Tunisia: Can Islamism and Secularism Peacefully Co-Exist? Why or why not?

Hi everyone!

Can Islam and secularism co-exist peacefully (and productively) in a government setting? I find myself on the fence.

As the Arab world continues to be rocked by change, with predominantly secular-oriented dictatorships falling to the power of the people, more and more of these countries are taking a more Islamist bent. Look at Egypt--more than 65% of its new democratically-elected parliament is comprised of the previously banned Muslim Brotherhood and the hardline Salafist party. Tunisia is now run by a coalition headed by the Ennahda Party which claims it is moderate, yet the recent protests over the airing on Tunisian television of the Iranian-French animated film "Persepolis" give one pause to consider whether secularism is being gradually stamped out. The "Persepolis" uproar is over a scene in the film where God is portrayed speaking in Tunisian slang. A mob attacked the home of the station director and two other men who spoke out in support of him were beaten outside the courthouse in Tunis. Iraq and Pakistan are awash in religious-fueled sectarian violence. The Moroccan government is more Islamist-leaning now than it ever was. And Syria? Well, when Assad finally falls, the government that replaces him is surely to be more Islamist than ever.

Pundits and Middle East experts, as well as government officials in countries dealing with the ongoing transition sparked by the Arab Spring, hail Turkey as an example of a moderate Islamist country where religion and secularism successfully co-exist. But how successful is Turkey really? It's an uneasy alliance at best.

The fundamental problem of course is the fact that these repressive governments were based on a strict secular code that sought to cover over the deeply religious convictions of the people they oppressed. When these governments are overthrown and the people are given a democratic initiative, a knee-jerk reaction is to vote into office governments that represent the opposite of everything the dictatorships stood for. This isn't to say that the people are voting for Islamist parties strictly because they want to merely rid themselves of any and all vestiges of the past, but it makes you wonder. I do believe that it's human nature to go to the extreme when something has been forbidden for so long. I wonder if that's not what we're seeing now in the Middle East.

It also doesn't help that the West is viewed as having given at least tacit support for years to some of these dictatorships. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, for example,  the U.S. turned a blind eye to the atrocities of the Saddam regime and covertly sold arms and equipment to Iraq because it didn't want Iran to emerge victorious. The U.S. also supported Mubarak for decades despite the regime's well-documented oppression of the Egyptian people because it viewed Mubarak as a stalwart ally on behalf of the Arab world's--albeit uneasy--detente with Israel. The West was hesitant in demanding Mubarak step down because it was unsure of the type of government that would rise up in its place. From the West's perspective, their greatest fears were and are being realized.

So the West now finds itself in a conundrum. The Arab Street is becoming increasingly Islamist though it is indeed occurring as a result of the democratic process. What to do? Democracy only works when all parties are given the freedom of expression. What happened in Tunisia last week gives a lot of cause for concern. Once these new governments have gone through their growing pains, will there be room for a secular minority? The jury is out.

What do you think?

Ciao.

Honor Killings -- a Verdict Reached in Canada

Hi everyone!

A verdict was decided yesterday in a Canadian courtroom in the three-month trial for the murders--"honor killings"--of Ms. Amir Mohammad, age 53, and Zainab, Sahar, and Geeti Shafia, ages 19, 17, and 13 respectively. In 2009, Ms. Mohammad and the three girls, who were of Afghan descent, were discovered locked and submerged in a car in a 19th century canal near Kingston, Ontario.

The defendants are Mohammad Shafia, aged 58, the father of the three girls and husband of Ms. Mohammad; his second wife, Tooba Yahya, aged 42, and their 21 year-old son Hamed. According to trial transcripts, Ms. Mohammad arrived in Canada from Afghanistan in 2007 under the guise of being Mr. Shafia's cousin, not his first wife, as polygamy is illegal in Canada.

Apparently, Mr. Shafia was disgusted by the thoroughly Westernized behavior and dress of his daughters. Police wiretaps had recorded him expressing extremist views in regards to his daughters: "They violated us immensely," he is heard saying in one tape, "There can be no betrayal, no treachery, and no violation more than this."

It is still unclear how exactly the murders were committed; however it seems the three girls and Ms. Mohammad were dead before their car was pushed into the canal. Charges were based in part upon diary entries by Ms. Mohammad that chronicled a long history of abuse by all three defendants, and particularly by the son Hamed whom the girls were said to have feared.

While a sentence has yet to be determined, according to Canadian law, first-degree murder carries a compulsory sentence of life in prison with no chance for parole until after 25 years.

As horrific as these murders are, unfortunately, they are really just the tip of the iceberg. Honor killings are widely practiced in parts of India, Pakistan, and throughout the Arab World. And although there have been other cases of honor killings in the U.S. and Canada, this most recent example is one of the first to gain so much attention in quite some time.

The first reported case here in the U.S. was in St. Louis in 1989, committed by a father, Zein Isa, and his wife against their 16 year-old daughter, Palestina. Together Mr. and Mrs. Isa stabbed the girl thirteen times for, among other "offenses," having an African American male friend (who wasn't the girl's boyfriend) and for asking a school counselor for help because she was being beaten at home. Both Palestina and Geeti, one of the girls killed in the Shafia case, had also asked to be placed in foster care. Another similarity between the two cases is that none of the defendants expressed any remorse about their crimes. In fact, all have declared that they themselves are the injured parties, not the people they have killed.

I've chosen to focus on these cases today as a means of highlighting the fact that for a religious community that complains of being misunderstood and marginalized here in the West, particularly post-9/11, such behavior as honor killings and female circumcision and the general subjugation of women isn't going to help the Muslim cause for winning Western hearts and minds. I realize of course that these are examples from the fringe. And, as I've written before, I believe that in order to better integrate the Muslim way of life into contemporary Western society, governments and communities need to improve their system of integration starting at the grass roots level. But it seems that for every step forward taken by the Muslim diaspora, we hear or read about another example of behavior that causes most of us non-Muslims to scratch our heads and wonder and, frankly, turn away in disgust.

I realize that honor killing is a tradition that's been around for well over a thousand years. (Look at the story of Romeo and Juliet, or even Othello.) But isn't it time we put an end to this senseless barbarity? Islam is a religion based on peace and shared ethical values. Can someone please explain to me what drives men such as Mohammad Shafia and Zein Isa--not to mention their wives--to commit such heinous acts in the name of religion? Please. Explain it to me.

Ciao.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Syria?

Hi everyone!

So the Arab League finally did it. Deciding that their observer mission to Syria was inadvertently doing more harm than good, it suspended the operation until further review. This means there are no observers on the ground and that the Assad government is now free to unleash its vengeance upon the opposition with impunity.

I suppose this shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean let's face it, the observers were never given the freedom of movement required to really get an accurate view of the situation. When you are under strict escort by troops loyal to the Assad government--the source of the problem to begin with--how much could they actually have expected to see? Not a lot.

Even though the League voted last week to extend the mission for another month, observers were dropping out right and left, thereby further eroding the credibility of the entire endeavor. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the Arab League does have a peace proposal on the table with the United Nations Security Council. In fact, most of the world--with the exception of course of Syria, Russia, China, and Iran--welcome the League's proposal as being the most proactive approach yet to taking the first steps toward ending the violence. The plan calls for Bashar to step down, temporarily ceding power to a vice president while a new government was formed. Of course, Bashar has stated ad nauseum that he has no intention of doing any such thing. He knows he has the support, in particular, of Russia from whom Syria imports tens of millions of dollars of arms each year. Russian Vice President (and soon-to-be President) Vladimir Putin has publicly expressed support for Bashar and has joined him in condemning Western (read U.S.) influence in inciting the Syrian insurgency. This is a similar accusation to that which Putin has made about the recent protests in his own country.

Although I have always been a skeptic of the Arab League observer mission, now that the mission has been suspended--albeit temporarily but I'm not hopeful of a renewal--where does that leave things? In a very bad way indeed. For however long it takes the League to decide whether to continue the mission or not, Assad has a perfect window of opportunity to inflict maximum damage upon the opposition movement. You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.

What gets me is that no one outside the Arab World really seems to care all that much. The Obama administration repeatedly claims to be "closely monitoring" events in Syria but what does that really mean? I don't advocate sending American troops to Syria. This would give Iran an opportunity to further decry American hegemony in the region and who's to say that Iran wouldn't use this as a catalyst to move the Republican Guard into Syria under the guise of protecting its Syrian ally? We don't want another Iraq. It's unlikely this would happen anyway given the fact that Obama is in the process of initiating a "reset" in its relations with Russia and is unlikely to do anything that would provoke further Russian consternation. It seems where the U.S. is concerned, democracy is great as long as it falls in line with our own political sensibilities, otherwise democracy just gets in the way of promoting our master agenda...though I'm not sure anyone--including our leaders in Washington--really knows what that is anymore.

There has been mention in the U.N. Security Council of enacting a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. It was an effective tool in bringing down Qaddafi in Libya and to a lesser extent Saddam in Iraq. But there are enough dissenting opinions in the Security Council about this that it's unlikely a no-fly zone is realistically within the equation.

So what to do? We need to give full support to the Arab League peace proposal and perhaps offer a sort of amnesty to Bashar and his allies in the Syrian government as an incentive for stepping down, not unlike that which was offered to President Saleh of Yemen--who, incidentally, is now in New York for medical treatment. Beyond this, our hands are tied. The situation on the ground is dire but, in Syria, military intervention could truly ignite a much greater regional conflagration than we've seen to this point, a conflagration that might include Iranian missile strikes on Israel, the threatened closing of the Strait of Hormuz...and much much worse.

Not good. Not good at all.

Ciao.

The Battle of Algiers: History Repeating Itself

Hi everyone!

I've been reading a lot lately about the Algerian war for independence from France. I'm nearly finished with Martin Evans' exhaustive (and exhausting) history of the war, "Algeria: France's Undeclared War" published this month by Oxford University Press, and watched Gillo Pontecarvo's classic 1966 film "The Battle of Algiers." What strikes me are the similarities between what took place in Algeria from 1954-1962 and what is going on in the Middle East today.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Algerian War, it was waged for the most part by the FLN (the National Liberation Front), based in Tunisia and comprised of Algerian nationalists, against France who had first colonized Algeria in 1830. What began as a series of loosely connected guerilla strikes in the Algerian countryside morphed into better coordinated terrorist attacks in Algiers and other metropolitan areas.

The colonization of Algiers had never been particularly easy for the French. In fact, it wasn't until 1870 when France more-or-less successfully put down initial Algerian resistance. After World War Two, as Britain was divesting itself of its colonial territories and France was facing certain defeat in Indochina, the French government decided it was necessary to reaffirm its presence in Algeria. In fact, they even went so far as to annex the North African country as a district of France, making it as integral a part of the country as, say, Normandy or Brittany.

In its formative days, the Algerian resistance was by no means unified. The dominance of the FLN only came after particularly bloody internecine warfare between the FLN and the ALN (the National Liberation Army) that left many thousands of Algerians and whole towns massacred.

The Battle of Algiers solidified the FLN's central role in the conflict, both from a political as well as military standpoint. It began in 1957 as an eight-day general strike after the French and anti-Muslim European activists bombed a neighborhood in the Casbah, the city's densely populated Arab area, that resulted in the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children. This gave rise to a series of coordinated attacks on French government employees and bomb attacks on public places--restaurants, cafes, and a casino--frequented by the Europeans.

This strategy of terrorism strongly resembles the tactics we have seen--and continue to see--from the likes of al Qaeda, for example. Prior to the Battle of Algiers and its aftermath, most of Algeria's nationalist groups restricted their efforts to combating the French occupying forces. Starting in 1957, however, these tactics changed with the intent of stoking terror in the lives of the European community at large. The attacks on public gathering places were carried out by women who were able to change their appearance enough so that they could pass through checkpoints set up throughout the city that separated the European areas from those inhabited by Algerians. We know from recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan that identical tactics are being used against not only U.S. and coalition forces but on native citizens from opposing religious groups.

Another element that strikes me is France's military response. The French, under the command of General Massu, put together a chart that attempted to breakdown the FLN hierarchy. (The Bush administration did a similar thing with playing cards.) The FLN, much like al Qaeda today, organized themselves into separate sects comprised of a leader and one or two seconds-in-command. These individual sects, while working under the FLN umbrella, were divided to such an extent that one sect simply didn't know 1) from whom their orders were being given and 2) who were actually involved in other parallel sects. This made it extremely difficult for anyone to be traced and captured by the French. Interrogations of captured FLN foot soldiers resulted in very little real information because these foot soldiers were kept in ignorance of the FLN hierarchy-at-large. And, finally, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the French occupying forces utilized torture as an integral means of disseminating information.

While the FLN ultimately lost the Battle of Algiers--it would take another 3-4 years of bloody conflict before they won Algerian independence in 1962--where they succeeded was in solidifying native Algerian support, something the French simply failed to do in their subsequent 'winning hearts and minds campaign.'

In the thirty years that ensued from 1962-1992, Algeria enjoyed independence but as time went on and a series of governments--led by resistance leaders Ben Bella, Boumediene, and Mohammed Boudiaf respectively--rose and fell from power, the Algerian people became increasingly disillusioned with the way their country was being run. In 1992, Mohammed Boudiaf cancelled general elections that were poised to be won by a hardline Islamist party, and was promptly assassinated. This led to a devastating civil war between Islamists and more moderate Muslims, the effects of which are still being felt today.

My point in all this is that history really does seem to repeat itself. There is very little difference between the tactics used in Algeria by the FLN in the 1950s and '60s--and the French military response--to those being employed by al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and currently the opposition in Libya, Syria, and other countries in the throes of the so-called Arab Spring.

Pontecarvo's film "The Battle of Algiers" plays like a documentary in its look, tone, and overall feel. The experience of watching it today is eerie. Throughout, I found myself thinking that this could easily be a newsreel of Baghdad--albeit shot with a black-and-white camera--or any other country in today's Arab World. As a blueprint for today's Islamic insurgency, it is incredibly prescient and hauntingly relevant.

Ciao.

Friday Movie Review: A Separation

Hi everyone!

The Iranian film "A Separation" finally opened in Chicago today at the Music Box Theatre. I've been looking forward to seeing it ever since it opened in limited release last year so I schlepped up to see it this afternoon. Let me tell you, it was worth the wait.

"A Separation" has already won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film and is a two-time Oscar nominee this year for both Best Foreign Film and Best Original Screenplay. It is rather ironic that this film is probably going to win at least one Oscar at a time when relations between the U.S. and Iran are at a thirty-year low.

In brief, the film tells the story of a married couple, Simin and her husband Nader, an average middle-class Iranian family living in Tehran. After fourteen years of marriage, Simin files for divorce so she and their teenage daughter Termeh can leave Iran for (assumably) a better life in the West. Nader refuses to leave because he is in the midst of caring for his elderly father who is suffering from Alzheimer's. The divorce petition is rejected and Simin moves in with her parents. Termeh, the daughter, chooses to stay with her father. At Simin's suggestion, Nader hires Razieh, a thirty-something pregnant woman with a strong religious conviction, to care for his father while he works during the day at a bank. The job proves too much for Razieh and when she tries to quit after a particularly bad (and at first unexplained) spell with Nader's father, things quickly spin out of control.

This film is riveting on a number of levels, not the least of which is that it illuminates a culture that is alien to so many of us in the West and a country that, because of its theocratic leadership and government-sanctioned extremist ideology, is as frightening and unpredictable in many ways as North Korea. Religion plays a key role in much of what unfolds onscreen even if it is less overt than many might expect. Simin and Nader are average workaday people who only want what's best for themselves and their child, although they do not agree on how to achieve this. For them, religion is not the issue. It has more to do with Nader's devotion to his ailing father than anything else. Razieh, however, who dresses in flowing chadors and calls religious hotlines to tell her whether a decision is morally acceptable, is forced to choose between doing what is right and what she believes God would want her to do. For someone with such a pious religious and moral conviction, she finds herself rendered powerless. Her hot-headed and unemployed husband, Houjat, doesn't help matters either.

While I was watching the film, I found myself asking all sorts of questions, particularly in regards to who was in the "right" and who was in the "wrong." Each of these characters suffers for stubbornly adhering to their own personal ethic. My own sympathies tended to side with Nader while my heart really went out to the daughter Termeh who is sadly caught in the middle and, at the end of the film, is forced to make an extremely difficult decision. As accusations mount and events devolve into a he said/she said situation with potentially strong ramifications, the film portrays the undercurrent of fear and paranoia that runs through Iranian society today. It never overtly condemns or criticizes the Iranian legal system but it is does show how it is based upon perceptions of religious morality and hearsay that from a legal perspective offers its citizens very little protection.

Asghar Farhadi--the writer, director, and producer--was banned from making the film in September 2010 after he was accused of making 'politically incorrect' statements in support of several banned or exiled Iranian filmmakers; however, the ban was lifted in October after it was determined Mr. Farhadi's statements had been misconstrued. The film received its premiere at the Fair International Film Festival in Tehran last February and has gone on to win great acclaim and several awards on the international film festival circuit.

For anyone interested in strong international film-making and receiving at least a glimpse of insight into a world closed to most of us here in the West, "A Separation" succeeds on both counts. It is one of the very best films of 2011.

Ciao.

Apple: Rotten to the Core?

Hi everyone!

As an Apple user, I was saddened and more than a little enraged to read an article in today's New York Times that documented the sub-standard and even fatal working conditions frequently found in the factories that supply and/or manufacture Apple electronics. The majority of these factories, perhaps not surprisingly, are in China where Western-based companies tend to look (there and Southeast Asia) for cheap labor.

The front-page article "In China, the Human Costs That Are Built Into an iPad" by Charles Duhigg and David Barboza cites numerous examples--from both former and current Apple employers and their suppliers--of situations where Apple has knowingly overlooked dangerous, if not illegal, conditions in these factories because the time it would take to improve the facilities would risk delaying the release of new Apple products.

One particular example of Apple's apparent disregard for the safety of its outsourced employees took place in Chengdu, China last May at an iPad factory. A series of explosions caused by a dangerous build-up of aluminum dust (a problem at many of these factories)  killed two workers on impact and injured more than a dozen others. A similar explosion at another iPad factory last year resulted in an equal number of deaths and injuries. Two years ago, the article states, 137 workers at another Apple supplier were sickened because they were asked to clean iPhone screens with a chemical known to be hazardous.

Not all of these conditions necessarily result in death, but are horrific nonetheless. In one factory, workers were forced to work 24-hour shifts without a break--and were then even asked to stay for an additional 24-hour shift to keep production flowing. Some of these workers suffered such severe swelling in their legs that they were unable to walk.

Depression is rife among these workers. One dormitory that houses employees of Foxconn, one of Apple's suppliers, had such a high rate of suicide attempts that its managers installed safety nets throughout the building to prevent workers from jumping.

According to the article, Apple does conduct audits of these factories and, since 2007, annually publishes the audit reports. These reports have shown widespread violations of Apple's code of conduct wherein more than half of the factories audited showed evidence that employees were working more than six days a week for less than minimum wage. In addition, audits have shown cases where suppliers have employed child laborers and then lied about their ages to avoid scrutiny. Other violations include employee record falsifications and mass exposure to dangerous chemicals that aren't properly disposed of.

Apple claims that it is doing all it can to minimize if not eliminate these problems. But many consultants who have worked with the company disagree. According to one, a consultant at BSR (Business for Social Responsibility) to whom Apple has twice turned to for counsel on labor issues: "We've spend years telling Apple there are serious problems and recommending changes. They don't want to pre-empt problems, they just want to avoid embarrassments."

A former Apple executive concurs: "If you see the same pattern of problems, year after year, that means the company's ignoring the issue rather than solving it. Non-compliance [at Apple] is tolerated, as long as the suppliers promise to try harder next time. If we meant business, core violations would disappear."

Because competition to land an Apple contract is fierce among these suppliers--and because Apple hires suppliers who charge the cheapest rates for their parts--there is demand to keep prices low. One supplier quoted in the article says that Apple frequently purchases its first order at one rate and then asks the supplier to further reduce their cost for all future orders. This results in a lowered bottom line for the suppliers which then reduces employee pay and, frankly, the ability to maintain safe working conditions at the factories. So what is the ultimate result?--more accidents like the one in Chengdu last May, more deaths.

The report is shocking but I'm not all that surprised by it. Sweatshops have always existed and will continue to exist as long as there is consumer demand, a cheap labor force, and corporate fat cats who care more about filling their pockets than human rights and basic decency. In the case of Apple, consumer demand is at an all-time high. They earned a record $46.2 billion in profits last year! Most people don't think about how or where their iPod, iPad, iPhone, or Macbook was manufactured. I certainly didn't, at least not until I read this article. But the really sad thing is, now that I know the chemical that was used to polish my iPod screen may have resulted in the premature death of some nameless Chinese worker, am I going to stop using it? Um...no. But it may make me think twice about whether or not to purchase an Apple product in the future.

I'll close with a quote from a current Apple employee that concludes the article: "...right now, customers care more about a new iPhone than working conditions in China."

It's sad, but oh so true. This is how technology has changed us. I'm afraid we've forgotten our compassion.

Ciao.

One Citizen--An Extraordinary Plea for Human Rights by Maikal Nabil Sanad

Hi everybody!

I want to introduce you all to a remarkable young man. Maikel Nabil Sanad is a twenty-six year-old Egyptian who was released from prison yesterday after enduring a hunger strike and nearly a year in Cairo's El Marg Prison. You probably haven't heard of him, right?

Mr. Sanad never really got the opportunity to join his peers in the protests at Tahrir Square. In 2009, he spoke out against conscription into the all-powerful (and corrupt) Egyptian army. In 2010, he ignored his draft notice and was subsequently detained and released. Then, last February, Mr. Sanad was arrested again en route to Tahrir Square. After a sequence of further arrests and beatings, he began writing anti-military statements on his Facebook page and other blogs, claiming that the army did not share the democratic values of the protest movement and that it cared nothing for the rights of citizens but rather only for preserving and inflating its power. He went on to say that the revolution "so far managed to get rid of the dictator but not of the dictatorship," a criticism that has been expressed frequently by many who fear the interim military council will never step down from power as promised in June.

Mr. Sanad was then arrested again on March 28, 2011, initially sentenced by a military tribunal to three years that was then shortened to two for the 'crime' of criticizing the Egyptian army.

As Michael Wahid Hanna, a lawyer and fellow at the Century Foundation, writes in today's New York Times: "[Mr. Sanad's case] illuminates a broader challenge facing Egyptian society itself, if it hopes that democracy and pluralism will replace the Mubarak government."

The reason Mr. Sanad's case hasn't received the same amount of attention as other Egyptian dissidents who have been unjustly imprisoned is because, as Mr. Hanna points out, 1) Mr. Sanad is a Coptic Christian, a member of a religious community traditionally aligned with the former Mubarak regime; 2) Mr. Sanad is an avowed atheist and pacifist; and 3) he is a passionate supporter of Israel in a region that for the most part would probably rather that Israel didn't exist at all.

His criticism of the military is merely icing on the cake. Coptic Christians are a minority in this increasingly Islamist country. Last October, the military unleashed the full might of its power on a Coptic demonstration that resulted in the deaths of 27 people. It would seem that there's a strong community in Egypt--even among the protesters--who don't necessarily believe in freedom or justice for all...and I'm not just talking about the military.

Mr. Sanad eloquently argues his points in an essay he wrote last year while in prison that was smuggled out and published online in December. Entitled "One Citizen," Mr. Sanad writes that in a truly democratic society, if there's even one citizen with a view that runs counter to the majority, society has an obligation to allow that citizen his/her freedom to express their opinion. I've included the full text of that essay below.

Mr. Sanad's words pertain not only to Egypt as it grapples with its ongoing democratic transition, but to all citizens and all nations of the world.

The One Citizen

by Maikel Nabil Sanad

Thanks to Nariman Youssef for the translation.

At a press conference last week, SCAF’s Mukhtar Al-Mullah issued a number of statements that revealed the hidden intentions of the military to kill the nascent democracy in Egypt. When towards the end of the conference he was asked about me, he refrained from answering. And when asked about Alaa Abdel-Fattah, he tried to justify the detainment of Alaa, and then concluded by a very telling sentence, “Maikel Nabil and Alaa Abdel Fattah are Egyptian citizens, and we are very keen to protect all Egyptians, but we’re talking here about one citizen out of 85 million”.  Al-Mullah did not say who that “One Citizen”  was, Alaa or myself but what difference would that make?

-     The Military in their stupidity think that One Citizen is without value and easily marginalized… Their minds do not comprehend the fact that One Citizen put an end to Mubarak’s regime, one citizen: Khaled Said.

-     The first thing that came to my mind when I read Al-Mullah’s words was a quote by John Stuart Mill: “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”…  This is precisely the difference between fascism and freedom. Fascists claim that there’s no harm in sacrificing One Citizen for the good of the community, and it was under this banner that people in Germany, in the Soviet Union, in fascist Italy, Nasserist Egypt, Baathist Syria and Maoist China, in Cuba and Milosevic’s Serbia, lost their freedom to tyrants who massacred whole communities while claiming each time that it’s just One Citizen, sacrificed for the community.

      In my lectures on liberalism I always said “that if the individual was at odds with society, as liberals we should take the side of the individual against society.”  Protecting the individual (the One Citizen) means protecting the values of individualism and individual liberties. Those who claim they can build a society made up of oppressed members are deceiving themselves, for if the individual is the building block of society, how do you construct a building out of stones that are crushed and broken?!

–     Neo-fascists forget that all great deeds in history were done by “One Citizen”.  It was One Citizen named Galileo who maintained that the earth was round, while all the inhabitants of the planet denied it. One Citizen named “Muhammad”  who brought Islam to humanity; the message was not revealed to 85 million people, but to One Citizen… Throughout history, human creativity has always been individual creativity: Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Nietzsche, Darwin, Edison – great deeds were always carried out by individuals who stood out, even while the rest of society did not go far beyond their natural instincts… The sacrifice of one individual for the good of the community is the argument put forward by tyrants to enable them to persecute thinkers, philosophers, scientists and all others who offered their services and their creativity to humanity.

-     I am not addressing myself to the military, for they are advancing toward their end like the enchanted, ignoring all indications of their fate. I am addressing myself to society, a society that was taught to accept the violation of One Citizen’s rights for the greater good of the community, as if the power that oppresses one will be able to later respect the rights of the community. This society that has accepted the displacement of the Nubian community in the name of national interest, that has accepted the expulsion of Egyptian Jews, the confiscation of their property, the revoking of their nationality, in the name of the interests of the majority. The same society that has sequestered homosexual rights, that has limited the individual freedoms of individuals under the guise of maintaining the family system and the interests of the greater society. It is time for the 85 Million to understand that their freedom is tied to the freedom of that One Citizen, that all freedom is lost once they allow the wolf to choose the first victim from amongst the herd, that they cannot regain the freedom of society unless every One Citizen is free.

Immediate freedom for Alaa Abdel-Fattah, for myself, for Ayman Mansour, for Amr Al-Beheiry, for each and every One Citizen in Egypt. Not because that would be the moral thing to do, but because you will never be free as long as the “One Citizen”  remains captive.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg general prison – prison hospital


2011/12/15

A Case for Greater Muslim Integration

Hi everyone!

On the op-ed page of today's New York Times, Jonathan Laurence, an associate professor of political science at Boston College and the author of "The Emancipation of Europe's Muslims: The State's Role in Minority Integration" has written an insightful piece about the need for European governments to do more from a political standpoint to integrate Europe's rapidly growing Muslim population.

The piece, "How to Integrate Europe's Muslims," perhaps counterintuitively places blame for Muslim disenfranchisement on 'an excess of tolerance toward the large-scale Muslim immigration that began in the 1970s.' Mr. Laurence goes on to say that for all the talk of religious integration, the root cause of the issue has to do with the fact that this integration model is contradictory at best. He seems to be saying that most European countries have had a more-or-less open-door policy when it came to Muslim immigration, with a very specific caveat: It's okay for you to come into our country as long as you assimilate with our predominantly Christian-based way of life. This means we will not go out of our way to recognize your religious holidays, we will not support your desire for Islamic education or the building of new mosques or Islamic cultural centers, and we will insist that--as France has lately done--you divest yourself of any openly Muslim clothing--the hijab, for example--on threat of arrest and even deportation.

It's no wonder that European Muslims feel like second-class citizens. What Mr. Laurence suggests in place of these perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately rather draconian laws is, for one, a 'period of benign neglect of the Islam issue.' First, however, European governments need to formally recognize that Islam is now woven into the very fabric of their nations' existence, just as are Christianity and Judaism. He writes, in essence, that Europe needs to end its "us versus them" approach when addressing Muslim issues within the community, taking it beyond a tacit acknowledgment of Islam's right to exist alongside the Judeo-Christian tradition to a much more proactive program that truly integrates Islam at the grass roots level. This may include issuing mosque permits, incorporating Muslim holidays into school holiday schedules and encouraging the right to form all other types of political and non-political organizations, just as other non-Muslim Europeans have had the right to throughout history.

Only by making Islam a non-issue will Muslims ever feel truly included within the social and national fabric of their adopted countries.

To many this may read as rather simplistic. It doesn't address the rise of radical Islam, for example, which particularly since 9/11 has been at the heart of Western antipathy toward Muslims. And while there will always be extremists--on both sides of the equation--I do support Mr. Laurence's point. By continuing to pursue policies that merely seek to assimilate Muslims into society rather than truly integrating them, we are only furthering their feelings of disenfranchisement which can only add fuel to their simmering hostility. From anyone's perspective, this is a lose/lose situation. It's high time for a change.

Ciao.

A Glimmer of Hope in Syria--The Arab League Peace Proposal

Hi everyone!

So despite the gloom and doom of some of my previous posts having to do with the ongoing democracy movement in the Arab World, there is indeed progress to report.

Yesterday was a big day in Syria, one might even go so far as to call it a turning point. We all know that the Arab League observation mission has been rather a bust. Hundreds of protesters were killed while the observer delegation kind of bumbled around the country, seeing glimpses of unrest and the government crackdown while expressing frustration that Assad's regime wasn't honoring the agreement that put the observers on the ground in the first place.

So what did the Arab League do yesterday? They unexpectedly issued a peace proposal demanding that Assad step down and begin negotiating with the opposition within two weeks. According to reports, this proposal is modeled after a similar agreement signed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, who finally left his country yesterday en route to the U.S. for further medical treatments for the burns he sustained last June in an attempt on his life. What may differentiate these two proposals, however, is that the Yemeni agreement offered Mr Saleh immunity from prosecution for war-related crimes if he agreed to step down. The Syrian proposal offers no such incentive for Assad and his cronies.

No one expects Assad to accept the proposal. He has unequivocally declared that he'll more-or-less die 'defending' his country. The reason I describe the Arab League proposal as progress is that it's the most sharply-worded response to the continued violence in Syria that we've heard from the Arab World. According to Reuters, Qatar's foreign minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, said "We ask that the Syrian regime leave and hand over power. We are with the Syrian people, with their will and with their aspirations." Again, change in Syria is not going to happen overnight. But with this declaration from the Arab League--really the only force that has much street cred on the Arab Street--it shows that with the exception of Iran and perhaps Russia, Assad has very few allies in his corner. He'll go down fighting, but eventually he's going to have to go down.

But with the end of the Assad dynasty, who's going to replace them? Chances are, we'll be faced with a similar situation to that which is currently roiling Libya. Over there in North Africa, the opposition was a rather rag-tag group of rebels who were united only in their desire to see Qaddafi overthrown. Now that he's dead and gone, the country is on the precipice of renewed chaos because none of these rebel factions can unite behind one course of action. The same can be said of Syria. The Free Syrian Army, a militia comprised of deserters seems to be the most direct opposition Assad faces, at least in terms of boots on the ground. There is also the Syrian National Council, a more politically-oriented opposition group that when all is said and done doesn't wield all that much influence.

So what to do? Wait and see, I guess. Along with the peace proposal, the Arab League announced that the observer mission would continue, citing that some progress has been made. I have my doubts but I'd rather them stay because as ineffective as the mission might appear, they are a collective set of eyes in Assad's backyard. With a peace proposal on the table, the Arab League observers might finally have a bit more clout.

The ball is in your court, Mr. Assad. Act wisely.

Ciao.

Brother vs Brother?: A Generation Gap in the Muslim Brotherhood

Hi everyone!

I came across an interesting article in today's New York Times Magazine about a gentleman named Mohamed Beltagy. Mr. Beltagy is a doctor and a popular leader within the Muslim Brotherhood, which incidentally won 40 percent of the seats in the new Egyptian parliament.

The article discusses the conflict brewing within the Brotherhood between its moderate members--like Mr. Beltagy--and the hardliners who have traditionally been the more dominant faction. Because of this, many fear that any government majority comprised of hardcore Islamists is going to result in a repressive society, a fact that would appear to contradict the democratic values upon which the Egyptian protest movement was founded. It's disappointing that the youth movement, at least from a political perspective, appears to have lost its influence. The party it backed in the recent elections barely registered with voters who turned out in droves to elect a parliament that is at least 65 percent Islamist.

While the Muslim Brotherhood came out with the majority of votes, not too far behind it are the Salafists who advocate strict religious rule...a theocracy if you will. It would appear then that there should be a modicum of overlapping values between these two political parties. But, as the article points out, there is not. In fact, although the Brotherhood claims to have abandoned its more fundamentalist leanings--at least for the sake of elections--the Salafists have hardened their more extremist stance. This poses an obvious problem for the future, let alone stability, of any Egyptian government. If the two leading parties are unable to compromise for the sake of a united and stable parliament, it just gives the military council (SCAF) further reason not to step down as promised in June. In fact, when the unofficial election results started to trickle in late last month, the military revised its position and said it would not step down and would in fact take control of the writing of the Constitution.

But there are other, perhaps more immediate concerns as well...or if not concerns per se, then questions. Where, for example, has the Brotherhood been in the most recent bout of protests? A year ago, the Brotherhood was a dominant presence in Tahrir Square, serving--according to New York Times writer Robert Worth--as a sort of makeshift security apparatus, frisking anyone who came to the protests before allowing them into the square, etc. This is no longer the case. In fact, the Brotherhood has consciously put distance between itself and the protests, at least from an external perspective. The reasons for this are about murky as the politics.

Many believe that most of the top dogs in the Brotherhood (who are used to a strong military involvement in government)  are not necessarily as adamant about getting rid of the military as are the younger generation, or for example, Mr. Beltagy. The military is still viewed by many older Egyptians as a stabilizing presence without which many fear anarchy. This may just be a case of better the devil you know...

But it does give cause for concern. The Brotherhood appears to be contradicting itself. In response to the most recent spate of violence that left at least 10 dead and hundreds more wounded, the Brotherhood spoke out against the violence--which it conceded was committed at the hands of the military--while telling protesters that their efforts would be better served by going to the polls and encouraging others to do the same. While elections are certainly an important part of the democratic process, if the military ultimately refuses to step down and widespread violence once again returns to Tahrir Square, on what side of the conflict is the Brotherhood going to find itself? After a year of dramatic change and continued uncertainty, the Egyptian public are not going to stand for a parliament--elected for the first time by the public--that sits on the fence and does nothing.

And as for that conflict within the Muslim Brotherhood between moderates like Mr. Beltagy and the traditional hardline cohort, many predict that once the Brotherhood is firmly in power, the moderates are going to be pushed out in favor of the old school...or the old madrassah, as it were. The hardline Brothers will align themselves with the hardline Salafists and you'll have a theocracy like Iran at worst, or Saudi Arabia at best, which isn't saying much.

The one-year anniversary of Tahrir Square is this Wednesday, the 25th. The new Parliament is also supposed to sit for the first time this week. Whatever happens, Egypt is definitely in the spotlight once again.

Ciao.

The Best Film of 2011: Zhang Yimou's "The Flowers of War"

Hi everyone!

I'd normally feature a book review today but I've been so busy that I didn't make as much progress on Martin Evans' "Algeria: France's Undeclared War" (Oxford University Press, 2012) as I'd hoped. I'll be reviewing that next Saturday.

Instead I've decided to review Chinese director Zhang Yimou's latest film "The Flowers of War" which I just returned from seeing. You may know of Mr. Zhang from his previous martial arts historical epics "The House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero". While I'm not a fan of the genre, I've always appreciated Mr. Zhang's eye for stunning, almost achingly beautiful cinematography and a rather languid yet exciting narrative pace. You may have heard about "The Flowers of War" from the press it received upon its premiere in Beijing last month and from the diplomatic brouhaha its star, Oscar-winning actor Christian Bale, found himself in when he attempted to visit a dissident Chinese journalist under house arrest and was subsequently roughed-up by Chinese police.

Politics aside, "The Flowers of War" is a remarkable film that deserves to be given just as much Oscar attention as any other film currently in the running this season. It tells the story of a ne'er-do-well American mortician named John (Mr. Bale) who finds himself trapped in a convent school in Nanjing, China during the brutal 1937 Japanese invasion and massacre. Against all intentions, John ends up pretending to be the priest in charge of the convent and subsequently the protector of the convent schoolgirls and a group of Chinese prostitutes who have come seeking refuge from the brutality of the Japanese siege.

Mr. Zhang does not spare his audience the atrocities the Japanese committed. The film is rife with bloody and horrific battle scenes that will have you tied in knots, wanting to look away at times were it not for the fact that the images on screen are so visually arresting you simply can't. But there is also much beauty to be seen and humanity where you might least expect it. I was frequently reminded of three films by Stephen Spielberg, a great friend of Mr. Zhang's who also apparently suggested he cast Mr. Bale: "War Horse," "Saving Private Ryan," and "Empire of the Sun." The battle scenes have a grainy, documentary-style quality that brings to mind the urban combat scenes in "Saving Private Ryan"  as well as the hellishness depicted in the trench warfare scenes of "War Horse."

The costumes, lighting, and sheer visual sweep at times reminded me of Bernardo Bertolucci's great Oscar-winning Chinese historical epic "The Last Emperor."

As for the performances, Christian Bale gives a nicely rounded portrayal of a man who goes from living only for himself to sacrifice on the behalf of others. Chinese actress Ni Ni looks great and wins our sympathy as Yu Mo, the 'leader' of the prostitutes and the film's ultimate heroine. Young actress Xinyi Zhang is particularly affecting as the film's narrator who is also one of the convent girls. The supporting cast--both Chinese and Japanese--is strong as well.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "The Flowers of War" is my pick for the Best Film of 2011. It won't win any awards here in the U.S. and it's certainly not receiving broad distribution, though I was happy to see that the screening I attended at one of the AMC theaters here in Chicago was  pretty well-packed and the audience seemed quite engrossed. While I've definitely seen films with stronger performances, better screenplays, etc...where "The Flowers of War" succeeds for me is in pure cinematic impact. For as much as I enjoyed "War Horse" from a visual perspective, "The Flowers of War" had a more visceral immediacy that drew me in from the opening shot and didn't let go until the closing credits.

I'll be sharing more of my top film picks next weekend--including my Top 10 list for 2011. But in the meantime, if you happen to live in a city or a near a city that is showing Mr. Zhang's latest (his masterpiece)...I encourage you to check it out. I don't think you'll be disappointed. The story it tells is grim and unpleasant but it demonstrates that even in the midst inhumanity, the twin flowers of hope and heroism can still blossom against all odds.

Ciao.

The U.S. in Afghanistan: Whatever Happened to Being an Officer and a Gentleman?

Hi everyone!

Disturbing news out of Afghanistan today...it appears that last week's release of video documenting American soldiers urinating on Taliban corpses is not an isolated incident. This is bad in and of itself; however, what is more shocking--though not particularly surprising--is the response this video has apparently generated among many American servicemen, many of whom have cheered the video and have posted supportive (and racist) comments about this incident on various social networking sites.

But this points to a much greater problem, and one that causes me to reconsider the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and whether or not we should indeed be negotiating a peace settlement with the Taliban. A lengthy article in today's New York Times details a history of animosity between U.S. soldiers and their Afghan counterparts. It documents various incidents dating back to 2007 that have remained classified, providing more information about a series of attacks on U.S. soldiers by Afghan soldiers who are supposed to be working together to eliminate the insurgent threat.

Official reports claim that these incidents are isolated cases and do not reflect a broader trend of Afghan soldiers killing or otherwise harming members of the American-led International Security Assistance Force. According to an ISAF spokesperson: "We train and are partnered with Afghan personnel every day and we are not seeing any issues or concerns with our relationships."

But classified reports say otherwise. Apparently, there have been at least three dozen attacks on ISAF forces by Afghan soldiers since 2007. From May 2007 to May 2011, this report states that at least 58 ISAF members were killed in 26 separate attacks, the majority of which occurred post-October 2009, comprising 6 percent of all ISAF deaths in this time period.

So what's the impetus behind these attacks? Well, last week's video provides a pretty vivid example. An ever-increasing level of animosity between U.S. and Afghan soldiers is creating a climate that seems to be pushing both sides to extreme behavior. Afghan soldiers accuse their American 'brothers-in-arms' of being rude, ignorant, and disrespectful of their country and Islam. The Americans, on the other hand, accuse the Afghans of being cowardly, undisciplined, and addicted to drugs.

What we have here is a classic example of culture clash, supplemented in no small part by a sense of colonial superiority on the part of the U.S. military. If we haven't been able to resolve these interpersonal/cultural conflicts over the past ten years, chances are we never will. I also don't doubt that there's an overwhelming sense of frustration among ISAF forces, given the fact that after ten years, the Taliban insurgency shows no signs of being vanquished while the Afghan population (and the Karzai government) are expressing fatigue at the continued presence of U.S. and coalition soldiers. Any student of Afghan history can point to the fact that no invading/occupying force has ever been able to successfully control Afghanistan. Why bother?

Which leads me to re-evaluate my previous position against allowing the Taliban to open an office in Qatar from which to launch peace talks. Perhaps, after all, it's time to let Afghanistan (and Pakistan, for that matter, because everyone knows Pakistan holds the winning hand in this part of the world) get on with it. The Karzai administration doesn't want ISAF forces in his country. He's always been a sketchy ally at best and is now claiming that the U.S. is cutting Afghanistan out of negotiations with the Taliban. Karzai does have a point. He says that any deal that isn't headed by the Afghan government is doomed to fail. He's right. So maybe it's time to cut our losses and bring the troops home.

I don't deny that the Taliban is a terrorist organization or that once ISAF pulls out in 2014 Afghanistan won't devolve into a narco-terrorist state as it was from the mid-90s to 2011. But if the majority of Afghans want us out, then it's time to leave. Frankly, though, I don't blame them. Desecrating the dead--regardless of who they might be--is despicable. It serves no purpose other than to confirm (or reconfirm) for many in the world that the U.S. is little more than a nation of ignorant, uncouth rednecks.

Whatever happened to that phrase, "an officer and a gentleman"? If that video and the support for it expressed in social media is any indication, our armed forces are woefully lacking in both.

Ciao.

The Further Misadventures of Captain Schettino and the Costa Concordia

Hi everyone!

The drama surrounding the wreck of the Costa Concordia continues. Rescue operations were suspended due to the threat of incoming storms and rough maritime conditions that caused the ship to dangerously shift on the ocean floor, hampering divers from continuing their search for survivors...or, now more likely,  bodies of the deceased.

The latest toll: eleven confirmed dead with twenty-one still missing.

The big question that's on everyone's mind is, why was there an hour's delay from the time the Costa Concordia struck the rocks to the start of emergency/evacuation procedures? To Captain Schettino's credit, he did attempt to steer the doomed ship closer to land assumably to ease the difficulty of rescue operations. But what isn't clear is whether or not the Concordia's operator, Costa Crociere--a division of Carnival Corp, the world's largest cruise ship line--was in contact with the ship's captain during this time and, if so, what was the exact nature of their contact?

We all know by now that Mr. Schettino somehow ended up in a lifeboat when he should have been directing evacuation procedures on board the ship. According to Mr. Schettino: "I had no intention of escaping. I was helping some passengers put some lifeboats in the sea." I suppose there is some credibility to his claim that he tripped and fell, given the ship was listing at a 60-70 degree angle moments after the initial impact, but eyewitness reports of passengers and fellow crew members further attest to the chaos that ensued on board and the accusations that the Concordia's crew were poorly trained on how to handle a crisis such as this.

Mr. Schettino continues to state that the rocks upon which his ship ran aground were a surprise to him, given the fact that only a few weeks before he had successfully completed a similar maneuver to that which got him in trouble on Friday. Top brass at Costa Crociere concur that they were knowledgeable of Mr. Schettino's prior recklessness...not only knowing of it, but admittedly signing off on it. Costa Crociere's chief executive, Pier Luigi Foschi, says he didn't give Mr. Schettino permission to steer the ship through the risky maneuver that got it into trouble. According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Foschi said that Mr. Schettino and Roberto Ferrarini, director of marine operations, were in phone contact around 10:05pm, at which time Mr. Schettino said he was dealing with an "emergency" but didn't specify what exactly that emergency was, because he claimed he didn't know.

A timeline of events released by the Italian investigators puts the initial impact between the ship and these mysterious rocks at 9:45pm. The evacuation alarm didn't sound until 10:58, more than an hour later. At 12:42am, Mr. Schettino is now on a lifeboat. Presumably one hour later, at 1:46am Gregorio De Falco, the coast guard's commander, barked the now immortal lines that will forever represent the disaster: "Vada a bordo cazzo!" Get back on the effin' boat...

Almost a week later, Mr. Schettino is under house arrest and concerns are mounting that there's an ecological disaster-in-waiting. The ship is apparently sinking in an environmentally-protected zone which is leading to fears that its oil is going to seep into the water, thus endangering wildlife in the area.
This story is far from over.

What really bothers me about this event is not so much that the crew couldn't handle evacuation procedures calmly or effectively, but that Costa Crociere--aka Carnival Corp.--knew from recent experience that Captain Schettino was a hotshot, that he'd successfully completed his "Ferrari-like" moves in this same exact area, and yet seemed to have either approved or turned a blind eye to it. What does this say about Carnival? What does this say about the cruise-line industry as a whole? The level of negligence and outright incompetence is shocking, especially when thousands of lives are at stake.

A hundred years after the sinking of the Titanic, you'd have thought these companies would have learned their lesson. On a trivial note, I can't help being struck by the irony that this is happening just a month before James Cameron releases the 3-D version of his Oscar-winning film "Titanic." You couldn't have asked for a better publicity stunt.

Ciao.

"Vado a Bordo Cazzo" -- How the Sinking of the Costa Concordia Inspired a Fashion Statement

Hi everyone!

Before I get into the subject of today's blog, I wanted to let all of you know about a guest column I am currently writing for a friend of mine: the Top Ten Mistakes Authors Make. Having worked in the publishing industry for fifteen years both as an acquisitions editor and a literary agent, I've seen all manner  of mistakes committed--often with the best of intentions--by first-time authors. Over the next few weeks, my top ten list of these mistakes will be featured on Melissa G. Wilson's Networlding blog.

Mistake Numero Uno: Do Not Assume Your Work is Done Once You've Turned in the Final Draft of Your Manuscript. Click on the following link to read more: www.networldingblog.com. This is the first of a series that will be featured over the course of the next few weeks. If you're an author--either experienced or first-time--please check it out!

Now...on to what's top of mind. I'm sure by now you've all read about the Costa Concordia, the mega cruise ship that went down off the coast of Italy last Friday with 4,200 passengers aboard. The story is undeniably tragic, what with the confirmed loss of eleven lives and, as of this afternoon, twenty-six still unaccounted for, but there is (unfortunately) an element of humor to the story which has prompted another round of soul-searching on the part of the Italian public.

The ship's much-maligned--and rightfully so--captain, Francesco Schettino, has today said that he didn't intentionally end up in a lifeboat trying to save himself at the expense of his passengers, but rather he "accidentally fell" into the lifeboat amidst the chaos of those first tragic minutes. Come on! Did he really think anyone would actually believe this...or if credibility wasn't what he was after, then doesn't he just realize what an idiot this makes him sound? I mean seriously, of all the places he could possibly fall while a ship is sinking, a lifeboat just strikes me as little too convenient.

What doesn't help Mr. Schettino's case is that his ship's crew and other passengers have criticized him in the press for behavior that reeks of stereotypical Italian machismo. Remember, this is a country that is still struggling to overcome the ridiculous, not to mention criminal, behavior of Silvio Berlusconi. "Bunga bunga" anyone? According to an article in today's Daily Telegraph, one of the ship's officers claimed that Mr. Schettino drove the ship "like a Ferrari" and was in the midst of trying to give a salute to an "old friend" before it hit a reef that apparently hadn't appeared on any the ship's maps. The first thing Mr. Schettino did when he realized he was in trouble? He called his "Mamma."

If it weren't for the quick-thinking of Gregorio De Falco, an Italian Coast Guard official, who reportedly told Mr. Schettino "Vado a Bordo Cazzo" or in other words, "Get back on board, for f***k's sake!" there's no telling how many more lives would have been lost.

What I love though is that Mr. De Falco's directive 'Vado a Bordo Cazzo' has now become a fashion statement. Tee-shirts have been designed featuring these words and are now apparently all the rage in Italy. I might have to get one. I'm not planning on going on a cruise anytime soon--though my parents are--but I'd dare anyone who is to order one of these tee-shirts (I'm sure they're available for purchase online) and wear it with pride, especially if they happen to be dining at the Captain's Table.

Ciao.

Protest Ennui Cannot be Allowed to Snuff out the Flame of Tahrir Square

Hi everyone!

Discouraging news coming out of Egypt. As January 25th rapidly approaches--the anniversary date for the start of the protests in Tahrir Square--it seems that the youth movement responsible for initiating the downfall of the Mubarak regime is losing favor with the average Egyptian. According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal, many have simply grown weary of the protests and long for a return to some semblance of normal life.

A dangerous sense of ennui seems to be settling in. I say dangerous because if the Egyptian everyman and woman decides to pack it in and go along with the ruling military council (SCAF) out of a feeling that nothing is ever going to change so why bother, the momentum built up over the past twelve months will truly have been naught. The military will take encouragement from this and it then becomes increasingly likely that the longed-for and promised transition from military to civilian rule, currently scheduled to take place at the end of June, will be at great if not greater risk.

To mark the anniversary, a protest 'festival' of sorts has been planned for Tahrir Square, comprising of musical performances, lectures, and other activities designed to commemorate the protest movement and reignite the flame against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Over the weekend, however, the Muslim Brotherhood (who along with the hardline Salafist Party are set to assume control of more than 45% of the seats in the new parliament which is set to meet for the first time on January 23rd) announced that they would not be participating in any renewed protests against the interim military rulers. Without the Muslim Brotherhood's blessing, it is doubtful turnout for the protest will be as large as it otherwise might have been.

Another blow to the youth protest movement was the announcement that Mohamed ElBaradei has withdrawn from the upcoming presidential race. In his official statement to the press, Mr. ElBaradei said: "The regime did not fall yet. My conscience would not allow me to run for the presidency or any position without having a real democratic system that implements the real concepts of democracy, not only its framework."

Mr. ElBaradei's reasons for withdrawing are admirable. Despite recent parliamentary elections, Egypt still has a long way to go before it can unequivocally be said to have transitioned into a full-fledged democracy. As long as the interim military council remains even nominally in control, the country is still technically a police state.

However, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate is perhaps Egypt's most qualified presidential candidate. His experience as the former secretary-general of the International Atomic Agency propelled him into the international spotlight. He is a known commodity as well as being familiar with the fundamentals of democratic government. Who else in Egypt is similarly positioned?

It seems that the fervid youthful revolutionary zeal of a year ago is fading in the face of continued repression and lack of true identifiable reform. The Egyptian economy is in the toilet, crippled by a lack of tourist dollars upon which the country could always depend as well as further uncertainty about the next six months. The youth movement may also be viewed by some older Egyptians as promoting anarchy. To counter this, the movement has initiated a public relations campaign called "Protect the Egyptian Military" that seeks to promote the efforts of the average policeman/woman on the street in contrast to the perceived corruption of their commanding officers.

It is of course understandable and perhaps inevitable that a certain level of 'protest fatigue' is to be expected. A year is an awfully long time to live in a state of economic and political uncertainty. Let's see what happens when the new democratically-elected parliament sits for the first time on the 23rd. Here's hoping the flame of Tahrir Square isn't allowed to die out.

Ciao.

One Year On: The Elusive Myth of Democracy in the Arab World

Hi everyone!

After a year now of violent unrest and protests--with the exception of Tunisia--how much has really changed?

Despite the overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and recent parliamentary elections that more-or-less went off without a hitch, the ruling military council (which was originally intended as a transitional thing) is still pretty firmly entrenched while protests continue, the economy free-falls, and the country is rife with rumors about an increase in the price of fuel beyond the affordability of the average Egyptian citizen, 40 percent of whom live beneath the poverty line.

Over in Syria, the Arab League observer mission is in shambles with less than a week to go as dozens of protesters continue to be killed, wounded, or disappeared. Bashar announced an amnesty yesterday for so-called criminals of the protest movement, meaning army deserters and any protester caught in possession of illegal arms or violation of laws governing peaceful protests. This is the fourth such amnesty, following similar announcements in May, June, and November. No one on the ground takes this seriously.

King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain paid further lip service to Bahraini protesters by saying that his government will be held under greater scrutiny by Parliament; however, Parliament will still be unable to dismiss government officials--usually members of the royal family or their sycophants--it deems unworthy of holding government office. This, protesters say, falls far short of what they are actually demanding--the institution of a full constitutional monarchy.

Meanwhile, in Tunisia, there were reports last week that there has been a five-fold increase in the number of self-immolations timed for the one-year anniversary of the birth of democracy and the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi, the young street vendor whose death ignited the Arab world. According to the BBC, these are mostly poor unemployed young men who have become disillusioned by the continued lack of jobs and government aid despite the installation of democracy.

So I repeat my question: How much has really changed?

I realize of course that in the grand scheme of history, one year is a relatively short period of time. And taking this into consideration, the sweep of the Arab Spring remains impressive. But when all is said and done, what is the true extent of these improvements? For the first time in decades, Egyptians were allowed to vote in free and fair parliamentary elections, though it remains to be seen whether the ruling military council will actually allow the new parliament to draft a constitution and become a truly democratic and functioning government. If the generals don't step down, more bloodshed on the streets of Cairo is pretty much a guarantee. Syria is a mess any way you look at it and heading toward a bloody sectarian war, if it isn't there already. How is this an improvement? And as evidenced by the continued public suicides of unemployed Tunisians, have changes in the government really translated yet to reforms on the street?

At this point, I suppose, there aren't any real answers. We can only wait, watch, and see. Still, it would be a shame if for the millions of people across the Arab world, democracy remains little more than an elusive myth.

Ciao.

Sunday Movie Review: "Carnage"

Hi everyone!

"Carnage" is Roman Polanski's film version of Yasmina Reza's popular play "The Gods of Carnage," which ran on Broadway a couple years' back and picked up numerous awards. As I haven't seen the original play, I can only base my opinion on the film, though I have a feeling that the film is a pretty faithful adaptation, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

In case you're not familiar, let me give a brief overview of the story. "Carnage" is set over the course of a single afternoon in a fairly upscale apartment somewhere in New York, assumably near the Brooklyn Bridge Park. As the opening credits roll, we see from a distance a group of young-ish boys playing in a park. There appears to be a verbal altercation between two of the boys, and then one boy picks up a stick and thwacks it across the other boy's face.

Cut to the apartment. Nancy and Alan Cowan, played by Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz, are the parents of Zachary, the aggressor in the 'attack.' They have come to meet with Penelope and Michael Longstreet, played by Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly, the parents of Ethan, the 'victim' of the aforementioned attack. It turns out that Ethan lost two teeth and suffered from some nerve damage as a result of being hit across the face with a branch. Penelope is particularly set on exacting some sort of apology from Nancy and Alan for the behavior of their son. Things start off awkwardly and then just go downhill from there.

Let me start by saying that for the first 45 minutes or so, I was absolutely drawn into the characters, the dialogue, and the situation. On the first glance, it seems that these are basically good people who are trying to be good parents while looking out for the best interests of their children. But as the film progresses, the cracks in their relationships start to come through as do the cracks in their own individual psyches. Alan (Christoph Waltz) is an arrogant lawyer working for the pharmaceutical industry who would rather mediate the recall of a particular drug on his cell phone than have any involvement in the discipline of his son. His wife, Nancy (Kate Winslet), is an investment broker and somewhat of an ice goddess, though her brittle exterior only masks an extremely unhappy and lonely woman. On the other side of the equation, Penelope (Jodie Foster) is a basket-case of nerves and liberal do-goodism whose academic and philanthropic aspirations--she's writing a book about Darfur--are delivered with a rigid and rather uncompromising sense of moral superiority and stifling political correctness. Her husband Michael (John C. Reilly) initially comes across as a straightforward, rather happy-go-lucky blue collar guy--he buys and sells parts: door handles, flush mechanisms on toilets, etc--who, as it turns out, bitterly resents his wife's pseudo-intellectualism.

Things start off on a rather tense note. These are clearly not the type of people who would normally interact or socialize with each other. They each come into the situation with some fairly well-defined preconceived notions about the other couple. But then coffee and cobbler is served, one character has a horrendous bout of projectile vomiting--which I have to say came as a surprise and I would say is the highlight of the whole film and probably one of the most truly memorable scenes of the year. I was literally gagging and laughing hysterically at the same time. What some people won't do to preserve their collection of rare art catalogues!

The dialogue comes fast and furious and is witty enough to keep you listening. But...after around the halfway point, it all gets a little tedious. I think what it boils down to is a case of what works on stage doesn't necessarily translate as well on film. Eventually, I found myself wondering, why the hell do Alan and Nancy hang around, especially after all the copious vomiting...which, again, I thought was staged brilliantly. It turns out that all four of these characters are miserable, that their marriages are a sham, and the antisocial behavior exhibited by Zach and Ethan is really just a physical manifestation of the emotional and verbal violence the parents hurl at each other but manage to keep under wraps in public. It's a rather thin premise than becomes rather threadbare by the end, especially when the Scotch is poured and tongues are loosened by the alcohol.

However, as an ensemble piece with some pretty terrific moments, "Carnage" worked for me. I thoroughly enjoyed it even as I didn't particularly buy into it. Christoph Waltz gives a standout performance that is nicely matched by his male counterpart in John C. Reilly. The women fair less well. Kate Winslet is good, especially early on when she's trying to maintain an outward level of calm and decency despite a violent case of nausea, but I found her less interesting as the film went on. I appreciated what Jodie Foster was trying to achieve with her character but she was just too shrill and hysterical from the onset for me to really find her all that compelling.

In the end, what's obvious is bullies are bullies no matter their age and we don't really change or mature all that much as we grow older. We just become more pathetic.

Ciao.

Saturday Book Review: "Justine" by Lawrence Durrell

Hi everyone!

This week's book is "Justine," the first volume of British writer Lawrence Durrell's classic The Alexandria Quartet. First published in 1957, "Justine" and its companion novels have acquired somewhat of a cult following over the years.

On the surface, the book tells the story of a quartet of lovers in Alexandria, Egypt in the years immediately preceding the Second World War. On the one hand, we have Justine, an exotic Jewess with a vague but tragic past, married to Nessim, a handsome and vaguely mysterious Coptic Christian. On the other, we have Melissa, the consumptive cabaret dancer of Greek origin who falls in love with the Narrator, an Irish schoolteacher whose name we never learn and whose real identity remains a cipher. Through a series of betrayals and adulterous liaisons intermixed with rhapsodic descriptions of the Levant and the seething, vaguely menacing and hyper-sexualized atmosphere of Alexandria in the 1930s, the reader isn't presented so much with a traditional story, but with a series of gauzy perceptions and stunning imagery, philosophical dispositions on the nature of love, sex, marriage, and the Kabbalah, and an intricacy of puzzle pieces that, by novel's end, really don't quite all fit together.

This last point, however, is by no means a criticism. We get the sense as we turn the last page that the Narrator has deliberately kept certain truths concealed--perhaps out of ignorance himself (which calls to mind the age-old question about the reliability of first-person narratives) or from the mere fact that these characters--Justine, Nessim, Melissa, and the Narrator--in addition to the studied and colorful supporting cast, are simply unknowable...to the Narrator, to the reader, and to themselves.

Of course this is the first in a series. The second novel, "Balthazar," is purported to be told from the perspective of one of "Justine's" peripheral characters. I haven't read it yet, but will report back soon.

What I found so captivating about this novel is Mr. Durrell's writing. His sentences exude an erotic languor that sucks the reader in with an almost hypnotic power. Each word feels meticulously and perfectly chosen. While the novel is relatively brief at 250 pages, the narrative scope is epic while still being quietly intimate. A case in point, describing the tortured agony of Nessim's almost obsessive love for his wife Justine, a woman seemingly incapable of being faithful to him:

Of course this is the unhappiest love-relationship of which a human being is capable--weighed down by something as heartbreaking as the post-coital sadness which clings to every endearment, which lingers like a sediment in the clear waters of a kiss.

The novel is comprised of many such beautifully-rendered passages. While occasionally the beauty of the prose veers a little too much towards the poetic, I found myself going back and rereading whole sections not because I wasn't understanding it (though I'll admit there were a few instances that had me scratching my head in perplexity) but for the sheer joy of hearing and reading Durrell's descriptions out loud.

"Justine" is a novel to be savored and read at leisure. It presents for the reader a sepia-toned picture postcard of an exotic time and place that hints at the darkness and corruption of a pre-Arab Spring Egypt, though an argument can be made that things haven't changed all that much today.  The menace is there, but it is the beauty that shines through.

Ciao.

"Have a nice day, buddy."

Hi everyone!

I'm sure by now you've probably read about or seen footage of the video posted on YouTube the other day of the American marines urinating on three dead insurgents in Afghanistan, one of whom is heard on the video saying: "Have a nice day, buddy." The video was most likely taken some time last spring or summer in Helmand Province. No one knows for sure who took the video or posted it online, but investigators have identified the marines as part of the Third Battalion, Second Marines, who have since returned to their base in Camp Lejeune, N.C. or have been posted elsewhere.

While it would be unfair of me to categorically condemn the U.S. Marines for the actions of a few individuals, I think it does betray a certain lack of sensitivity training on the part of the U.S. armed forces. This latest incident does not a exist in a vacuum. Over the past ten years of war--both in Afghanistan and Iraq--we have unfortunately born witness to a series of acts by our servicemen and women that not only push the boundaries of decent humanity, but thoroughly undermine the so-called good those men and women are there to perform.

Not since the horrendous abuses documented at Abu Ghraib has there been such an outcry against the behaviors of our forces fighting overseas. While there is something to be said for the adverse psychological effects of warfare--the extent of which I can only surmise--what this video and similar occurrences calls into question is not an issue of combat stress but basic dignity and humanity. Ever since the U.S. and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and then Iraq in March 2003, we have been waging not only a more-or-less traditional war on the ground, but a war for the hearts and minds of the people most affected by our presence there: native Afghans and Iraqis, both of whom were already sensitive to the negative perceptions the world has had of Islam, especially since 9/11.

Again, I cannot possibly imagine what it must be like to lose a close friend or acquaintance to an IED or a sniper's bullet, nor can I say that I wouldn't be driven a little crazy by the unrelenting stress and fear that these men and women have to contend with on a minute-to-minute basis. Still, have these people lost all sense of right and wrong? Do they not inherently know that pissing on the corpses of enemy combatants is not something to be taken lightly, that it offends human sensibility, not to mention that it goes against internationally agreed-upon protocol for the humane treatment of war dead and prisoners? I was interested to read that if caught, the perpetrators of this latest act could be convicted as war criminals.

I realize that the argument can be made that the "enemy" has committed acts of horrific violence against   not only our troops but civilians--who can forget the video of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's beheading in 2002 at the hands of al-Qaeda--but we are not supposed to be upholding the tenet of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If we do, this makes us no better from a moral standpoint than those against whom we are at war. If anything, it undermines our purpose over there. It gives the Taliban and the Islamic insurgency-at-large further ammunition against us, which is the last thing we need.

I don't believe the War on Terror will ever truly be won. I do believe, however, that our servicemen and women should be upholding the values upon which the U.S. and other Western democracies are founded. If we lose sight of our humanity, then the war truly is lost.

"Have a nice day, buddy" ... indeed.

Ciao.

Love and Joy and Happiness: A Song to Make You Smile While Syria Burns and Sanctions Cripple

Hi everyone!

First of all, I hope you enjoyed the music video I posted last night. "Smile" is a new song and collaboration between two of world music's biggest stars: Tamer Hosny, the Egyptian pop singer who is about to embark on a tour of the U.S. and Canada next month, and Shaggy, the critically-acclaimed reggae singer. I got turned on to Mr. Hosny's music after reading Robin Wright's book "Rock the Casbah" about the origins of the protest movements that have resulted in the Arab Spring. Mr. Hosny's been criticized by some within the Arab world for not initially embracing the protest movement but then making a point of being in support of it, staging appearances in Tahrir Square, etc. Regardless, his music is poppy and infectious, and frequently alternates between Arabic and English-language lyrics. It's dance music with a slightly exotic Middle-Eastern flair that's right at home in any club from Cairo to London to New York to Chicago. "Smile" is one of my favorites. Although the song is not available on iTunes yet, Mr. Hosny's extensive discography is. I encourage you to check it out if you haven't already done so.

Unfortunately, though of no surprise, world leaders in the news today aren't subscribing to the song's upbeat and positive mantra: "We share love and joy, love and joy and happiness." Yesterday saw Bashar al-Assad making his first public appearance in months, addressing tens of thousands of his supporters in Damascus's Umayyad Square. In the ten minute address, he reiterated his "iron hand" stance against the protesters and the increasingly violent insurgency, telling them "I belong to this street...I came here to draw from your strength." This is rather rich coming from a leader who rarely appeared before "his people" before and, to many critics, seemed to prefer to hide behind advisors and sycophants (and perhaps other family members) than take center stage.

It was yet another day of tragedy in the beleaguered nation as word came of the death of respected French journalist Gilles Jacquier. Mr. Jacquier was reportedly killed by an exploding shell as he reported on a pro-government rally in Homs. It is unclear whether the shell was fired by government troops or the insurgency, such is the rather confusing situation on the ground. Meanwhile, Anwar Abdel Malik quit the the Arab League observer mission, claiming on Al Jazeera that "the mission was a farce and the observers have been fooled. The regime orchestrated it and fabricated most of what we saw to stop the Arab League from taking action against the regime." This is what I--and many others--have been saying all along.  I'm starting to feel like a broken record where this whole issue is concerned. The Arab League observer report is due on January 19th. At this point, why bother? Assad is clearly unconcerned with anything the report might reveal, although the mission itself at least has a bit more credibility given the fact that Mr. Malik and others like him are finally coming out and saying they've seen atrocities first-hand. Syria is already under the crunch of sanctions as well as having lost its position on the League. Still Mr. Assad seems determined to keep his chin up and lead. Nothing short of direct foreign military intervention will stop him.

As for sanctions, I've always been kind of skeptical about their overall effectiveness. Look at Iran, for example. Recent reports say the economy has been severely affected by all the sanctions imposed upon it, yet Ahmedinejad and the ayatollahs seem just as determined--if not more than ever--to continue to subvert the West's desire that it end its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The only people who seem to suffer are everyday Iranians going about their lives. Sanctions only work if they incite the "street" to rise against their government in protest...that doesn't seem to be happening.

And I'm also skeptical of these targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, like the one that occurred yesterday. It is a well-known fact that Israel has been chomping at the bit to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities into the oblivion and that while the U.S. doesn't necessarily advocate military action, it probably doesn't disagree with it all too vociferously. Iran claims yesterday's assassination was the work of Israeli and American agents. Some Iran watchers have said it isn't completely out of the question that Tehran isn't responsible itself for these attacks given the fact that these scientists are pretty closely monitored and that it would be fairly difficult to successfully mount an operation against them. Who knows?

I agree that we don't want nuclear technology to fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. There needs to be some semblance of checks and balances here. But I hold to the belief that nations should be allowed at least some level of self-determination. Were the roles reversed, I don't think the U.S. would react kindly to another country dictating how it defends itself. As people, if we feel like we're coming under attack, our natural reaction is to defend ourselves. Countries and governments are no different.

Iran should continue to be closely monitored, but I don't advocate murder. We look with horror at events unfolding in places like Syria, where the ruling autocrats kill dissenters with abandon. How is the West any different when it assassinates foreign citizens who flout Western ideals and norms?

Agree or disagree with me, it does give food for thought. But in the meantime, I'm putting on my ear buds and listening to Mr. Hosny and Shaggy sing about "love and joy and happiness." If only it could be. We'd all be much better off.

Ciao.

"Smile" Official Music video Tamer Hosny Ft Shaggy H.Dكليب تامر حسني و ...

The 'Iron Hand' of Bashar al-Assad

Hi everyone!

Surprisingly, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave an address yesterday on Syrian state television, only the fourth such appearance he's made since the resistance struggle began last March. Not surprisingly, however, was the actual content of his message. If the free world--and the majority of the Syrian people--were hoping that Mr. Assad would boldly declare an end to the government crackdown and agree to Arab League demands that he withdraw his forces and end the daily massacre, they were sorely disappointed.

Mr. Assad did no such thing. In fact, his speech gave quite the opposite message. He reiterated his long-standing (and ludicrous) assertion that foreign elements were the ones responsible for inciting the uprising and that his troops were merely acting in defense of the realm. Moreover, he vowed to crush the rebellion with "an iron hand." And as for the Arab League-sponsored observers, Mr. Assad lumped them in with the supposed foreign rabble.

What does this tell us? Well, for one it further confirms the overall ineffectiveness of the Arab League mission. While Mr. Assad ridiculed them in his speech, he did say that the observers could stay in the country until the 19th, as scheduled. Secondly, Mr. Assad's address should serve as a wake-up call to the West and the Arab League, for that matter, that more needs to be done--and now--to protect the lives of the Syrian protesters, which I suspect comprise a majority of Syria's population.

Again, the West seems to be keeping to its "wait and see" approach. I've argued against this in previous columns, but it appears the powers-that-be are more concerned with not risking the ire of Russia or China than saving innocent men, women, and children from daily slaughter. Or perhaps some are still holding out hope that Mr. Assad will back down at the eleventh hour...not likely.

It seems Mr. Assad is under the misguided belief that he needs to evoke the ruthless behavior of his father who infamously put down an Islamic rebellion in Hama in 1982 that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of the Syrian military. Bashar has been viewed by many as a weak leader. He was educated in the West and spent four years in London studying to become an ophthalmologist. His older brother, Basil, was originally next in line to rule but his assassination thrust Bashar to the top position. Some say Bashar is beholden to another brother, Maher, who is currently commander-in-chief of the Republican Guard.

Regardless, to the outside world, for all intents and purposes, Bashar is the guy in charge. Doesn't he realize that the use of his "iron hand" will only doom him and his cronies to a fate that will ultimately prove as ignominious as that of Muammar Qadaffi, one of his former dictatorial peers? But perhaps not. Perhaps Bashar will be allowed to remain in power as the death toll mounts and the West merely looks the other way, not wanting to be accused of interfering in the internal affairs of another country that has nothing in particular to offer because it doesn't have oil? I hate to say this, but this response isn't all that out of the question.

Ciao.

Amir Mirzaei Hekmati--a Pawn on the Chessboard of U.S.-Iranian Relations

Hi everyone!

Yesterday, Iran sentenced and condemned to death a 28 year-old American citizen for spying for the CIA and being an "enemy of Islam." Amir Mirzaei Hekmati was apparently visiting family in Iran last fall when he was arrested. News of his arrest only came to light in December when a videotaped "confession" was broadcast on Iranian television. According to Iran, Mr. Hekmati admitted to being sent to Iran by the CIA to spy on the Intelligence Ministry. He has twenty days to register an appeal against the ruling.

This latest bit of madness marks the nadir in 33 years of contentious U.S.-Iran relations. It is not, however, the first time in recent history that Iran has detained and accused American citizens of espionage. Just last September it finally released two American hikers who had been accused of illegally entering Iran with the negative intent. In 2009, an Iranian-American journalist was also arrested but later freed after an international diplomatic uproar. Given this history, it is highly likely that Mr. Hekmati's arrest and sentencing is little more than Iran playing its usual game of brinkmanship as a means of lessening scrutiny on its suspected nuclear weapons program. In this most recent case, however, there is a twist.

Prior to visiting Iran, Mr. Hekmati acquired an Iranian passport as a means of easing his ability to travel to the country. He is, therefore, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen. The problem though is that Iran does not recognize dual citizenship. Therefore, in the eyes of Iran's judicial system, Mr. Hekmati is first and foremost a citizen of Iran and as such is to held accountable to Iranian law which would uphold the death sentence. Another possible strike against Mr. Hekmati is that from 2001 to 2005, he served in the U.S. Marine Corps and had active duty in Iraq as well as--though the Obama administration will not confirm this--in Afghanistan. From Iran's perspective then, this makes Mr. Hekmati somewhat of a jewel in their crown. They are less likely to suspend his sentence or to give in to international calls for his release.

Of course, it would serve absolutely no benefit to Iran were they to go ahead and execute him. Iran is increasingly a pariah state on the world stage, with very few allies outside of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and a small handful of Latin American autocrats propping it up. With sanctions crippling the Iranian economy and increasing threats of an embargo against Iranian oil exports, Iran has very few credible bargaining chips left to it. A threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping last week failed to materialize because such an action would have done more damage to the Iranian people than the foreign economies it was meant to target. It would seem then that Iran is grasping for anything that they feel boosts their position at the negotiating table.

But while Iran claims a desire to reopen talks with the U.S. and the West regarding the true motives behind its development of nuclear capabilities, it contradicts itself by announcing this week that it had begun to enrich uranium at a second location. The new site is reported to be deeply entrenched beneath a military installation, thus protecting it from U.S. or (more likely) an Israeli missile strike. So it's not really clear what Iran is playing at...but then Iran has always been rather opaque.

I would like to believe Mr. Hekmati is merely being used as pawn on the ever-shifting but deeply entrenched chessboard of US-Iranian relations, and that when the West refuses to make any concessions for his release, Iran will cede defeat and release him. This is just going on past history. But there is always the possibility for surprise. If Iran truly feels it is being backed into a corner and that it has no other option other than to lash out, there is a chance that Mr. Hekmati may not be saved. How this would serve Iranian aims in the long run is anyone's guess. But then, that seems to be what Ahmedinajad does best--keeping the world guessing and holding it off at arms'-length while it continues to "secretly" enrich its uranium.

Ciao.