget devoted to foreign affairs.
PS, also November 4: a USAID friend says I am completely wrong about the tourism effort in Swat, which is important because of the recent history of the fight against extremism, so here is what I could find readily about it. Certainly more informative than the NPR piece. Judge for yourself.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Are things going to hell in Libya?
Not yet is the answer.
But you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage. National Transitional Council (NTC) chair Mahmoud Jalil’s comment about allowing polygamy got a lot of ink. So too does every hiccup of the armed militias in Tripoli, not to mention what happens if an Islamist sneezes or a supposed Al Qaeda flag flies. I need hardly mention the disgusting, criminal behavior of the young men who capture Qaddafi and then allegedly sodomized and murdered him.
I wouldn’t want to minimize any of these issues. In fact, I drew attention to the militia and Islamist issues weeks ago. Integrating the militias under NTC control, establishing law and order and ensuring no room for Al Qaeda are vital, as is regaining control of as many surface-to-air missiles (MANPADs) as possible.
But any government that can peacefully switch out its prime minister and begin the process of appointing a new cabinet, in accordance with its constitutional framework, is not yet going to hell in a handbasket. Nor does the relatively chaotic situation outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the wasteland that used to be Sirte, prove that things are going in the wrong direction.
What we need to do now is ensure that they continue to go in the right direction. Where are the goals agreed between the Libyans and the international community? Where is the structure for donor coordination? What kind of program is the European Union putting in place? What are the Qataris up to? The internationals quickly lost their focus once the fighting was over.
This is a big mistake. Libya has bigger problems than Tunisia: the lack of a state, the violence of the rebellion, militia competition, some revenge killing and torturing. But it also has resources, good leadership, and some serious planning, including the constitutional framework. Let’s make sure it heads down Tunisia’s path towards good elections and a constitution.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Yemen’s loss
I did not know Chris Boucek, who died today at 38, well. We crossed paths at a few meetings, and I always found what he said interesting. But we only occasionally exchanged a few words, not much more than hello really. But I regarded him as among the most interesting, amiable and perceptive people in a community of frequently interesting, mostly amiable and highly perceptive people.
The best memorial I can think of on peacefare is a quote from a piece dated October 27 on the Carnegie Endowment website:
The three biggest things that the United States can do to help Yemen and reduce the threat of terrorism are increasing access to water for all Yemenis, helping fight corruption, and supporting land reform….There needs to be a better balance in U.S. support and more attention paid to prevent terrorism before it gets worse. It’s shortsighted to only rely on counterterrorism efforts and more work needs to be done to ensure that the ungoverned spaces in Yemen don’t get any bigger.
Yes, he also discussed al-Awlaki, President Saleh and other matters, but it is striking and characteristic that Chris could not finish an interview on Yemen without this thoughtful attention to the less obvious but critically important issues of water, corruption and land.
Yemen has lost a good friend. America has lost a fine mind. I hope his family can take some comfort from knowing that even those of us who did not know him well treasured his contributions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Best in show
Why would Syria accept the Arab League plan with “no reservations”?
Try this: because it requires nothing verifiable of Damascus except to talk with its opposition. Bashar al Assad has said he is willing to do that from the first. But there aren’t many protesters willing to do it, unless there is a prior agreement that they are talking about transition arrangements. If the protesters refuse the dialogue, Bashar will continue the crackdown.
Even better from Bashar’s point of view if some of the protesters accept and others do not. Then he will have succeeded in splitting them. He’ll get some nice photo ops with the dialoguers while going after the others again. The opposition was already having troubles unifying its disparate forces. Accepting the Arab League plan is a neat maneuver to make that even more difficult.
What could the Arab League have done if it wanted its efforts to bear fruit? The protesters were asking that it suspend Syria from membership and ask for international community support for the demonstrations. Fat chance.
It might have asked to deploy international observers to verify withdrawal of the Syrian military forces, apparently promised in the Arab League agreement, from population centers. That would have been something worth the paper it was written on, and a good deal more. Maybe they can still move in that direction, though nothing in the history of Arab League initiatives suggests they will.
Meanwhile, over at the Syrian national news agency Sana the focus is on Syria’s pavilion at the Tehran media fair. It was best in show!
PS, 10 am November 3: Here are Bashar’s tanks shelling Homs this morning, after the agreement is supposed to have gone into effect.
I imagine there is some Syrian government explanation for this, but they haven’t bothered posting it on their website, which doesn’t mention that the Arab League agreement calls for military withdrawal from Syrian cities. Then again, we don’t really know whether it does, since no one seems to have come up with a copy of the actual agreement.
Follow updates on the situation at The Guardian.
RSS - Posts
