Hi everyone!
So in a bid to prove his legitimacy, Bashar al-Assad held elections of a sort yesterday. The Syrian people voted on a referendum of changes to the government that Mr. Assad believes proves that he is indeed reform-minded. The referendum includes changes that are supposed to shift the monopolistic hold on power currently enjoyed by the ruling Baathist Party. For the first time, presidential term limits are being introduced. According to this referendum, the Syrian president is now limited to two terms at seven years a pop. Lest anyone think Mr. Assad is planning to cede power any time soon, these new term limits don't actually go into effect until 2014 which is when his current term expires. This means that Mr. Assad can potentially remain in power for another two terms. This is reform in name only.
As one might expect, voter turnout was high in Damascus and Aleppo, both of which are bastions of support for Assad. Meanwhile in the embattled city of Homs, the polls--understandably--weren't exactly teeming. Nor were they in other locations around the country despite the images and messages broadcast by Syrian state television that declared the vote was truly a step toward Syrian democracy.
I don't think anyone was fooled. As the votes trickled in, the bombs continued to blast Homs to mere rubble while the so-called Friends of Syria alliance tried to figure out how to bring Mr. Assad to the negotiating table without the support of Russia.
And speaking of Russia...
This morning it was announced that a major assassination plot against Vladimir Putin was foiled. The thing is, this isn't exactly breaking news as the plot was uncovered last month but was only made public today. Apparently it involved the rebel leader of Chechnya and suicide bombers set to disrupt the election process later this week. It isn't just the Syrians who are going to the polls. Vladimir Putin is set to win back the presidency on March 4th. The election, of course, is a mere formality. Of course, whether or not there really was plot against Mr. Putin's life is almost irrelevant. It's all in the timing. Reveal to the Russian public just days before an election that their leader successfully thwarted an assassination attempt, the people are supposed to believe that they need Putin's strength in the face of outside elements that are poised to attack the Russian heartland. Therefore, it's almost unpatriotic not to "vote" for him.
Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Syria and Russia: best friends forever. Both are corrupt. Both need the other to 'legitimize' their hold on power. Both see themselves as besieged by foreign aggressors who would dare to disrupt their delusional little fairy tales. Both hold elections (of a sort) that seek to prove they have the support of their people. As farcical as it seems, they're doing a fairly good job staving off the rest of the rational world. Hopefully, it'll only be a matter of time before the cracks really start to show.
Ciao.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Burning the Koran: How Ignorance is Costing Us the Peace in Afghanistan
Hi everyone!
As the United Nations tries to put out fires in Syria, this week saw a whole new conflagration erupt in Afghanistan...again. This time it isn't video of U.S. marines urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban and then joking about it, as if that wasn't bad enough. No, this time we've gone back to our old standard of burning the Holy Koran. When will we learn?
It doesn't matter if this desecration was performed out of malicious intent as we saw last year in the case of the "mock trial" officiated by Florida pastor Terry Jones or out of seeming ignorance as we witnessed this week at Bagram Air Force base in Kabul. Burning the Koran is not only the epitome of disrespect toward Muslims worldwide, but it's just plain stupid. And frankly it's this stupidity that is costing us the so-called "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people our forces are trying to win over.
American military personnel were clearing out a room in Bagram that contained books they claimed were filled with handwritten communication pertaining to terrorist strikes against coalition forces. Obviously they couldn't keep these around. These personnel also claimed that they had no idea that the books were copies of the Koran. As they were being tossed into an incinerator, a couple Afghan workers at the base noticed what these guys were doing and intervened. Word got out and understandably outraged Afghanis took to the streets in violent protest. This was on Monday.
Yesterday, President Obama issued a formal apology to the Afghan people which was accepted by Afghan President Hamid Karzai who expressed outrage at the offense but, realizing the last thing he or the Americans need is another outbreak of anti-American violence, urged his security forces to help maintain calm while calling for a swift trial for the offenders.
It's already too late. As of yesterday, seven Afghans were killed in the violence while an Afghan Army soldier attacked and killed two American servicemen. This is only the latest in a series of killings of coalition servicemen and women at the hands of their supposed allies in the Afghan Army. One such attack against French troops is what prompted Sarkozy to announce his early withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan this year.
After over ten years of war in this part of the world, you would think by now that we'd know better than to blatantly demonstrate our continued ignorance--or lack of consideration--of the Islamic faith. While killing of any nature is rarely justified, I can understand the rage that the Afghan people feel over yet another desecration of their religion at the hands of foreign occupiers. Our troops complain about not winning the fight in Afghanistan and the Muslim world, well, is it really so surprising? Without taking away from the courage and valor demonstrated by our men and women in the armed services, there seems to be a continued and demonstrated lack of knowledge about the countries and cultures to which they are being sent. Or perhaps it's just a lack of intelligence? Either way, it's no wonder the Taliban continue to be as powerful as they are.
And while I again don't believe we should be legitimizing an organization that indiscriminately stones women to death, bans music, and commits other unspeakable acts against its people in the name of religion, I can see how the Afghan people are angry, disillusioned, and fed up with the insults they and their religion are subjected to by our troops that after ten years still have not learned to respect their religion and their culture.
What a shame.
Ciao.
As the United Nations tries to put out fires in Syria, this week saw a whole new conflagration erupt in Afghanistan...again. This time it isn't video of U.S. marines urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban and then joking about it, as if that wasn't bad enough. No, this time we've gone back to our old standard of burning the Holy Koran. When will we learn?
It doesn't matter if this desecration was performed out of malicious intent as we saw last year in the case of the "mock trial" officiated by Florida pastor Terry Jones or out of seeming ignorance as we witnessed this week at Bagram Air Force base in Kabul. Burning the Koran is not only the epitome of disrespect toward Muslims worldwide, but it's just plain stupid. And frankly it's this stupidity that is costing us the so-called "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people our forces are trying to win over.
American military personnel were clearing out a room in Bagram that contained books they claimed were filled with handwritten communication pertaining to terrorist strikes against coalition forces. Obviously they couldn't keep these around. These personnel also claimed that they had no idea that the books were copies of the Koran. As they were being tossed into an incinerator, a couple Afghan workers at the base noticed what these guys were doing and intervened. Word got out and understandably outraged Afghanis took to the streets in violent protest. This was on Monday.
Yesterday, President Obama issued a formal apology to the Afghan people which was accepted by Afghan President Hamid Karzai who expressed outrage at the offense but, realizing the last thing he or the Americans need is another outbreak of anti-American violence, urged his security forces to help maintain calm while calling for a swift trial for the offenders.
It's already too late. As of yesterday, seven Afghans were killed in the violence while an Afghan Army soldier attacked and killed two American servicemen. This is only the latest in a series of killings of coalition servicemen and women at the hands of their supposed allies in the Afghan Army. One such attack against French troops is what prompted Sarkozy to announce his early withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan this year.
After over ten years of war in this part of the world, you would think by now that we'd know better than to blatantly demonstrate our continued ignorance--or lack of consideration--of the Islamic faith. While killing of any nature is rarely justified, I can understand the rage that the Afghan people feel over yet another desecration of their religion at the hands of foreign occupiers. Our troops complain about not winning the fight in Afghanistan and the Muslim world, well, is it really so surprising? Without taking away from the courage and valor demonstrated by our men and women in the armed services, there seems to be a continued and demonstrated lack of knowledge about the countries and cultures to which they are being sent. Or perhaps it's just a lack of intelligence? Either way, it's no wonder the Taliban continue to be as powerful as they are.
And while I again don't believe we should be legitimizing an organization that indiscriminately stones women to death, bans music, and commits other unspeakable acts against its people in the name of religion, I can see how the Afghan people are angry, disillusioned, and fed up with the insults they and their religion are subjected to by our troops that after ten years still have not learned to respect their religion and their culture.
What a shame.
Ciao.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Why the West Needs to Get Its Act Together About Syria
Hi everyone!
While I am certainly not a warmonger and I believe that the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a serious misstep in foreign policy that has thoroughly messed up the U.S. approach to the Middle East, it is unconscionable to allow the devastation that's occurring hourly in Syria to go on any longer. I understand the West's reluctance to intervene militarily as it comes so shortly after the debacle that was Iraq. However, as the U.S. and its European and Arab League allies continue to dither on whether or not to put forces on the ground in Syria or to, at the very least, arm the Syrian opposition, the massacre continues without any sign of Assad backing down or halting the violence of his own volition.
It's painfully obvious that anything less than overt aggression is not going to work. The world should have learned its lesson back in December when the well-intentioned Arab League observer mission crashed and burned. What was the result? Pro-Assad forces ramped up their bloody campaign and killed multitudes without batting an eye. The observers had their hands tied as they were under the constant supervision of Assad loyalists.
Then just last month we saw the the failure of the United Nation Security Council's resolution calling for Assad to transfer power to a vice president as a precursor to new elections. What happened then? Russia, China, and India vetoed the resolution because they were more concerned with preserving their business interests in Syria than saving lives. (And of course in the case of Russia, it didn't want to be seen condoning anything that reeked of regime change because its in the midst of its own contentious election drama.) As a result, Assad saw this as something akin to an endorsement for his brutality. Ever since, he's amplified his tactics by laying unrelenting siege to the city of Homs.
Last week the United Nations General Assembly put the same resolution to a vote. It passed but again without Russian support, the resolution was rendered more symbolic than anything. So now we have another meeting to talk about Syria scheduled for Friday in Tunis that brings together a new government body called the Friends of Syria. China hasn't said whether it's going to attend while Russia, not surprisingly, has said it wouldn't be sending any delegates. Instead, according to reports in today's New York Times, Russia has sent a couple war ships to its port in Tarsis, on the Syrian coast. There were reports yesterday that Iran had done something similar, but the veracity of this remains unproven.
So amidst all this international handwringing and committee-organizing, it appears that the opposition movement within Syria is becoming more and more splintered. Military experts and terrorism analysts claim that there's a strong possibility that al Qaeda has moved into Syria from Iraq and is fighting on behalf of the insurgency, which certainly makes the situation all the muddier. And all the while, men, women, and children who want nothing more than a better life and personal freedom are being slaughtered with impunity.
If we're not ready to put troops on the ground, we can be arming the opposition. We can put covert operatives within Damascus. We can (and should) be helping the Free Syrian Army come together in a cohesive and united form that stands a chance of effectively beating back the government forces. We also should be working with exiled Syrian political groups and politicians to build a platform upon which a new post-Assad government can be developed. It's not going to happen overnight as Assad does command strong loyalty among the armed forces, his Alawite clan, and the Christian minority. But we need to lay the foundation for a Syria without Assad. As I've written here before, we'd be killing two birds with one stone: 1) getting rid once and for all of another brutal dictator and 2) cutting off Iran's conduit both militarily and logistically to Hamas and Hezbollah, its proxy threats in the region.
The alternative? The genocide of an entire population, the continued strengthening of Iran, and yet another haven from which al Qaeda can export its hate and violence to the rest of the world.
You choose.
Ciao.
While I am certainly not a warmonger and I believe that the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a serious misstep in foreign policy that has thoroughly messed up the U.S. approach to the Middle East, it is unconscionable to allow the devastation that's occurring hourly in Syria to go on any longer. I understand the West's reluctance to intervene militarily as it comes so shortly after the debacle that was Iraq. However, as the U.S. and its European and Arab League allies continue to dither on whether or not to put forces on the ground in Syria or to, at the very least, arm the Syrian opposition, the massacre continues without any sign of Assad backing down or halting the violence of his own volition.
It's painfully obvious that anything less than overt aggression is not going to work. The world should have learned its lesson back in December when the well-intentioned Arab League observer mission crashed and burned. What was the result? Pro-Assad forces ramped up their bloody campaign and killed multitudes without batting an eye. The observers had their hands tied as they were under the constant supervision of Assad loyalists.
Then just last month we saw the the failure of the United Nation Security Council's resolution calling for Assad to transfer power to a vice president as a precursor to new elections. What happened then? Russia, China, and India vetoed the resolution because they were more concerned with preserving their business interests in Syria than saving lives. (And of course in the case of Russia, it didn't want to be seen condoning anything that reeked of regime change because its in the midst of its own contentious election drama.) As a result, Assad saw this as something akin to an endorsement for his brutality. Ever since, he's amplified his tactics by laying unrelenting siege to the city of Homs.
Last week the United Nations General Assembly put the same resolution to a vote. It passed but again without Russian support, the resolution was rendered more symbolic than anything. So now we have another meeting to talk about Syria scheduled for Friday in Tunis that brings together a new government body called the Friends of Syria. China hasn't said whether it's going to attend while Russia, not surprisingly, has said it wouldn't be sending any delegates. Instead, according to reports in today's New York Times, Russia has sent a couple war ships to its port in Tarsis, on the Syrian coast. There were reports yesterday that Iran had done something similar, but the veracity of this remains unproven.
So amidst all this international handwringing and committee-organizing, it appears that the opposition movement within Syria is becoming more and more splintered. Military experts and terrorism analysts claim that there's a strong possibility that al Qaeda has moved into Syria from Iraq and is fighting on behalf of the insurgency, which certainly makes the situation all the muddier. And all the while, men, women, and children who want nothing more than a better life and personal freedom are being slaughtered with impunity.
If we're not ready to put troops on the ground, we can be arming the opposition. We can put covert operatives within Damascus. We can (and should) be helping the Free Syrian Army come together in a cohesive and united form that stands a chance of effectively beating back the government forces. We also should be working with exiled Syrian political groups and politicians to build a platform upon which a new post-Assad government can be developed. It's not going to happen overnight as Assad does command strong loyalty among the armed forces, his Alawite clan, and the Christian minority. But we need to lay the foundation for a Syria without Assad. As I've written here before, we'd be killing two birds with one stone: 1) getting rid once and for all of another brutal dictator and 2) cutting off Iran's conduit both militarily and logistically to Hamas and Hezbollah, its proxy threats in the region.
The alternative? The genocide of an entire population, the continued strengthening of Iran, and yet another haven from which al Qaeda can export its hate and violence to the rest of the world.
You choose.
Ciao.
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Brotherhood and the Rise of Political Islam
Hi everyone!
For anyone interested in reading a concise overview of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its presence in the Middle East since its founding in Egypt in 1928, I suggest you pick up a copy of this week's The Economist. As is typical of its reportage, the article provides an in-depth though thoroughly readable discussion on how, in the ongoing wake of the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood and its confederates are determining the political direction of the entire Middle East.
Branches of the Brotherhood are present in almost every country in the Arab World. Surprisingly, they aren't necessarily as aligned as one might think. In Egypt's recent elections, the Brotherhood dominated the polls and now make up more than 50 percent of the new parliament. The same is true in Tunisia. In Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (a Brotherhood affiliate) comprises the political opposition and has been dominant in this role for decades. Over in Gaza, Hamas--otherwise known as the Islamic Resistance Movement--was born from a Brotherhood charity. In Iraq, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Yemen, offshoots of the Brotherhood have been influential in the respective parliaments of these countries. And although the Assad regime in Syria has banned its own Syrian Brotherhood, it has allowed Hamas to run its headquarters from Damascus much to the Syrian Brotherhood's chagrin, although this has changed of late as Hamas has moved out of the country in light of the Syrian uprising and Assad's bloody crackdown.
What the Arab Spring has done is given the Muslim Brotherhood--or Ikhwan as it known in Arabic--genuine political legitimacy. No longer is it a cultish underground organization kept under persecution by the ruling secular elite. As the recent democratic elections in Egypt and Tunisia have demonstrated, the majority of people want a solidly religious (and thereby moral) leadership. It's not really all that surprising when one considers the extent of corruption and graft that were inherent of these previous autocracies. And while the rise of political Islam may not be what the West has hoped for, the Brotherhood--at least for now--is being quite pragmatic in its approach to government.
In Egypt, for example, Brotherhood leaders have attended Coptic Christian religious ceremonies as proof that they support a religiously pluralistic landscape. They have also been vocal in their support of women taking a greater role in government, which has also been true in Tunisia and within Hamas. They have been criticized however for not being tough enough against SCAF, the military counsel that now dominates Egypt's transitional government, and have been accused of discouraging those who have protested for an immediate SCAF withdrawal. But again, this is pure pragmatism. What's important right now--as the Brotherhood has openly stated--is to get society back on track after a tumultuous year that has severely weakened the Egyptian economy and wrecked its tourism industry. It would seem the last thing on the Brotherhood's minds right now is extremist ideology, though of course that is always a concern.
Bottom line: it's simply still too early to determine whether the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East is going to prove an asset or a detriment to the economic and social development of these countries on the world stage. While the West certainly has some cause to be wary, the Brotherhood as it has evolved and will continue to evolve, is not al-Qaeda. It is remarkable that amid all the turmoil in the region over the past year, al-Qaeda has not been a dominant voice, although of late there has been concern that it has infiltrated the Syrian opposition movement. If we want democracy to blossom in the Arab World, we have to withhold judgement and allow things to develop organically, even if an Arab version of democracy does not always align with Western interests.
When you empower the people to speak, you have to listen to what they say. This does not mean you always have to agree. That's the spirit of true democracy.
Ciao.
For anyone interested in reading a concise overview of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its presence in the Middle East since its founding in Egypt in 1928, I suggest you pick up a copy of this week's The Economist. As is typical of its reportage, the article provides an in-depth though thoroughly readable discussion on how, in the ongoing wake of the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood and its confederates are determining the political direction of the entire Middle East.
Branches of the Brotherhood are present in almost every country in the Arab World. Surprisingly, they aren't necessarily as aligned as one might think. In Egypt's recent elections, the Brotherhood dominated the polls and now make up more than 50 percent of the new parliament. The same is true in Tunisia. In Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (a Brotherhood affiliate) comprises the political opposition and has been dominant in this role for decades. Over in Gaza, Hamas--otherwise known as the Islamic Resistance Movement--was born from a Brotherhood charity. In Iraq, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Yemen, offshoots of the Brotherhood have been influential in the respective parliaments of these countries. And although the Assad regime in Syria has banned its own Syrian Brotherhood, it has allowed Hamas to run its headquarters from Damascus much to the Syrian Brotherhood's chagrin, although this has changed of late as Hamas has moved out of the country in light of the Syrian uprising and Assad's bloody crackdown.
What the Arab Spring has done is given the Muslim Brotherhood--or Ikhwan as it known in Arabic--genuine political legitimacy. No longer is it a cultish underground organization kept under persecution by the ruling secular elite. As the recent democratic elections in Egypt and Tunisia have demonstrated, the majority of people want a solidly religious (and thereby moral) leadership. It's not really all that surprising when one considers the extent of corruption and graft that were inherent of these previous autocracies. And while the rise of political Islam may not be what the West has hoped for, the Brotherhood--at least for now--is being quite pragmatic in its approach to government.
In Egypt, for example, Brotherhood leaders have attended Coptic Christian religious ceremonies as proof that they support a religiously pluralistic landscape. They have also been vocal in their support of women taking a greater role in government, which has also been true in Tunisia and within Hamas. They have been criticized however for not being tough enough against SCAF, the military counsel that now dominates Egypt's transitional government, and have been accused of discouraging those who have protested for an immediate SCAF withdrawal. But again, this is pure pragmatism. What's important right now--as the Brotherhood has openly stated--is to get society back on track after a tumultuous year that has severely weakened the Egyptian economy and wrecked its tourism industry. It would seem the last thing on the Brotherhood's minds right now is extremist ideology, though of course that is always a concern.
Bottom line: it's simply still too early to determine whether the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East is going to prove an asset or a detriment to the economic and social development of these countries on the world stage. While the West certainly has some cause to be wary, the Brotherhood as it has evolved and will continue to evolve, is not al-Qaeda. It is remarkable that amid all the turmoil in the region over the past year, al-Qaeda has not been a dominant voice, although of late there has been concern that it has infiltrated the Syrian opposition movement. If we want democracy to blossom in the Arab World, we have to withhold judgement and allow things to develop organically, even if an Arab version of democracy does not always align with Western interests.
When you empower the people to speak, you have to listen to what they say. This does not mean you always have to agree. That's the spirit of true democracy.
Ciao.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Sunday Book Review: Revolution 2.0 by Wael Ghonim
Hi everyone!
If you're looking for a book that provides an effective first-hand account of the events leading up to the overthrow of Egypt's President Mubarak last year, then Wael Ghonim's just published memoir, "Revolution 2.0" is a strong bet.
Mr. Ghonim is the Google employee who more-or-less inadvertently became the face of Tahrir Square. What is extraordinary about his story is how he was able to harness the power of social media to bring together a revolutionary popular movement that succeeded in toppling Mubarak's entrenched regime in just eighteen days. Mr. Ghonim's activism was sparked when a friend of his sent him horrific photos of a young man named Khaled Said who was beaten to death by state security outside an Internet cafe in Alexandria, Egypt in the summer of 2010. The security officials planted a plastic bag of marijuana on Khaled's body and tried to convince the public that the young man had died of asphyxiation in an effort to swallow the drugs as a means of hiding them from the police. In actuality--as the photos attested--Khaled had been savagely beaten with his head bashed-in against a wall. This event prompted Mr. Ghonim to create a Facebook page in support of determining the truth about Khaled's death. He named this page "Kullena Khaled Said" or "We Are All Khaled Said."
The page grew by leaps and bounds in a remarkably short period of time, in part as the result of Mr. Ghonim's tireless rallying of supporters through Facebook and Twitter and his (and others like him) ability to tap into a growing sense within young Egyptians that the status quo could no longer hold. This evolved into January 25, 2011 -- Jan25 -- the opening salvo in an incredible popular (and peaceful) uprising that changed Egyptian history forever.
Mr. Ghonim's memoir is written at a breathless narrative pace that is hard to put down. His voice is determined and uncompromising, yet very humble at the same time. He takes pains throughout to emphasize the fact that he did not and does not see himself as the leader of the revolution. He was merely one man acting upon a deep-seated moral belief that decades of corruption and social injustice could no longer be tolerated. The more he witnesses, the deeper his conviction.
While his portrayal of his arrest and beating by state security after January 25 and his subsequent interrogations and psychological torture make for compelling reading, what I found most intriguing was how beautifully he articulates the power of social media in uniting millions of people on behalf of a justified cause. What makes his account so extraordinarily readable--not to mention downright inspiring--is the fact that he publishes dozens of actual excerpts of his Facebook messages and Tweets that put the reader right there in the middle of the action. You feel you are experiencing the revolution as it's happening which adds to the poignancy and our understanding of the scenes in Tahrir Square that we've all seen on television and on YouTube.
This ability to utilize social media for a greater common good is what gives the book its backbone and supports Mr. Ghonim's statement at the end of the book--as well as the book's subtitle--"The Power of the People is Greater Than the People In Power." This is a worthy notion to keep in mind as we continue to watch the ever-unfolding events in the Middle East, particularly Syria.
"Revolution 2.0" is more than a memoir. It's an important documentation of the first phase of a remarkable period in world history and an affirmation that all of us have a responsibility to work toward social justice--however great, however small--in each of our daily lives. The tools are there. We just need to use them.
Ciao.
If you're looking for a book that provides an effective first-hand account of the events leading up to the overthrow of Egypt's President Mubarak last year, then Wael Ghonim's just published memoir, "Revolution 2.0" is a strong bet.
Mr. Ghonim is the Google employee who more-or-less inadvertently became the face of Tahrir Square. What is extraordinary about his story is how he was able to harness the power of social media to bring together a revolutionary popular movement that succeeded in toppling Mubarak's entrenched regime in just eighteen days. Mr. Ghonim's activism was sparked when a friend of his sent him horrific photos of a young man named Khaled Said who was beaten to death by state security outside an Internet cafe in Alexandria, Egypt in the summer of 2010. The security officials planted a plastic bag of marijuana on Khaled's body and tried to convince the public that the young man had died of asphyxiation in an effort to swallow the drugs as a means of hiding them from the police. In actuality--as the photos attested--Khaled had been savagely beaten with his head bashed-in against a wall. This event prompted Mr. Ghonim to create a Facebook page in support of determining the truth about Khaled's death. He named this page "Kullena Khaled Said" or "We Are All Khaled Said."
The page grew by leaps and bounds in a remarkably short period of time, in part as the result of Mr. Ghonim's tireless rallying of supporters through Facebook and Twitter and his (and others like him) ability to tap into a growing sense within young Egyptians that the status quo could no longer hold. This evolved into January 25, 2011 -- Jan25 -- the opening salvo in an incredible popular (and peaceful) uprising that changed Egyptian history forever.
Mr. Ghonim's memoir is written at a breathless narrative pace that is hard to put down. His voice is determined and uncompromising, yet very humble at the same time. He takes pains throughout to emphasize the fact that he did not and does not see himself as the leader of the revolution. He was merely one man acting upon a deep-seated moral belief that decades of corruption and social injustice could no longer be tolerated. The more he witnesses, the deeper his conviction.
While his portrayal of his arrest and beating by state security after January 25 and his subsequent interrogations and psychological torture make for compelling reading, what I found most intriguing was how beautifully he articulates the power of social media in uniting millions of people on behalf of a justified cause. What makes his account so extraordinarily readable--not to mention downright inspiring--is the fact that he publishes dozens of actual excerpts of his Facebook messages and Tweets that put the reader right there in the middle of the action. You feel you are experiencing the revolution as it's happening which adds to the poignancy and our understanding of the scenes in Tahrir Square that we've all seen on television and on YouTube.
This ability to utilize social media for a greater common good is what gives the book its backbone and supports Mr. Ghonim's statement at the end of the book--as well as the book's subtitle--"The Power of the People is Greater Than the People In Power." This is a worthy notion to keep in mind as we continue to watch the ever-unfolding events in the Middle East, particularly Syria.
"Revolution 2.0" is more than a memoir. It's an important documentation of the first phase of a remarkable period in world history and an affirmation that all of us have a responsibility to work toward social justice--however great, however small--in each of our daily lives. The tools are there. We just need to use them.
Ciao.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Why Assad Needs to Be Stopped: Videos from Homs, Syria
Hi everyone!
While the world dithers on what to do with the ever-increasing violence in Syria--including a non-binding United Nations General Assembly resolution that passed yesterday 137-12 votes, with 17 abstentions--I've included here a series of videos that portray the situation in Homs, Syria as it appears on the ground. The videos are graphic but they should be a reminder that we cannot continue to allow Bashar al-Assad to kill his own people. It is simply inexcusable. Innocent children are dying and for what purpose?
Ciao.
While the world dithers on what to do with the ever-increasing violence in Syria--including a non-binding United Nations General Assembly resolution that passed yesterday 137-12 votes, with 17 abstentions--I've included here a series of videos that portray the situation in Homs, Syria as it appears on the ground. The videos are graphic but they should be a reminder that we cannot continue to allow Bashar al-Assad to kill his own people. It is simply inexcusable. Innocent children are dying and for what purpose?
Ciao.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
El Sistema--Keeping Kids Off the Streets through Classical Music
Hi everyone!
I wanted to focus on something positive today, something inspiring, something that proves that there is still humanity and good in the world despite daily headlines. That something good comes in the form of El Sistema.
For those of you who haven't heard of it, El Sistema is a Venezuelan-based program that aims to get thousands of Venezuelan children off the streets and into classical music. Schools across the country, though predominantly within the country's most poverty-stricken and crime-ridden neighborhoods, have set up these special after school programs from 2 until 6pm that teach kids how to play an instrument, how to sing, conduct, and even repair instruments themselves.
The program was founded in 1975 by Jose Antonio Abreu, a trained musician and economist. In the ensuing 37 years, El Sistema has enrolled 310,000 children (starting at preschool and continuing through high school) in 280 teaching venues--called nucleos. According to El Sistema's executive director, Eduardo Mendez, the program has launched some 500 orchestras across the country, including the world-renowned Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra.
While much deserved criticism has been aimed at Venezuela's populist president, Hugo Chavez, who faces a critical election later this year, credit should be given to a government that believes in the introduction of classical music to young people, especially those who might otherwise have fallen victim to drugs, prostitution, or other crimes that are so rife within Venezuelan society today. The Chavez government allots around $64 million a year to El Sistema whose goal is to touch the lives of 500,000 children by 2015.
One of El Sistema's most famous graduates is conductor Gustavo Dudamel. Mr. Dudamel--who is only thirty-one--is currently the music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic and is currently in Caracas with the Philharmonic to perform a complete cycle of Mahler's symphonies. While most of El Sistema's graduates do not necessarily go on to celebrated music careers, many return to the program as adults to teach and offer encouragement. As one adult graduate states, "Once you get touched by El Sistema, you will never leave El Sistema."
While researching the program online, I was pleased to discover that El Sistema's reach has extended beyond Venezuela with affiliate programs being established throughout the US and overseas. Click here to learn more about El Sistema and find out whether your community is within El Sistema's network: http://elsistemausa.org/.
That's the beauty of classical music. It can reach out and affect everyone, regardless of socioeconomics, nationality, or creed. Mr. Abreu, you do your country and educators throughout the world--whether musically-inclined or not--proud. Thank you!
Ciao.
I wanted to focus on something positive today, something inspiring, something that proves that there is still humanity and good in the world despite daily headlines. That something good comes in the form of El Sistema.
For those of you who haven't heard of it, El Sistema is a Venezuelan-based program that aims to get thousands of Venezuelan children off the streets and into classical music. Schools across the country, though predominantly within the country's most poverty-stricken and crime-ridden neighborhoods, have set up these special after school programs from 2 until 6pm that teach kids how to play an instrument, how to sing, conduct, and even repair instruments themselves.
The program was founded in 1975 by Jose Antonio Abreu, a trained musician and economist. In the ensuing 37 years, El Sistema has enrolled 310,000 children (starting at preschool and continuing through high school) in 280 teaching venues--called nucleos. According to El Sistema's executive director, Eduardo Mendez, the program has launched some 500 orchestras across the country, including the world-renowned Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra.
While much deserved criticism has been aimed at Venezuela's populist president, Hugo Chavez, who faces a critical election later this year, credit should be given to a government that believes in the introduction of classical music to young people, especially those who might otherwise have fallen victim to drugs, prostitution, or other crimes that are so rife within Venezuelan society today. The Chavez government allots around $64 million a year to El Sistema whose goal is to touch the lives of 500,000 children by 2015.
One of El Sistema's most famous graduates is conductor Gustavo Dudamel. Mr. Dudamel--who is only thirty-one--is currently the music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic and is currently in Caracas with the Philharmonic to perform a complete cycle of Mahler's symphonies. While most of El Sistema's graduates do not necessarily go on to celebrated music careers, many return to the program as adults to teach and offer encouragement. As one adult graduate states, "Once you get touched by El Sistema, you will never leave El Sistema."
While researching the program online, I was pleased to discover that El Sistema's reach has extended beyond Venezuela with affiliate programs being established throughout the US and overseas. Click here to learn more about El Sistema and find out whether your community is within El Sistema's network: http://elsistemausa.org/.
That's the beauty of classical music. It can reach out and affect everyone, regardless of socioeconomics, nationality, or creed. Mr. Abreu, you do your country and educators throughout the world--whether musically-inclined or not--proud. Thank you!
Ciao.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Bungled in Bangkok
Hi everyone!
Not for the first time I'm trying to get my head around just what the heck is going on with Iran. The past two days have seen terrorist attacks--albeit relatively minor--that bear all the signs of Iranian backing. On Monday, members of Israel's diplomatic community were targeted in both Delhi and Tbilisi. The attack in India was on a car carrying Tal Yehoshua-Koren, the wife of an Israeli diplomat on her way to pick up her children from school. Eyewitnesses said that an unidentified man on a motorcycle pulled up alongside her car and attached an explosive device to it before speeding off. In Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, explosives were discovered near the Israeli Embassy and safely neutralized before detonation.
Yesterday bore witness to a series of explosions in a residential neighborhood in Bangkok that led Thai authorities to uncover a collection of bombs and capture two men--both of whom identified as Iranian--trying to shoot and grenade their way to safety. A third man--also Iranian--tossed two hand grenades at a taxi that refused his fare, thereby blowing off his legs and injuring several passersby. One of the men was detained at the international airport while the other still remains at large.
Iran denied responsibility for Monday's attacks and remained conspicuously silent when questioned about yesterday's rather bungled efforts in Bangkok. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said there was no ambiguity whatsoever as to who was responsible for these terrorist actions: "The attempted terrorist attack in Bangkok proves once again that Iran and its proxies continue to perpetuate terrorism," he said.
Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Israel's public security minister, went further in his statement: "We know who carried out the terror attacks, we know who sent them, and Israel will settle the score with them."
So again I ask the question, what the heck is Iran doing?
It would seem that Iran is deliberately provoking Israel to follow through on its threat to bomb Iran's nuclear processing facilities. The question is why. There's little doubt that an Israeli military strike on Iran would deal a serious (though probably temporary) setback to Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations. Surely, Iran is cognizant of this. But does Iran possibly have something more nefarious up the ayatollahs' deep sleeves? This is an election year for Iran, the first since the widely disputed presidential election in 2009 that saw thousands of Iranians take to the streets in an aborted precursor of 2011's Arab Spring. Protesters took the the streets of Tehran yesterday in limited numbers and were largely unhindered by police, though there were reports of arrests and tear gas.
Could Iran be deliberately goading Israel into an attack that Ahmedinajad and the Ayatollahs could then use as a rallying cry to unite the Iranian people under the banner of patriotism and thereby deflect attention away from corruption at the polling centers come March? It's an interesting theory and one that Israel (and its allies in the West) should consider when weighing the pros and cons of targeted military retaliation.
It's like a game of chess between two masterful opponents. Who can out-strategize or dupe the other into a checkmate scenario? Hopefully, it won't be Iran.
Ciao.
Not for the first time I'm trying to get my head around just what the heck is going on with Iran. The past two days have seen terrorist attacks--albeit relatively minor--that bear all the signs of Iranian backing. On Monday, members of Israel's diplomatic community were targeted in both Delhi and Tbilisi. The attack in India was on a car carrying Tal Yehoshua-Koren, the wife of an Israeli diplomat on her way to pick up her children from school. Eyewitnesses said that an unidentified man on a motorcycle pulled up alongside her car and attached an explosive device to it before speeding off. In Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, explosives were discovered near the Israeli Embassy and safely neutralized before detonation.
Yesterday bore witness to a series of explosions in a residential neighborhood in Bangkok that led Thai authorities to uncover a collection of bombs and capture two men--both of whom identified as Iranian--trying to shoot and grenade their way to safety. A third man--also Iranian--tossed two hand grenades at a taxi that refused his fare, thereby blowing off his legs and injuring several passersby. One of the men was detained at the international airport while the other still remains at large.
Iran denied responsibility for Monday's attacks and remained conspicuously silent when questioned about yesterday's rather bungled efforts in Bangkok. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said there was no ambiguity whatsoever as to who was responsible for these terrorist actions: "The attempted terrorist attack in Bangkok proves once again that Iran and its proxies continue to perpetuate terrorism," he said.
Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Israel's public security minister, went further in his statement: "We know who carried out the terror attacks, we know who sent them, and Israel will settle the score with them."
So again I ask the question, what the heck is Iran doing?
It would seem that Iran is deliberately provoking Israel to follow through on its threat to bomb Iran's nuclear processing facilities. The question is why. There's little doubt that an Israeli military strike on Iran would deal a serious (though probably temporary) setback to Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations. Surely, Iran is cognizant of this. But does Iran possibly have something more nefarious up the ayatollahs' deep sleeves? This is an election year for Iran, the first since the widely disputed presidential election in 2009 that saw thousands of Iranians take to the streets in an aborted precursor of 2011's Arab Spring. Protesters took the the streets of Tehran yesterday in limited numbers and were largely unhindered by police, though there were reports of arrests and tear gas.
Could Iran be deliberately goading Israel into an attack that Ahmedinajad and the Ayatollahs could then use as a rallying cry to unite the Iranian people under the banner of patriotism and thereby deflect attention away from corruption at the polling centers come March? It's an interesting theory and one that Israel (and its allies in the West) should consider when weighing the pros and cons of targeted military retaliation.
It's like a game of chess between two masterful opponents. Who can out-strategize or dupe the other into a checkmate scenario? Hopefully, it won't be Iran.
Ciao.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Apple: Rotten to the Core? Part II
Hi everyone!
So yesterday Apple announced that it had hired the Fair Labor Association to audit working conditions in its manufacturing plants overseas, predominantly in China. This is after several scathing reports were published last month--including this blog--that sought to highlight how Apple was cutting corners when it came to worker benefits and safety as a means of getting mass production for the lowest cost.
As the New York Times reiterates today, 137 workers at an Apple parts supplier in China were injured last year as the result of being told to use a hazardous chemical to clean iPhone screens before said iPhones were shipped out for sale. Also last year, four factory workers were killed and 77 injured in two explosions at iPad factories. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
Apple's chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, said that the Fair Labor Association (F.L.A.) had already begun inspecting Foxconn factories in Shenzhen and Chengdu. "We believe that workers everywhere have the right to a safe and fair work environment," Mr. Cook stated, "which is why we've asked the F.L.A. to independently assess the performance of our largest suppliers."
This is all well and good and I am pleased that Apple, whose products I use, respect, and swear by, is taking measures to correct the slave labor conditions at some of these factories. It is definitely a step in the right direction. However, calling the F.L.A. an independent monitoring group is a bit of a misnomer since it receives at least some of its funding from the corporations that hire it to audit their manufacturers and parts suppliers. One of F.L.A.'s biggest clients, heretofore, has been Nike who itself has a rather checkered past when it comes to making sure its workers are properly compensated. According to reports, the F.L.A. did have a positive effect on making sure that Nike's overseas suppliers were adhering to safety standards and ethical practices. However, an Indonesian supplier--PT Nikomas--was asked to pay $950,000 in unpaid wages for 600,000 hours of overtime that were due to some 4,500 workers over the course of two years. This apparently came to light after the F.L.A. had concluded their initial audit. The obvious risk here is that when an auditing organization is being paid by a corporation to monitor its facilities, the organization--F.L.A. in this case--is going to be pressured to give the corporation a high rating, perhaps overlooking certain things (like $950,000 in back overtime pay) in order to receive its paycheck.
Perhaps I'm just nitpicking, but I do think that a company like Apple with a record market value of $469 billion can afford the inconvenience of not only making sure its overseas suppliers work in safe 21st century-modern facilities, but also paying its employees the overtime they are due.
Ciao.
So yesterday Apple announced that it had hired the Fair Labor Association to audit working conditions in its manufacturing plants overseas, predominantly in China. This is after several scathing reports were published last month--including this blog--that sought to highlight how Apple was cutting corners when it came to worker benefits and safety as a means of getting mass production for the lowest cost.
As the New York Times reiterates today, 137 workers at an Apple parts supplier in China were injured last year as the result of being told to use a hazardous chemical to clean iPhone screens before said iPhones were shipped out for sale. Also last year, four factory workers were killed and 77 injured in two explosions at iPad factories. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
Apple's chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, said that the Fair Labor Association (F.L.A.) had already begun inspecting Foxconn factories in Shenzhen and Chengdu. "We believe that workers everywhere have the right to a safe and fair work environment," Mr. Cook stated, "which is why we've asked the F.L.A. to independently assess the performance of our largest suppliers."
This is all well and good and I am pleased that Apple, whose products I use, respect, and swear by, is taking measures to correct the slave labor conditions at some of these factories. It is definitely a step in the right direction. However, calling the F.L.A. an independent monitoring group is a bit of a misnomer since it receives at least some of its funding from the corporations that hire it to audit their manufacturers and parts suppliers. One of F.L.A.'s biggest clients, heretofore, has been Nike who itself has a rather checkered past when it comes to making sure its workers are properly compensated. According to reports, the F.L.A. did have a positive effect on making sure that Nike's overseas suppliers were adhering to safety standards and ethical practices. However, an Indonesian supplier--PT Nikomas--was asked to pay $950,000 in unpaid wages for 600,000 hours of overtime that were due to some 4,500 workers over the course of two years. This apparently came to light after the F.L.A. had concluded their initial audit. The obvious risk here is that when an auditing organization is being paid by a corporation to monitor its facilities, the organization--F.L.A. in this case--is going to be pressured to give the corporation a high rating, perhaps overlooking certain things (like $950,000 in back overtime pay) in order to receive its paycheck.
Perhaps I'm just nitpicking, but I do think that a company like Apple with a record market value of $469 billion can afford the inconvenience of not only making sure its overseas suppliers work in safe 21st century-modern facilities, but also paying its employees the overtime they are due.
Ciao.
Monday, February 13, 2012
An Appeal to Help Save Afghanistan's Starving and Cold Refugee Children
Hi everyone!
I want to bring your attention to a situation in Afghanistan that can use everyone's help. Over the past several weeks there have been confirmed reports that at least 28 children have died of hunger and cold in a string of refugee camps in and around Kabul. Afghanistan is in the midst of one of the coldest and snowiest winters in its recent history. Temperatures have consistently fallen below 5 degrees Fahrenheit with no warm-up predicted for several more days. People living in these camps have inadequate housing, clothing, food, and fuel. And for reasons that no one has really been able explain the plight of these refugees has long been neglected until now. The story was brought to light last week in a New York Times article that profiled a refugee named Sayyid Mohammad who has recently lost eight of his nine children to the cold. Since the article ran, Mr. Mohammad was visited by officials sent from President Karzai who pledged official assistance and an audience with the president. An audience with Mr. Karzai is all well and good, but unless promises turn into deeds, the situation won't improve and more young lives will be lost.
Thankfully, donations are starting to pour in from all over the world. I've listed below several relief organizations and their websites that are actively working to alleviate the tragic situation in Afghanistan's refugee camps. We're already behind the eight-ball but it's never too late to make a contribution.
Lamia Afghan Foundation
http://www.lamia-afghanfoundation.org
Save the Children
http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.6150517/k.8737/Afghanistan.htm
World Food Programme
http://www.wfp.org/countries/afghanistan
Afghan Red Crescent Society
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/where-we-work/asia-pacific/afghan-red-crescent-society/
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
http://www.unocha.org
Ciao.
I want to bring your attention to a situation in Afghanistan that can use everyone's help. Over the past several weeks there have been confirmed reports that at least 28 children have died of hunger and cold in a string of refugee camps in and around Kabul. Afghanistan is in the midst of one of the coldest and snowiest winters in its recent history. Temperatures have consistently fallen below 5 degrees Fahrenheit with no warm-up predicted for several more days. People living in these camps have inadequate housing, clothing, food, and fuel. And for reasons that no one has really been able explain the plight of these refugees has long been neglected until now. The story was brought to light last week in a New York Times article that profiled a refugee named Sayyid Mohammad who has recently lost eight of his nine children to the cold. Since the article ran, Mr. Mohammad was visited by officials sent from President Karzai who pledged official assistance and an audience with the president. An audience with Mr. Karzai is all well and good, but unless promises turn into deeds, the situation won't improve and more young lives will be lost.
Thankfully, donations are starting to pour in from all over the world. I've listed below several relief organizations and their websites that are actively working to alleviate the tragic situation in Afghanistan's refugee camps. We're already behind the eight-ball but it's never too late to make a contribution.
Lamia Afghan Foundation
http://www.lamia-afghanfoundation.org
Save the Children
http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.6150517/k.8737/Afghanistan.htm
World Food Programme
http://www.wfp.org/countries/afghanistan
Afghan Red Crescent Society
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/where-we-work/asia-pacific/afghan-red-crescent-society/
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
http://www.unocha.org
Ciao.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Ten Best Films of 2011
Hi everyone!
Okay, so here's my list from 1 to 10 of the Ten Best Films of 2011:
1. The Artist
I kept putting off going to see this for no other reason than the thought of sitting through a black-and-white silent movie just didn't appeal to me. But I knew that I'd regret not seeing it before the Oscars. So I bit the bullet and went to see it this morning. I'm so happy I did. Not to sound trite, but "The Artist" is one of those films that just makes you fall in love with going to the movies all over again. From the opening shot to the final tap dance sequence, this movie is a valentine for all people who care about movies. The two French lead actors, Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo (both of whom are big stars in France), are a joy to behold and what's incredible about their performances is that somehow watching them act without audible dialogue is a testament to their skill as actors. Mr. Dujardin, in my opinion, gives the best performance of the year for an actor in a leading role. I'll be interested to see what the Academy says in a couple weeks.
2. A Separation
This Iranian film was my number one pick until I saw "The Artist." "A Separation" is a beautifully understated film about life, family, relationships, and religion in a country that many in the West have come to consider the world's greatest threat to peace. There are so many nuances and layers to the storytelling that it begs a second viewing. You find yourself throughout the film questioning the characters' motives and in so doing may even discover surprising things about yourself and about your perceptions of truth and justice.
3. Melancholia
Lars Von Trier's Cannes Film Festival Award Winner is unlike any film you'll see this year or any year, for that matter. Deeply disturbing yet not without it's moments of black humor, "Melancholia" tells the story of a manic depressive young bride, played with wit and genuine pathos by Kirsten Dunst; her severe and overprotective sister, played by Charlotte Rampling; and her sister's intense stargazing husband, a fine Kiefer Sutherland, who fearfully await the apocalypse. The ten-minute opening montage, set to Wagner's 'Liebestod' from "Tristan und Isolde" is a tour de force of foreshadowing that nearly stops the film in its tracks before it really gets going. This is one of those films that at times you may want to switch off but at the same time you feel strangely compelled to keep watching. The pay-off is spectacular. Of any film I saw in 2011, "Melancholia" is the one that--from an emotional standpoint--stays with you long after the final credits have rolled. It'll shake you up.
4. The Flowers of War
I said a few weeks ago this was my pick for the best film of 2011. That may have been a little premature yet from a purely cinematic perspective, it's still worthy of a top place on this list. Chinese film director Zhang Yimou paints an epic canvas with both broad and finely etched brush strokes, telling the story of a down-and-out American, played by Christian Bale, who finds himself in the unlikely position of protecting a group of young Chinese convent schoolgirls and a gang of local prostitutes from the brutality of the Japanese attack on Nanjing, otherwise known as the Rape of Nanking, in 1937. The violence of war is visceral but an unmistakable humanity shines through that is both stirring and devastating. This is epic filmmaking at its finest.
5. Shame
Michael Fassbender gives a brilliant and tortured performance as a young New York sex addict whose addiction comes at the price of terrible tragedy. While this is Mr. Fassbender's film, I found myself gravitating most to Carey Mulligan as his troubled younger sister, a nightclub singer who wants nothing more than the love and approval of her brother. Visually arresting and definitely not for the faint of heart, "Shame" packs an emotional wallop you don't see coming and leaves you gasping for breath as you leave the theater. In my opinion, both Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan were robbed of Oscar nominations for their performances here.
6. Circumstance
Another Iranian film though for political reasons, unlike "A Separation," this was filmed in Beirut. At the center of this film is an unconventional love triangle between two high school girls in Tehran and the troubled religiously conservative older brother of one of them. "Circumstance" shows a different, and perhaps more overtly critical side of Iran, set in the upper class neighborhoods of Tehran amid the backdrop of a Western subculture rife with clubs, fast cars, drugs, and alcohol. Stunningly photographed with richly understated performances by each of its three young lead actors, "Circumstance" serves as a worthy book-end to "A Separation" in that it brings life and humanity to a surprisingly sophisticated society we in the West struggle to understand.
7. Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen's latest is a lovely confection of a film and an endearing tribute to Paris both past and present. Owen Wilson does a wonderful job capturing the neurotic charm of a role that, in his younger days, would have been played by Woody Allen. The film makes you long to go back in time, re-read the works of Fitzgerald and Hemingway, spend an afternoon in the Louvre admiring Picasso, and finish the night drinking absinthe with the likes of Luis Bunuel and Toulouse-Latrec. From a purely nostalgic sensibility, "Midnight in Paris" is magic.
8. Tree of Life
Reclusive director Terrence Malik's film about life, global warming, and growing up in the 1950s, among other things, is unlike any other film I saw in 2011. I hated it at first but slowly as successive images arrested my attention, I found myself unable to look away from the screen. Brad Pitt gives, in my opinion, the best performance of his career here though admittedly it's difficult to rate because this isn't a film so much about acting or linear storytelling but more about impressions and memory. It is another film that warrants a second or third viewing--which I have yet to do--because there's deep complexity here that doesn't immediately jump out at you...at least I think there's complexity. In some respects, "Tree of Life" is a cinematic riddle, a puzzle that requires careful attention, a meditation on what it means to be alive. Again, not a film for everyone but worthy of consideration.
9. Delhi Belly
Shifting from the sublime to the ridiculous, the Hindi gross-out comedy "Delhi Belly" is, as I wrote in my review here a couple weeks ago, the most obnoxious and flat-out funniest film I saw all year. A Hin-glish cross of "The Hangover" and "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" with a little "Shaft" thrown in at the end for no apparent reason, this film had me in stitches from the very first minute and didn't let up until the very end. Young Bollywood heart-throb Imran Khan (not the Pakistani cricket player) leads an ensemble cast through 90 action-packed minutes of diamond heists, diarrhea, shoot-em-up action sequences, more diarrhea, and an end credits musical number starring great Hindi actor, producer, and Imran's uncle, Aamir Khan, that wouldn't be out of place in "Cleopatra Jones." I loved it though I think I'll think twice about ordering Tandoori Chicken.
10. W.E.
Madonna's labor of love about the romance between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson is by no means a perfect film. The narrative is a little muddied from time to time and the filmmaking itself suffers from occasional lapses into film school self-consciousness. Yet, despite its faults, "W.E." is an achingly gorgeous and romantic film that is very deserving of a place on this list. British actress Andrea Riseborough gives a captivating performance as Mrs. Simpson. You simply cannot take your eyes off of her when she's onscreen. It's a shame that Ms. Riseborough was overlooked by the Academy because I believe hers is one of the great screen performances of 2011. The film did receive an Oscar nomination for Best Costume Design and Madonna's song "Masterpiece" that plays over the end credits won the Golden Globe for Best Song last month. Having directed and co-written the screenplay, "W.E." shows that Madonna has the talent and the potential to be a true cinema auteur. As I said in my review a couple days ago, "W.E." is my pick for the most visually beautiful film of 2011.
Ciao.
Okay, so here's my list from 1 to 10 of the Ten Best Films of 2011:
1. The Artist
I kept putting off going to see this for no other reason than the thought of sitting through a black-and-white silent movie just didn't appeal to me. But I knew that I'd regret not seeing it before the Oscars. So I bit the bullet and went to see it this morning. I'm so happy I did. Not to sound trite, but "The Artist" is one of those films that just makes you fall in love with going to the movies all over again. From the opening shot to the final tap dance sequence, this movie is a valentine for all people who care about movies. The two French lead actors, Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo (both of whom are big stars in France), are a joy to behold and what's incredible about their performances is that somehow watching them act without audible dialogue is a testament to their skill as actors. Mr. Dujardin, in my opinion, gives the best performance of the year for an actor in a leading role. I'll be interested to see what the Academy says in a couple weeks.
2. A Separation
This Iranian film was my number one pick until I saw "The Artist." "A Separation" is a beautifully understated film about life, family, relationships, and religion in a country that many in the West have come to consider the world's greatest threat to peace. There are so many nuances and layers to the storytelling that it begs a second viewing. You find yourself throughout the film questioning the characters' motives and in so doing may even discover surprising things about yourself and about your perceptions of truth and justice.
3. Melancholia
Lars Von Trier's Cannes Film Festival Award Winner is unlike any film you'll see this year or any year, for that matter. Deeply disturbing yet not without it's moments of black humor, "Melancholia" tells the story of a manic depressive young bride, played with wit and genuine pathos by Kirsten Dunst; her severe and overprotective sister, played by Charlotte Rampling; and her sister's intense stargazing husband, a fine Kiefer Sutherland, who fearfully await the apocalypse. The ten-minute opening montage, set to Wagner's 'Liebestod' from "Tristan und Isolde" is a tour de force of foreshadowing that nearly stops the film in its tracks before it really gets going. This is one of those films that at times you may want to switch off but at the same time you feel strangely compelled to keep watching. The pay-off is spectacular. Of any film I saw in 2011, "Melancholia" is the one that--from an emotional standpoint--stays with you long after the final credits have rolled. It'll shake you up.
4. The Flowers of War
I said a few weeks ago this was my pick for the best film of 2011. That may have been a little premature yet from a purely cinematic perspective, it's still worthy of a top place on this list. Chinese film director Zhang Yimou paints an epic canvas with both broad and finely etched brush strokes, telling the story of a down-and-out American, played by Christian Bale, who finds himself in the unlikely position of protecting a group of young Chinese convent schoolgirls and a gang of local prostitutes from the brutality of the Japanese attack on Nanjing, otherwise known as the Rape of Nanking, in 1937. The violence of war is visceral but an unmistakable humanity shines through that is both stirring and devastating. This is epic filmmaking at its finest.
5. Shame
Michael Fassbender gives a brilliant and tortured performance as a young New York sex addict whose addiction comes at the price of terrible tragedy. While this is Mr. Fassbender's film, I found myself gravitating most to Carey Mulligan as his troubled younger sister, a nightclub singer who wants nothing more than the love and approval of her brother. Visually arresting and definitely not for the faint of heart, "Shame" packs an emotional wallop you don't see coming and leaves you gasping for breath as you leave the theater. In my opinion, both Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan were robbed of Oscar nominations for their performances here.
6. Circumstance
Another Iranian film though for political reasons, unlike "A Separation," this was filmed in Beirut. At the center of this film is an unconventional love triangle between two high school girls in Tehran and the troubled religiously conservative older brother of one of them. "Circumstance" shows a different, and perhaps more overtly critical side of Iran, set in the upper class neighborhoods of Tehran amid the backdrop of a Western subculture rife with clubs, fast cars, drugs, and alcohol. Stunningly photographed with richly understated performances by each of its three young lead actors, "Circumstance" serves as a worthy book-end to "A Separation" in that it brings life and humanity to a surprisingly sophisticated society we in the West struggle to understand.
7. Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen's latest is a lovely confection of a film and an endearing tribute to Paris both past and present. Owen Wilson does a wonderful job capturing the neurotic charm of a role that, in his younger days, would have been played by Woody Allen. The film makes you long to go back in time, re-read the works of Fitzgerald and Hemingway, spend an afternoon in the Louvre admiring Picasso, and finish the night drinking absinthe with the likes of Luis Bunuel and Toulouse-Latrec. From a purely nostalgic sensibility, "Midnight in Paris" is magic.
8. Tree of Life
Reclusive director Terrence Malik's film about life, global warming, and growing up in the 1950s, among other things, is unlike any other film I saw in 2011. I hated it at first but slowly as successive images arrested my attention, I found myself unable to look away from the screen. Brad Pitt gives, in my opinion, the best performance of his career here though admittedly it's difficult to rate because this isn't a film so much about acting or linear storytelling but more about impressions and memory. It is another film that warrants a second or third viewing--which I have yet to do--because there's deep complexity here that doesn't immediately jump out at you...at least I think there's complexity. In some respects, "Tree of Life" is a cinematic riddle, a puzzle that requires careful attention, a meditation on what it means to be alive. Again, not a film for everyone but worthy of consideration.
9. Delhi Belly
Shifting from the sublime to the ridiculous, the Hindi gross-out comedy "Delhi Belly" is, as I wrote in my review here a couple weeks ago, the most obnoxious and flat-out funniest film I saw all year. A Hin-glish cross of "The Hangover" and "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" with a little "Shaft" thrown in at the end for no apparent reason, this film had me in stitches from the very first minute and didn't let up until the very end. Young Bollywood heart-throb Imran Khan (not the Pakistani cricket player) leads an ensemble cast through 90 action-packed minutes of diamond heists, diarrhea, shoot-em-up action sequences, more diarrhea, and an end credits musical number starring great Hindi actor, producer, and Imran's uncle, Aamir Khan, that wouldn't be out of place in "Cleopatra Jones." I loved it though I think I'll think twice about ordering Tandoori Chicken.
10. W.E.
Madonna's labor of love about the romance between King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson is by no means a perfect film. The narrative is a little muddied from time to time and the filmmaking itself suffers from occasional lapses into film school self-consciousness. Yet, despite its faults, "W.E." is an achingly gorgeous and romantic film that is very deserving of a place on this list. British actress Andrea Riseborough gives a captivating performance as Mrs. Simpson. You simply cannot take your eyes off of her when she's onscreen. It's a shame that Ms. Riseborough was overlooked by the Academy because I believe hers is one of the great screen performances of 2011. The film did receive an Oscar nomination for Best Costume Design and Madonna's song "Masterpiece" that plays over the end credits won the Golden Globe for Best Song last month. Having directed and co-written the screenplay, "W.E." shows that Madonna has the talent and the potential to be a true cinema auteur. As I said in my review a couple days ago, "W.E." is my pick for the most visually beautiful film of 2011.
Ciao.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Al Qaeda in Syria
Hi everyone!
The woes continue in Syria. Yesterday witnessed the dual car bombings of two security buildings in Syria's largest city, Aleppo, that until now had remained largely untouched by the violence that has wracked the country for the past eleven months. No one claimed responsibility for the blasts, which collectively killed 28 people and injured hundreds of others, though there is concern that al Qaeda may be taking advantage of the chaos to set up operations in Syria. Yesterday's bombings were similar to those that rocked Damascus last December, another city--and a stalwart bastion of support for Assad--that has heretofore remained mostly quiet. If indeed al Qaeda is behind these bombings, it adds another troubling layer of complexity to the situation, and one that the U.S. and most Western and Arab countries for that matter would be loath to see.
But again, the West continues to be stymied in its efforts to bring a unified diplomatic force together to oppose Assad and insist upon his overthrow. Additional meetings are scheduled on Sunday with the Arab League ministers in Cairo and on Monday at the United Nations General Assembly. A draft of a General Assembly resolution not unlike that which was originally vetoed by Russia and China in the Security Council is currently making the rounds at the United Nations. No one has particularly high hopes that any resolution will be passed as long as Russia remains committed to pursuing its own peace plan with the Assad government. After a much ballyhooed meeting of Russian and Syrian delegates in Damascus earlier this week, it appears nothing came to fruition there either.
If indeed al Qaeda is taking root in Syria--as Assad has claimed in the past though no one gave it much credibility--and working on behalf of or in conjunction with the Syrian Free Army and its supporters, a situation that has seemed impossible up until now has just become untenable. The United Nations and its allies within the Arab League will not want to be seen supporting an opposition movement that has any connection whatsoever with the perpetrators of 9/11 and two decades' worth of horrific terrorist activity. At the same time, the United Nations isn't going to react positively to anything that gives credence to Assad's continued claims that he is battling foreign insurgents. But then...the Obama administration is openly holding negotiations with the Taliban, thereby creating a diplomatic framework within which the Taliban can legitimately take back control of Afghanistan despite ten years' of unsuccessfully trying to oust them. By that same logic...why not negotiate with al Qaeda? If you can't beat them, appease them. Right?
As history has shown time and again, appeasement doesn't work. Just look at 1938-39.
Ciao.
The woes continue in Syria. Yesterday witnessed the dual car bombings of two security buildings in Syria's largest city, Aleppo, that until now had remained largely untouched by the violence that has wracked the country for the past eleven months. No one claimed responsibility for the blasts, which collectively killed 28 people and injured hundreds of others, though there is concern that al Qaeda may be taking advantage of the chaos to set up operations in Syria. Yesterday's bombings were similar to those that rocked Damascus last December, another city--and a stalwart bastion of support for Assad--that has heretofore remained mostly quiet. If indeed al Qaeda is behind these bombings, it adds another troubling layer of complexity to the situation, and one that the U.S. and most Western and Arab countries for that matter would be loath to see.
But again, the West continues to be stymied in its efforts to bring a unified diplomatic force together to oppose Assad and insist upon his overthrow. Additional meetings are scheduled on Sunday with the Arab League ministers in Cairo and on Monday at the United Nations General Assembly. A draft of a General Assembly resolution not unlike that which was originally vetoed by Russia and China in the Security Council is currently making the rounds at the United Nations. No one has particularly high hopes that any resolution will be passed as long as Russia remains committed to pursuing its own peace plan with the Assad government. After a much ballyhooed meeting of Russian and Syrian delegates in Damascus earlier this week, it appears nothing came to fruition there either.
If indeed al Qaeda is taking root in Syria--as Assad has claimed in the past though no one gave it much credibility--and working on behalf of or in conjunction with the Syrian Free Army and its supporters, a situation that has seemed impossible up until now has just become untenable. The United Nations and its allies within the Arab League will not want to be seen supporting an opposition movement that has any connection whatsoever with the perpetrators of 9/11 and two decades' worth of horrific terrorist activity. At the same time, the United Nations isn't going to react positively to anything that gives credence to Assad's continued claims that he is battling foreign insurgents. But then...the Obama administration is openly holding negotiations with the Taliban, thereby creating a diplomatic framework within which the Taliban can legitimately take back control of Afghanistan despite ten years' of unsuccessfully trying to oust them. By that same logic...why not negotiate with al Qaeda? If you can't beat them, appease them. Right?
As history has shown time and again, appeasement doesn't work. Just look at 1938-39.
Ciao.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Friday Movie Review: W.E.
Hi everyone!
Right off the bat I will say that Madonna's latest (and best) cinematic foray "W.E." is hands-down the most visually beautiful film of 2011. I'll take it one step further to say that "W.E." is, in my opinion, deserving of a spot in my top ten list of best films of 2011.
I'll admit, I'm biased. I've been an unabashed fan of Madonna since the 8th grade so I'm not necessarily known for being totally objective where she's concerned. And I'll be the first to say that "W.E." is not a perfect film. But where it succeeds, it succeeds tremendously. In fact, its successes far exceed its failures, despite what many professional critics have said.
In brief, the film tells two stories that are somewhat, though not always convincingly connected. The first is the story of the American divorcee Wallis Simpson, played with commanding panache by British actress Andrea Riseborough, and King Edward VIII, a suitably bland James D'arcy, who famously abdicated the British throne to marry Ms. Simpson in 1937. (Last year's Oscar winner "The King's Speech" told part of this story.) The second is set in 1998 in Manhattan and tells the story of unhappily married Wally, a somewhat opaque but always stylishly lit Abbie Cornish, who is obsessed with the history of Wallis and Edward for reasons that are never really explained, and spends much of her time wandering around Sotheby's during its auction of W.E. artifacts. She meets a mysterious Russian security guard named Yevgeni, an appealing Oscar Isaac, who happens to play piano and provides Wally comfort and solace away from the increasingly abusive treatment of her husband. This actually all plays a lot better than it sounds, though from a plot perspective, the way Madonna weaves the two together isn't as seamless as one might hope. I wasn't entirely sure what the parallel was supposed to be between the historical Wallis and the fictional Wally, though this being Madonna I'm sure there was a definite subtext. I just couldn't figure it out.
What most impressed me was the attention to detail. This shouldn't come as a surprise because Madonna is well known for the meticulous way in which she approaches every one of her creative endeavors. From the exquisite detailing of the period costumes to the evocative lighting of interiors, the film is a visual feast. This doesn't always serve to the film's benefit, however. In fact, there were moments where I felt as though I was watching an extended high-end perfume commercial, as though Madonna the director were more interested in the beauty of the images she was presenting than the narrative content of some of the scenes. Especially in the early part of the film there seemed to be an over-reliance on quick camera cuts and close-ups that made for a rather ponderous and distracting viewing experience. As the film progressed though, things calmed down a bit and Madonna the director seemed to settle into a more comfortable and assured narrative pace.
"W.E." is clearly a labor of love for Madonna and despite its shortcomings that love is very much in evidence on the screen. It's clear both from the film and interviews that Madonna has given about the film that she strongly identifies with Wallis Simpson. She has said that Wallis is very misunderstood and much maligned in history and that she wanted to portray her as a woman who sacrificed everything to be with the man she loved. As captivating as Ms. Riseborough is as Wallis Simpson--the fact that she wasn't nominated for an Oscar is a shame--I never found her to be sympathetic. Determined, yes. Ambitious, yes. Witty, yes. But sympathetic? No. She claims at one point that she feels bad because she's ruined Edward's life, but she had to have known all along this would be the likely outcome and yet she still married him. She also claims to hate being the center of the media spotlight but I wasn't particularly convinced of this either.
Yet, despite all its flaws and its failure to convince me of its central message or thesis, "W.E." completely won me over. I'll even admit that once or twice a tear came to my eye. While Madonna has never succeeded much as an actress--though her Golden Globe-winning turn as Evita was pretty spectacular--as a screenwriter and director she's pretty damn savvy. This is intelligent high-caliber art house filmmaking. And I can't help but wonder, if this film had been written and directed by anyone other than Madonna, would it have received such a drubbing from the critics? Probably not.
I'll be coming out with my Top Ten Films of 2011 list on Sunday. "W.E." will be on it.
Oh, and be sure to sit through the closing credits for a chance to here Madonna's Golden Globe-winning song "Masterpiece." It, like the film, is a stunner. (It's also going to be featured on her upcoming studio album "M.D.N.A" next month.)
Ciao.
Right off the bat I will say that Madonna's latest (and best) cinematic foray "W.E." is hands-down the most visually beautiful film of 2011. I'll take it one step further to say that "W.E." is, in my opinion, deserving of a spot in my top ten list of best films of 2011.
I'll admit, I'm biased. I've been an unabashed fan of Madonna since the 8th grade so I'm not necessarily known for being totally objective where she's concerned. And I'll be the first to say that "W.E." is not a perfect film. But where it succeeds, it succeeds tremendously. In fact, its successes far exceed its failures, despite what many professional critics have said.
In brief, the film tells two stories that are somewhat, though not always convincingly connected. The first is the story of the American divorcee Wallis Simpson, played with commanding panache by British actress Andrea Riseborough, and King Edward VIII, a suitably bland James D'arcy, who famously abdicated the British throne to marry Ms. Simpson in 1937. (Last year's Oscar winner "The King's Speech" told part of this story.) The second is set in 1998 in Manhattan and tells the story of unhappily married Wally, a somewhat opaque but always stylishly lit Abbie Cornish, who is obsessed with the history of Wallis and Edward for reasons that are never really explained, and spends much of her time wandering around Sotheby's during its auction of W.E. artifacts. She meets a mysterious Russian security guard named Yevgeni, an appealing Oscar Isaac, who happens to play piano and provides Wally comfort and solace away from the increasingly abusive treatment of her husband. This actually all plays a lot better than it sounds, though from a plot perspective, the way Madonna weaves the two together isn't as seamless as one might hope. I wasn't entirely sure what the parallel was supposed to be between the historical Wallis and the fictional Wally, though this being Madonna I'm sure there was a definite subtext. I just couldn't figure it out.
What most impressed me was the attention to detail. This shouldn't come as a surprise because Madonna is well known for the meticulous way in which she approaches every one of her creative endeavors. From the exquisite detailing of the period costumes to the evocative lighting of interiors, the film is a visual feast. This doesn't always serve to the film's benefit, however. In fact, there were moments where I felt as though I was watching an extended high-end perfume commercial, as though Madonna the director were more interested in the beauty of the images she was presenting than the narrative content of some of the scenes. Especially in the early part of the film there seemed to be an over-reliance on quick camera cuts and close-ups that made for a rather ponderous and distracting viewing experience. As the film progressed though, things calmed down a bit and Madonna the director seemed to settle into a more comfortable and assured narrative pace.
"W.E." is clearly a labor of love for Madonna and despite its shortcomings that love is very much in evidence on the screen. It's clear both from the film and interviews that Madonna has given about the film that she strongly identifies with Wallis Simpson. She has said that Wallis is very misunderstood and much maligned in history and that she wanted to portray her as a woman who sacrificed everything to be with the man she loved. As captivating as Ms. Riseborough is as Wallis Simpson--the fact that she wasn't nominated for an Oscar is a shame--I never found her to be sympathetic. Determined, yes. Ambitious, yes. Witty, yes. But sympathetic? No. She claims at one point that she feels bad because she's ruined Edward's life, but she had to have known all along this would be the likely outcome and yet she still married him. She also claims to hate being the center of the media spotlight but I wasn't particularly convinced of this either.
Yet, despite all its flaws and its failure to convince me of its central message or thesis, "W.E." completely won me over. I'll even admit that once or twice a tear came to my eye. While Madonna has never succeeded much as an actress--though her Golden Globe-winning turn as Evita was pretty spectacular--as a screenwriter and director she's pretty damn savvy. This is intelligent high-caliber art house filmmaking. And I can't help but wonder, if this film had been written and directed by anyone other than Madonna, would it have received such a drubbing from the critics? Probably not.
I'll be coming out with my Top Ten Films of 2011 list on Sunday. "W.E." will be on it.
Oh, and be sure to sit through the closing credits for a chance to here Madonna's Golden Globe-winning song "Masterpiece." It, like the film, is a stunner. (It's also going to be featured on her upcoming studio album "M.D.N.A" next month.)
Ciao.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
In Defense of the Iranian People
Hi everyone!
With all this belligerent talk being hurled back and forth between the West and Iran and speculation about whether Iran has reached a "zone of immunity" as far as its nuclear aspirations are concerned, one is at risk of losing sight of the fact that Iran is a nation comprised of 74 million people who are all, for the most part, concerned with getting on with their daily lives--raising families, working to make sure they have money to put food on their tables, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs with perhaps a little saved over to splurge on the occasional vacation. In other words, the average Iranian is really not all that different from you or me. Yes, thirty-three years ago, the "people" violently overthrew a secular (and corrupt) dynasty in favor of an Islamic theocracy, but much of that fervor was derived from a collective--and perhaps naive--belief that the ayatollahs would strip the government of corruption and install a society that made up for the inequality and lack of morality that had been rife for decades under the Shah.
Thirty-three years later, those revolutionaries are now senior citizens. Two-thirds of the current Iranian population is under the age of 30, which is significant in that more than 50 percent of Iranians alive today were either not born during the Islamic Revolution, or were too young at the time to understand what it was all about and what it was in reaction against. All these young people know is that they live in a repressive and paranoid society that prevents them from enjoying personal freedom and has become the pariah of much of the civilized world.
As the U.S. and its allies assess the effectiveness of ever tightening sanctions and debate how best to destroy Iran's nuclear aspirations and cripple Iran's economy, let's pause for a moment to consider how all of this affects the average Iranian family mentioned above. A recent Gallup poll, quoted in today's New York Times, shows that "nearly two-thirds of Iranians though the sanctions would hurt their livelihoods. The poll also found that almost half of Iranians said there were times in the past year when they lacked enough money to buy food their families needed--triple the level from 2005."
I ask, how is this fair? Are these sanctions meant to incense the average Iranian to rise up against the government in the spirit of Tunisia or Egypt? They tried this in 2009--unfortunately, to little positive effect. Iran is essentially being held hostage between two rival political powers--Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious council versus President Ahmadinejad--each of whom is more concerned with preserving their grip on power than improving the lives of their citizenry. Put yourself in the shoes of our average Iranian. If your livelihood was indirectly being destroyed by a foreign power collective, would you be more likely to express anger at your own government or at the country/countries that were making your lives more difficult on a grass roots level? My guess is you'd choose the latter.
This column is not in defense of the ayatollahs. I am merely taking the humanitarian approach. Let's think about the Iranian people for once. Iran possesses a culturally diverse and rich history with a highly educated and sophisticated population. Until these people can effect positive change in their country on their own, we need to adapt a more compassionate and nuanced approach to how we deal with their government, otherwise we risk destroying an ancient civilization and inadvertently fostering an anti-U.S. mentality out of which nothing good will come.
Ciao.
With all this belligerent talk being hurled back and forth between the West and Iran and speculation about whether Iran has reached a "zone of immunity" as far as its nuclear aspirations are concerned, one is at risk of losing sight of the fact that Iran is a nation comprised of 74 million people who are all, for the most part, concerned with getting on with their daily lives--raising families, working to make sure they have money to put food on their tables, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs with perhaps a little saved over to splurge on the occasional vacation. In other words, the average Iranian is really not all that different from you or me. Yes, thirty-three years ago, the "people" violently overthrew a secular (and corrupt) dynasty in favor of an Islamic theocracy, but much of that fervor was derived from a collective--and perhaps naive--belief that the ayatollahs would strip the government of corruption and install a society that made up for the inequality and lack of morality that had been rife for decades under the Shah.
Thirty-three years later, those revolutionaries are now senior citizens. Two-thirds of the current Iranian population is under the age of 30, which is significant in that more than 50 percent of Iranians alive today were either not born during the Islamic Revolution, or were too young at the time to understand what it was all about and what it was in reaction against. All these young people know is that they live in a repressive and paranoid society that prevents them from enjoying personal freedom and has become the pariah of much of the civilized world.
As the U.S. and its allies assess the effectiveness of ever tightening sanctions and debate how best to destroy Iran's nuclear aspirations and cripple Iran's economy, let's pause for a moment to consider how all of this affects the average Iranian family mentioned above. A recent Gallup poll, quoted in today's New York Times, shows that "nearly two-thirds of Iranians though the sanctions would hurt their livelihoods. The poll also found that almost half of Iranians said there were times in the past year when they lacked enough money to buy food their families needed--triple the level from 2005."
I ask, how is this fair? Are these sanctions meant to incense the average Iranian to rise up against the government in the spirit of Tunisia or Egypt? They tried this in 2009--unfortunately, to little positive effect. Iran is essentially being held hostage between two rival political powers--Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious council versus President Ahmadinejad--each of whom is more concerned with preserving their grip on power than improving the lives of their citizenry. Put yourself in the shoes of our average Iranian. If your livelihood was indirectly being destroyed by a foreign power collective, would you be more likely to express anger at your own government or at the country/countries that were making your lives more difficult on a grass roots level? My guess is you'd choose the latter.
This column is not in defense of the ayatollahs. I am merely taking the humanitarian approach. Let's think about the Iranian people for once. Iran possesses a culturally diverse and rich history with a highly educated and sophisticated population. Until these people can effect positive change in their country on their own, we need to adapt a more compassionate and nuanced approach to how we deal with their government, otherwise we risk destroying an ancient civilization and inadvertently fostering an anti-U.S. mentality out of which nothing good will come.
Ciao.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Stopping Iran Through Syria
Hi everyone!
Before I begin today, I just wanted to alert all of you to a special promotion I'm currently running on Amazon.com. Starting today and lasting through February 12th, you can download the Kindle version of my novel "Birds of Dreams" for free. Yes, that's right. For free. The same promotion is running concurrently on Amazon.co.uk for those of you living in the UK. After February 12th, the price will go up...so take advantage of this offer now. "Birds of Dreams" is a satirical look at contemporary reality TV-obsessed society and portrays the lengths people will go to for a shot at their own Kardashian dreams. It's funny, it's irreverent, it's a novel for our times.
Changing focus...I was particularly gratified to read an Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times by Efraim Halevy, the former Israeli national security adviser, ambassador, and Mossad director from 1998 to 2002. In his column, entitled "Iran's Achilles Heel," Mr. Halevy argues that the best (and most overlooked) way for the West to defeat Iran's spreading influence in the Middle East is to support regime change in Syria. Never mind, he writes, a military strike on Iran's nuclear processing facilities that would prove extremely costly and would run the risk of furthering antagonizing Iran into its own strikes against Israel and other Western interests in the Middle East.
A far better approach--and one that no one in the U.S. seems to be considering as all focus is on weighing the pros and cons of a U.S. or Israeli missile strike---is to undermine Iran's influence by tightening the noose around Bashar al-Assad's neck. If the West works to build unity among and influence upon the various rival factions within the Syrian opposition, it can effectively cut off Iran's conduit to its allies in Hamas and Hezbollah, get rid of Iran's Republican Guard training camps throughout the country, and thereby limit the scope of Iran's influence in the country upon which it most relies as a proxy for regional dominance.
Of course a major stumbling block in this scenario is continued Russian intransigence. But, Mr. Halevy writes, this is not necessarily insurmountable. If the West and the post-Assad government is able to assure Russia that it can maintain naval access to its Mediterranean ports at Tartus and Latakia and continue to serve as an arms supplier to Syria, Russia might be feel that its interests are not being overlooked. Russia needs to feel that it is not being sidelined in any negotiations involving the future of Syria, its main ally in the region. Russia will not allow another repeat of Libya, hence its unconscionable veto of the U.N. Security Council/Arab League-backed resolution.
Russia is trying its own diplomatic approach and claims it is committed to peace in Syria. Despite the Russian flag-waving and pro-Kremlin rallies that greeted the Russian delegation in Damascus yesterday, it seems very little was actually accomplished. Bashar is stubbornly holding fast.
Mr. Halevy, you've got it right. Your strategy is exactly the one I've been suggesting here for days. A missile strike or any overt military action against Iran's nuclear sites, regardless of their possible justification, is only going to make matters worse. By focusing on Syria, we'd be killing two birds with one stone--assuring regime change in Syria which--if managed correctly--will put a stranglehold on Iran's influence not only in Syria, but around the world.
Ciao.
Before I begin today, I just wanted to alert all of you to a special promotion I'm currently running on Amazon.com. Starting today and lasting through February 12th, you can download the Kindle version of my novel "Birds of Dreams" for free. Yes, that's right. For free. The same promotion is running concurrently on Amazon.co.uk for those of you living in the UK. After February 12th, the price will go up...so take advantage of this offer now. "Birds of Dreams" is a satirical look at contemporary reality TV-obsessed society and portrays the lengths people will go to for a shot at their own Kardashian dreams. It's funny, it's irreverent, it's a novel for our times.
Changing focus...I was particularly gratified to read an Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times by Efraim Halevy, the former Israeli national security adviser, ambassador, and Mossad director from 1998 to 2002. In his column, entitled "Iran's Achilles Heel," Mr. Halevy argues that the best (and most overlooked) way for the West to defeat Iran's spreading influence in the Middle East is to support regime change in Syria. Never mind, he writes, a military strike on Iran's nuclear processing facilities that would prove extremely costly and would run the risk of furthering antagonizing Iran into its own strikes against Israel and other Western interests in the Middle East.
A far better approach--and one that no one in the U.S. seems to be considering as all focus is on weighing the pros and cons of a U.S. or Israeli missile strike---is to undermine Iran's influence by tightening the noose around Bashar al-Assad's neck. If the West works to build unity among and influence upon the various rival factions within the Syrian opposition, it can effectively cut off Iran's conduit to its allies in Hamas and Hezbollah, get rid of Iran's Republican Guard training camps throughout the country, and thereby limit the scope of Iran's influence in the country upon which it most relies as a proxy for regional dominance.
Of course a major stumbling block in this scenario is continued Russian intransigence. But, Mr. Halevy writes, this is not necessarily insurmountable. If the West and the post-Assad government is able to assure Russia that it can maintain naval access to its Mediterranean ports at Tartus and Latakia and continue to serve as an arms supplier to Syria, Russia might be feel that its interests are not being overlooked. Russia needs to feel that it is not being sidelined in any negotiations involving the future of Syria, its main ally in the region. Russia will not allow another repeat of Libya, hence its unconscionable veto of the U.N. Security Council/Arab League-backed resolution.
Russia is trying its own diplomatic approach and claims it is committed to peace in Syria. Despite the Russian flag-waving and pro-Kremlin rallies that greeted the Russian delegation in Damascus yesterday, it seems very little was actually accomplished. Bashar is stubbornly holding fast.
Mr. Halevy, you've got it right. Your strategy is exactly the one I've been suggesting here for days. A missile strike or any overt military action against Iran's nuclear sites, regardless of their possible justification, is only going to make matters worse. By focusing on Syria, we'd be killing two birds with one stone--assuring regime change in Syria which--if managed correctly--will put a stranglehold on Iran's influence not only in Syria, but around the world.
Ciao.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Why the Syrian Opposition Needs a United Front
Hi everyone!
The more I think about the situation in Syria, the angrier it makes me feel. I realize there is no perfect solution for halting the violence and that the overthrow of the Assad regime does not guarantee a peaceful or orderly transition to democracy. The main problem the Syrian opposition has--as I've said before--is that there isn't a central leadership. The Free Syrian Army, mainly comprised of Syrian army deserters, is a loosely confederated network of freestanding militias. Whatever binds them together is under threat of dissolution. According to a recent report on CNN International's website, three rival rebel leaders are claiming that they are the driving force behind the rebellion, none of whom seem interested in sharing credit.
Major Mahar Naimi, spokesman for the newly created Higher Military Council, told CNN over the weekend that his organization, under the command of General Mustafa Sheikh, is the leading force driving change in Syria. In a case of tit-for-tat, Colonel Riad al-Assad long known to be one of the "commanders" of the Free Syrian Army, dismissed Major Naimi's charge by saying: "This man represents himself. He has nothing to do with the Free Syrian Army...those people are representing themselves and do not represent the revolution and the Free Syrian Army."
Into the mix we need to add Lieutenant Bassim Khaled, another defector from the Syrian army, who claims that neither the Free Syrian Army nor the Higher Military Council are the ones in command of opposition forces--at least not in Homs, the city currently being pummeled into the ground by Assad's pro-government troops--but rather a militia calling itself the Al Farroukh Battalion.
Who to to believe? Or are all claimants telling the truth? It doesn't really matter. The point here is that it is all well and good for each of these organizations to be fighting the good fight against Assad's forces. These are brave and patriotic men leading the charge in defense of a better and ostensibly freer Syria. I commend them and the men and women who fight under their leadership wherever they may be. The problem though is that despite these pockets of resistance, Assad still commands an army of at least 200,000 and, unless Russian and Chinese leaders are lobotomized, overthrown, or come to recognize their grievous error in vetoing the Security Council resolution, Assad will continue to benefit from Russian arms sales that will provide his army with vastly superior weaponry with which to quell the rebellion.
But further to that, the question remains: Without a united non-sectarian opposition front headed by qualified politicians and experienced diplomats, if and when Assad falls, what happens then? In the wake of the failure of the resolution, the West and its allies in the Arab World should work together to not only arm the rebels but actively work towards building an opposition leadership that can credibly work to building a free and democratic Syria when the fighting comes to an end. Otherwise, I fear more chaos and Sunni vs. Alawite sectarian warfare.
Ciao.
The more I think about the situation in Syria, the angrier it makes me feel. I realize there is no perfect solution for halting the violence and that the overthrow of the Assad regime does not guarantee a peaceful or orderly transition to democracy. The main problem the Syrian opposition has--as I've said before--is that there isn't a central leadership. The Free Syrian Army, mainly comprised of Syrian army deserters, is a loosely confederated network of freestanding militias. Whatever binds them together is under threat of dissolution. According to a recent report on CNN International's website, three rival rebel leaders are claiming that they are the driving force behind the rebellion, none of whom seem interested in sharing credit.
Major Mahar Naimi, spokesman for the newly created Higher Military Council, told CNN over the weekend that his organization, under the command of General Mustafa Sheikh, is the leading force driving change in Syria. In a case of tit-for-tat, Colonel Riad al-Assad long known to be one of the "commanders" of the Free Syrian Army, dismissed Major Naimi's charge by saying: "This man represents himself. He has nothing to do with the Free Syrian Army...those people are representing themselves and do not represent the revolution and the Free Syrian Army."
Into the mix we need to add Lieutenant Bassim Khaled, another defector from the Syrian army, who claims that neither the Free Syrian Army nor the Higher Military Council are the ones in command of opposition forces--at least not in Homs, the city currently being pummeled into the ground by Assad's pro-government troops--but rather a militia calling itself the Al Farroukh Battalion.
Who to to believe? Or are all claimants telling the truth? It doesn't really matter. The point here is that it is all well and good for each of these organizations to be fighting the good fight against Assad's forces. These are brave and patriotic men leading the charge in defense of a better and ostensibly freer Syria. I commend them and the men and women who fight under their leadership wherever they may be. The problem though is that despite these pockets of resistance, Assad still commands an army of at least 200,000 and, unless Russian and Chinese leaders are lobotomized, overthrown, or come to recognize their grievous error in vetoing the Security Council resolution, Assad will continue to benefit from Russian arms sales that will provide his army with vastly superior weaponry with which to quell the rebellion.
But further to that, the question remains: Without a united non-sectarian opposition front headed by qualified politicians and experienced diplomats, if and when Assad falls, what happens then? In the wake of the failure of the resolution, the West and its allies in the Arab World should work together to not only arm the rebels but actively work towards building an opposition leadership that can credibly work to building a free and democratic Syria when the fighting comes to an end. Otherwise, I fear more chaos and Sunni vs. Alawite sectarian warfare.
Ciao.
Monday, February 6, 2012
A Call for Eyewitness Accounts of the Events in Egypt
Hi everyone!
When I'm not following current affairs in the Middle East or tutoring high school kids in the inner-city, I'm a playwright. I'm in the process of writing a new play, tentatively titled "Tahrir." It's a very different sort of piece from what I've written in the past, different in that it's very topical as one can probably assume from its title. I mention it here because I know I have readers in Egypt and other places in the Middle East that are currently being rocked by the tidal wave of the Arab Spring. And while I've done all this research, what I feel I'm lacking is some in-depth stories from the trenches from people who have been actively involved in the protest movement, whether it be in Egypt or Tunisia, Syria or Lebanon. I am currently reading Wael Ghonim's excellent memoir "Revolution 2.0" that gives a brilliant first-hand account of how social media was responsible in large part for putting the Egyptian revolution into motion. This is very helpful, but I need more.
In a nutshell, the play tells the story of Alistair, a young American blogger who goes to Cairo in the early days of Tahrir, meets and becomes influenced by a young Egyptian activist named Gamal. Gamal comes from the Egyptian elite. He is Western-educated, lives in Heliopolis, and prides himself in his life as a playboy. His father is one of Egypt's leading businessmen with very strong ties to the Mubarak regime. But despite all this, Gamal is moved by the protesters' demands and the plight of the everyday Egyptian. As much as this is a story about Alistair's understanding of these events, it is also--perhaps more so--the story of Gamal's social awakening and the conflict he feels between his socioeconomic background and what he believes to be right. I'm still in the early days of writing the play but I do know that Gamal will be arrested in Tahrir, will be tortured at the hands of the police, and will eventually be martyred.
Contrary to the impression many of you may have received of me from this blog, I have never been particularly politically motivated...that is, until I started following the extraordinary events of the past year. I have become very impassioned and feel a strong need to express this passion through my writing, which has always been my strongest suit. So if any of you who follow my blogs regularly or just happened to stumble upon it can offer any insights or put me in touch with anyone who may have been in Tahrir or have been arrested or suffered first-hand the injustices of these governing regimes, please let me know. You can respond here with a comment or contact me on Twitter at @jonmalysiak. Your insights are invaluable. I want my play to do your story justice, especially here in the West where people may not be as aware or well-versed on what's happening in Egypt or Syria on a daily basis.
At any rate, that's my pitch. Tomorrow, back to the news analysis.
Ciao.
When I'm not following current affairs in the Middle East or tutoring high school kids in the inner-city, I'm a playwright. I'm in the process of writing a new play, tentatively titled "Tahrir." It's a very different sort of piece from what I've written in the past, different in that it's very topical as one can probably assume from its title. I mention it here because I know I have readers in Egypt and other places in the Middle East that are currently being rocked by the tidal wave of the Arab Spring. And while I've done all this research, what I feel I'm lacking is some in-depth stories from the trenches from people who have been actively involved in the protest movement, whether it be in Egypt or Tunisia, Syria or Lebanon. I am currently reading Wael Ghonim's excellent memoir "Revolution 2.0" that gives a brilliant first-hand account of how social media was responsible in large part for putting the Egyptian revolution into motion. This is very helpful, but I need more.
In a nutshell, the play tells the story of Alistair, a young American blogger who goes to Cairo in the early days of Tahrir, meets and becomes influenced by a young Egyptian activist named Gamal. Gamal comes from the Egyptian elite. He is Western-educated, lives in Heliopolis, and prides himself in his life as a playboy. His father is one of Egypt's leading businessmen with very strong ties to the Mubarak regime. But despite all this, Gamal is moved by the protesters' demands and the plight of the everyday Egyptian. As much as this is a story about Alistair's understanding of these events, it is also--perhaps more so--the story of Gamal's social awakening and the conflict he feels between his socioeconomic background and what he believes to be right. I'm still in the early days of writing the play but I do know that Gamal will be arrested in Tahrir, will be tortured at the hands of the police, and will eventually be martyred.
Contrary to the impression many of you may have received of me from this blog, I have never been particularly politically motivated...that is, until I started following the extraordinary events of the past year. I have become very impassioned and feel a strong need to express this passion through my writing, which has always been my strongest suit. So if any of you who follow my blogs regularly or just happened to stumble upon it can offer any insights or put me in touch with anyone who may have been in Tahrir or have been arrested or suffered first-hand the injustices of these governing regimes, please let me know. You can respond here with a comment or contact me on Twitter at @jonmalysiak. Your insights are invaluable. I want my play to do your story justice, especially here in the West where people may not be as aware or well-versed on what's happening in Egypt or Syria on a daily basis.
At any rate, that's my pitch. Tomorrow, back to the news analysis.
Ciao.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
The Syrian Civil War
Happy Super Bowl Sunday, everyone!
As predicted, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution requiring Assad to essentially turn the Syrian government over to a vice president pending elections. As if on cue, Syrian government troops intensified their crackdown on the town of Homs, which has become the eye of the Syrian protest movement. The vote would have resoundingly passed had it not been for Russia and China who said any such resolution would have been a violation of Syrian sovereignty. This veto has initiated a diplomatic firestorm with angry accusations being hurled between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, among others. According to Mr. Lavrov, Russian objection to the resolution stemmed from the fact that Russia feels there was an inadequate balance of blame for the violence being placed on the Syrian government and that the opposition was just as responsible, if not more so, for the rising body count.
Of course, this isn't the real reason for Russia's objections. The real reason, as I've written here before, is that Russia makes a lot of money selling arms and other types of military equipment to Syria. If Russia were to be seen criticizing its number one client, that business and lucrative source of income would surely evaporate. Russia can't afford to lose that.
It seems there's very little to be done unless the U.S. or other countries within Europe or the Arab League take matters into their own hands. This, however, isn't likely. After Iraq, the U.S. is loath to take the lead in setting foot in another Arab country without such action being unilaterally approved. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Arab World has its own multinational force--like, for example, the African Union Force that currently has troops on the ground in Somalia--that could intervene through military action. It's a shame because I do believe any sort of intervention has to be Arab-led. But the state of affairs between most of these Arab countries is so fraught with uncertainty and sectarian animosity that I don't imagine it would even be possible.
In Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle East as well as Germany and Greece, Syrian embassies were burned overnight in direct protest of the intensifying action against the opposition in Homs. Because foreign journalists are not allowed inside Syria, it is difficult to get a true sense of the violence taking place there. However, video has been smuggled out and posted on YouTube that vividly brings the situation to life. According to one eyewitness account related in today's New York Times:
Ciao.
As predicted, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution requiring Assad to essentially turn the Syrian government over to a vice president pending elections. As if on cue, Syrian government troops intensified their crackdown on the town of Homs, which has become the eye of the Syrian protest movement. The vote would have resoundingly passed had it not been for Russia and China who said any such resolution would have been a violation of Syrian sovereignty. This veto has initiated a diplomatic firestorm with angry accusations being hurled between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, among others. According to Mr. Lavrov, Russian objection to the resolution stemmed from the fact that Russia feels there was an inadequate balance of blame for the violence being placed on the Syrian government and that the opposition was just as responsible, if not more so, for the rising body count.
Of course, this isn't the real reason for Russia's objections. The real reason, as I've written here before, is that Russia makes a lot of money selling arms and other types of military equipment to Syria. If Russia were to be seen criticizing its number one client, that business and lucrative source of income would surely evaporate. Russia can't afford to lose that.
It seems there's very little to be done unless the U.S. or other countries within Europe or the Arab League take matters into their own hands. This, however, isn't likely. After Iraq, the U.S. is loath to take the lead in setting foot in another Arab country without such action being unilaterally approved. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Arab World has its own multinational force--like, for example, the African Union Force that currently has troops on the ground in Somalia--that could intervene through military action. It's a shame because I do believe any sort of intervention has to be Arab-led. But the state of affairs between most of these Arab countries is so fraught with uncertainty and sectarian animosity that I don't imagine it would even be possible.
In Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle East as well as Germany and Greece, Syrian embassies were burned overnight in direct protest of the intensifying action against the opposition in Homs. Because foreign journalists are not allowed inside Syria, it is difficult to get a true sense of the violence taking place there. However, video has been smuggled out and posted on YouTube that vividly brings the situation to life. According to one eyewitness account related in today's New York Times:
"It's a real massacre in every sense of the word. I saw bodies of women and children lying on roads, beheaded. It's horrible and inhuman. It was a long night helping people get to hospitals."Unfortunately, I think the situation is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better especially as the Free Syrian Army advances closer to Damascus, Syria's capitol that has until now been spared most of the carnage. While diplomats and military experts are hesitant to label it thus, what we are seeing in Syria today is a civil war. Unless Russia is made to stand down from its position, there's really nothing the Security Council or anyone can legally do. And the Free Syrian Army is too scattered and ill-armed to seriously be considered capable of overthrowing the government. What are we left with? More of the same.
Ciao.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Saturday Movie Review: Coriolanus
Hi everyone!
Ralph Fiennes' critically-acclaimed modern-dress film version of Shakespeare's play "Coriolanus" finally opened in Chicago yesterday. From all the reviews I've been reading over the past few months, I was eagerly anticipating the opportunity to see it. This is one of Shakespeare's least familiar plays. I think I'd read it in college years ago but it's not one that I'd gone back to since. So I was going in to see this film without much in the way of expectations beyond great performances, great visuals, and the chance to hear Shakespeare spoken by a couple of the greatest British actors alive today--Ralph Fiennes (who also directed) as General Coriolanus and Vanessa Redgrave as his mother.
I'll start with the good. There's an immediacy to the battle scenes--of which there are several--that gives the film a quick-cut, grainy documentary quality and grounds the film very vividly in the present. Although the setting is Rome and its environs, the film looks as though it takes place somewhere in the Balkans, Belgrade perhaps during the reign of Milosevic in the '90s. The performances, of course, are outstanding, though not uniformly so. While Vanessa Redgrave and Ralph Fiennes act the hell out of their roles--both share a steely determination that's utterly convincing as mother and son--I was most impressed by Gerard Butler as Coriolanus's arch-enemy Tullis Aufidius. I've always sensed there's a fine actor somewhere in Mr. Butler but it's never had a chance to shine through. This film is his moment and he steals every scene he's in, including those that pair him off against Mr. Fiennes. As much as they loath each other and are driven to one another's destruction, I sense in Mr. Butler's Aufidius a respect--even a love--for Coriolanus despite the actions taken by both against each other. Because of Mr. Butler, I found the final scene quite moving. Seeing Coriolanus from Aufidius's eyes, made me feel for the first time a bit of sympathy for Coriolanus that I hadn't felt through any of the preceding two hours. This is one of the problems I had with the film.
I don't think it's Mr. Fiennes fault as actor or director that I found Coriolanus himself a bit of a cipher. There's a reason this isn't considered among Shakespeare's great plays. The problem is, Coriolanus is totally unknowable. We don't really understand him nor do we as an audience know all that much about him. He's a famous Roman general that saved Rome from destruction at the hands of Aufidius, leader of the Volsces. He prefers fighting to politicking, would rather be out on the battlefield commanding troops than actively courting the support of the people. He has a power-hungry and rather quietly frightening mother who seems to control him physically and psychologically. When he's nominated to become Rome's leader he's arrogant in his dismissal of the established political process and in so doing alienates himself from the populace.
That much is clear. What isn't clear though is why Coriolanus is like this. You don't have to like a character to care about him as long as you are given something that causes you to either admire or despise or have some sort emotional reaction to that character. In this case, I didn't feel anything except, after a while, annoyance because I didn't understand why Coriolanus makes the choices that he does. Consequently, I felt indifferent to him as a character. He annoyed me.
Much has been made of the way in which the film uses pseudo-cable TV newsflashes etc to convey background and context. The great BBC presenter Dan Snow is even shown at one point conducting an on-air interview with another character. (Mr. Snow speaks Shakespeare quite eloquently, in fact.) I got what Mr. Fiennes was trying to do here, but it struck me as somehow artificial and forced. It was effective at first but then the technique was used so often I found it all a bit gimmicky. I also didn't feel that Shakespeare's language, particularly in the crowd scenes and even more so in the television studio when the audience finally turns against Coriolanus, always worked within this particular contemporary milieu. I felt the themes and parallels Mr. Fiennes was trying to make as a director were a bit forced and heavy-handed. There's not a lot of subtlety to be had here which is a shame because Shakespeare as a writer is quite nuanced. Nothing needs to be hammered home.
I also found that Jessica Chastain was woefully miscast. As I've said, the performances across the entire cast are quite strong but whenever Ms. Chastain--playing Coriolanus's long-suffering wife--I felt like I was suddenly watching an amateur production. It was jarring and I wanted her to go away. Her character isn't particularly developed which may have been part of the problem, but I don't understand why a stronger actress couldn't have been cast in the role.
So all in all, I didn't like "Coriolanus" as much as I was hoping to. If you're looking for some great Shakespearean acting, like I've said, the entire cast (minus Ms. Chastain) does a good job. It's a nice opportunity to watch one of Shakespeare's more rarely performed plays, though here I think that Juliet Taymor's bloody and wonderful 2000 film of "Titus Andronicus" starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange remains a stronger cinematic adaptation.
In a nutshell, "Coriolanus" is worth seeing but don't expect an emotionally fulfilling experience.
Ciao.
Ralph Fiennes' critically-acclaimed modern-dress film version of Shakespeare's play "Coriolanus" finally opened in Chicago yesterday. From all the reviews I've been reading over the past few months, I was eagerly anticipating the opportunity to see it. This is one of Shakespeare's least familiar plays. I think I'd read it in college years ago but it's not one that I'd gone back to since. So I was going in to see this film without much in the way of expectations beyond great performances, great visuals, and the chance to hear Shakespeare spoken by a couple of the greatest British actors alive today--Ralph Fiennes (who also directed) as General Coriolanus and Vanessa Redgrave as his mother.
I'll start with the good. There's an immediacy to the battle scenes--of which there are several--that gives the film a quick-cut, grainy documentary quality and grounds the film very vividly in the present. Although the setting is Rome and its environs, the film looks as though it takes place somewhere in the Balkans, Belgrade perhaps during the reign of Milosevic in the '90s. The performances, of course, are outstanding, though not uniformly so. While Vanessa Redgrave and Ralph Fiennes act the hell out of their roles--both share a steely determination that's utterly convincing as mother and son--I was most impressed by Gerard Butler as Coriolanus's arch-enemy Tullis Aufidius. I've always sensed there's a fine actor somewhere in Mr. Butler but it's never had a chance to shine through. This film is his moment and he steals every scene he's in, including those that pair him off against Mr. Fiennes. As much as they loath each other and are driven to one another's destruction, I sense in Mr. Butler's Aufidius a respect--even a love--for Coriolanus despite the actions taken by both against each other. Because of Mr. Butler, I found the final scene quite moving. Seeing Coriolanus from Aufidius's eyes, made me feel for the first time a bit of sympathy for Coriolanus that I hadn't felt through any of the preceding two hours. This is one of the problems I had with the film.
I don't think it's Mr. Fiennes fault as actor or director that I found Coriolanus himself a bit of a cipher. There's a reason this isn't considered among Shakespeare's great plays. The problem is, Coriolanus is totally unknowable. We don't really understand him nor do we as an audience know all that much about him. He's a famous Roman general that saved Rome from destruction at the hands of Aufidius, leader of the Volsces. He prefers fighting to politicking, would rather be out on the battlefield commanding troops than actively courting the support of the people. He has a power-hungry and rather quietly frightening mother who seems to control him physically and psychologically. When he's nominated to become Rome's leader he's arrogant in his dismissal of the established political process and in so doing alienates himself from the populace.
That much is clear. What isn't clear though is why Coriolanus is like this. You don't have to like a character to care about him as long as you are given something that causes you to either admire or despise or have some sort emotional reaction to that character. In this case, I didn't feel anything except, after a while, annoyance because I didn't understand why Coriolanus makes the choices that he does. Consequently, I felt indifferent to him as a character. He annoyed me.
Much has been made of the way in which the film uses pseudo-cable TV newsflashes etc to convey background and context. The great BBC presenter Dan Snow is even shown at one point conducting an on-air interview with another character. (Mr. Snow speaks Shakespeare quite eloquently, in fact.) I got what Mr. Fiennes was trying to do here, but it struck me as somehow artificial and forced. It was effective at first but then the technique was used so often I found it all a bit gimmicky. I also didn't feel that Shakespeare's language, particularly in the crowd scenes and even more so in the television studio when the audience finally turns against Coriolanus, always worked within this particular contemporary milieu. I felt the themes and parallels Mr. Fiennes was trying to make as a director were a bit forced and heavy-handed. There's not a lot of subtlety to be had here which is a shame because Shakespeare as a writer is quite nuanced. Nothing needs to be hammered home.
I also found that Jessica Chastain was woefully miscast. As I've said, the performances across the entire cast are quite strong but whenever Ms. Chastain--playing Coriolanus's long-suffering wife--I felt like I was suddenly watching an amateur production. It was jarring and I wanted her to go away. Her character isn't particularly developed which may have been part of the problem, but I don't understand why a stronger actress couldn't have been cast in the role.
So all in all, I didn't like "Coriolanus" as much as I was hoping to. If you're looking for some great Shakespearean acting, like I've said, the entire cast (minus Ms. Chastain) does a good job. It's a nice opportunity to watch one of Shakespeare's more rarely performed plays, though here I think that Juliet Taymor's bloody and wonderful 2000 film of "Titus Andronicus" starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange remains a stronger cinematic adaptation.
In a nutshell, "Coriolanus" is worth seeing but don't expect an emotionally fulfilling experience.
Ciao.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Fear and Loathing in the Arab World: Syria, Egypt, and Algeria
Hi everyone!
As I expected, the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council came out of their negotiations yesterday with a severely watered-down version of their resolution against Syria. Whereas the original draft had stipulated Assad must step down and cede power to an acting vice president before new democratic elections were held, the document that came out of yesterday's meeting drops any mention of Assad's ouster. It also doesn't articulate an arms embargo or new sanctions. This is because Russia (quietly backed by China and India) has expressed utter antipathy toward any punishment for the Assad regime's horrendous treatment of its protesters and threatened to veto any resolution that even hinted at regime change. Russia has continued to supply pro-government forces with arms and ammunition and sees no reason why it should stop. The Kremlin claims it is no friend of Bashar al-Assad but does not agree with foreign intervention in domestic affairs. More to the point, Putin knows his own political actions lack legitimacy and, by showing any support for the Syrian protesters, he doesn't want to be seen supporting a movement that calls for the ouster of another dictator.
So thanks to Russia, we have a resolution that doesn't really mean all that much. The Arab League and the Security Council are in agreement that Assad is bad and that the country would (though the resolution doesn't say this) be better off without him. We already know this. This isn't news. So what's next? Assad continues to kill with impunity, the rest of the world (minus Russia, China, and India) collectively shakes its head, and the death toll hits 10,000.
Elsewhere in the Arab World, things aren't all that rosier. Mass protests continued in Cairo yesterday in response to the soccer stadium massacre in Port Said Wednesday night. Eyewitness reports continue to come in which only throw mud in the eye of the Egyptian security apparatus and point toward at least tacit SCAF support for what happened. Apparently, right when the game ended and the El Masry fans charged the pitch, the stadium lights blacked out, providing the rioters temporary cover as they initiated their attack against the unsuspecting al Ahry team and fans. Other reports claim security closed and locked the gates of the stadium when the violence began, in effect trapping those trying to escape inside. Al Ahry's "Ultras" as their ardent supporters are called have been very vocal in their demands that first Mubarak and now the military council step down, having taken a front-and-center role in the protests since their start a year ago.
But--lest this column be too much gloom and doom going into Super Bowl weekend--there was some levity to be had. Iran hosted a conference in Tehran this week where it expressed pride in having been the birthplace of the "Islamic Awakening." Right. Conspicuously absent from this "conference" was any mention of Syria whose protest movement, Iran insists, is the work of foreign meddling and provocation. Try telling that to the thousands of Syrian people and defecting soldiers on the streets of Homs and Hama who are being mowed down by pro-Assad tanks.
I don't know where this is all headed and I'm fearful of the worst. Democratic transition is never easy and it is unrealistic to expect the process to be a success overnight. But the West, having been burned by involvement in two wars in the region over the past ten years, is loath to jump into the fray again. I understand this reluctance but can we in good conscience sit on the sidelines while hundreds of innocent people are killed on a daily basis?
It reminds me of the attitude France took after its eight-year undeclared war with Algeria. Once Algerian independence was granted in 1962, De Gaulle turned his back on Algeria and more-or-less refused to address it or acknowledge the concerns of pro-French Algerians in both Algeria and France. As British historian Martin Evans points out in his thorough and informative but at times tedious new book "Algeria: France's Undeclared War," when considering the French Resistance movement during World War Two and France's fight to preserve its colonial integrity in Indochina, France had been in a state of war for over twenty years by the time the Algerian conflict wrapped up. Consequently, it turned inward and focused on domestic and European affairs, much as the U.S. is doing now.
I suppose only time will tell. And while I understand Egyptian rage and their fear that the military will never step down, killing each other is not the way to effect positive change. Violence begets violence. It's the stuff history is made of.
Ciao.
As I expected, the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council came out of their negotiations yesterday with a severely watered-down version of their resolution against Syria. Whereas the original draft had stipulated Assad must step down and cede power to an acting vice president before new democratic elections were held, the document that came out of yesterday's meeting drops any mention of Assad's ouster. It also doesn't articulate an arms embargo or new sanctions. This is because Russia (quietly backed by China and India) has expressed utter antipathy toward any punishment for the Assad regime's horrendous treatment of its protesters and threatened to veto any resolution that even hinted at regime change. Russia has continued to supply pro-government forces with arms and ammunition and sees no reason why it should stop. The Kremlin claims it is no friend of Bashar al-Assad but does not agree with foreign intervention in domestic affairs. More to the point, Putin knows his own political actions lack legitimacy and, by showing any support for the Syrian protesters, he doesn't want to be seen supporting a movement that calls for the ouster of another dictator.
So thanks to Russia, we have a resolution that doesn't really mean all that much. The Arab League and the Security Council are in agreement that Assad is bad and that the country would (though the resolution doesn't say this) be better off without him. We already know this. This isn't news. So what's next? Assad continues to kill with impunity, the rest of the world (minus Russia, China, and India) collectively shakes its head, and the death toll hits 10,000.
Elsewhere in the Arab World, things aren't all that rosier. Mass protests continued in Cairo yesterday in response to the soccer stadium massacre in Port Said Wednesday night. Eyewitness reports continue to come in which only throw mud in the eye of the Egyptian security apparatus and point toward at least tacit SCAF support for what happened. Apparently, right when the game ended and the El Masry fans charged the pitch, the stadium lights blacked out, providing the rioters temporary cover as they initiated their attack against the unsuspecting al Ahry team and fans. Other reports claim security closed and locked the gates of the stadium when the violence began, in effect trapping those trying to escape inside. Al Ahry's "Ultras" as their ardent supporters are called have been very vocal in their demands that first Mubarak and now the military council step down, having taken a front-and-center role in the protests since their start a year ago.
But--lest this column be too much gloom and doom going into Super Bowl weekend--there was some levity to be had. Iran hosted a conference in Tehran this week where it expressed pride in having been the birthplace of the "Islamic Awakening." Right. Conspicuously absent from this "conference" was any mention of Syria whose protest movement, Iran insists, is the work of foreign meddling and provocation. Try telling that to the thousands of Syrian people and defecting soldiers on the streets of Homs and Hama who are being mowed down by pro-Assad tanks.
I don't know where this is all headed and I'm fearful of the worst. Democratic transition is never easy and it is unrealistic to expect the process to be a success overnight. But the West, having been burned by involvement in two wars in the region over the past ten years, is loath to jump into the fray again. I understand this reluctance but can we in good conscience sit on the sidelines while hundreds of innocent people are killed on a daily basis?
It reminds me of the attitude France took after its eight-year undeclared war with Algeria. Once Algerian independence was granted in 1962, De Gaulle turned his back on Algeria and more-or-less refused to address it or acknowledge the concerns of pro-French Algerians in both Algeria and France. As British historian Martin Evans points out in his thorough and informative but at times tedious new book "Algeria: France's Undeclared War," when considering the French Resistance movement during World War Two and France's fight to preserve its colonial integrity in Indochina, France had been in a state of war for over twenty years by the time the Algerian conflict wrapped up. Consequently, it turned inward and focused on domestic and European affairs, much as the U.S. is doing now.
I suppose only time will tell. And while I understand Egyptian rage and their fear that the military will never step down, killing each other is not the way to effect positive change. Violence begets violence. It's the stuff history is made of.
Ciao.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Hooliganism for Political Means
Hi everyone!
Soccer hooliganism has always existed on the fringes of the world's beautiful game. A little healthy fan rivalry is an inherent part of any sport, sometimes it gets a little out of hand. Sometimes, unfortunately, it gets a lot out of hand. Over the past 30 years a handful of situations have erupted into something worse than good-natured ribbing, the deadliest of which was a stampede in which 78 people died during a soccer match in Guatemala City in 1996.
That dubious distinction was awarded anew last night in Port Said, Egypt. A match between two soccer clubs with an historic and deep-seated rivalry--El Masry of Port Said and Al Ahly of Cairo--spun violently out of control after El Masry came from behind to win the match 3-1. The winning goal was scored in the final seconds of play and then, as if on cue, El Masry's fans stormed the pitch, purportedly armed with knives, rocks, and clubs, and began attacking Al Ahly's team members and fans, chasing them on the field, killing indiscriminately. In the chaos, many others were trampled to death, some were suffocated, and apparently according to some reports, still others were pushed or thrown off the stands.
Where was security when all this was going on? Well, that's the question being asked by many, including the authorities. Video of the riot shows security merely standing around looking helpless, or at worst, passively complicit in the stampede. One of Al Ahly's top players, Mohammed Abu Trika, is quoted in the New York Times as saying: "People here are dying and no one is doing a thing. It's like a war."
Exactly. There's more to this than yet another example of soccer fans behaving badly. What happened last night in Port Said is an example of soccer fans behaving badly out of political motivation. In this part of the world, die-hard soccer fans are called Ultras. The Ultras are actually a fairly organized lot and were among the first to take to the streets when the protests against the Mubarak regime ignited last year. Last night was the eve of the first anniversary of what came to be known as the Battle of the Camels when pro-Mubarak forces attacked peaceful protesters in Tahrir Square with rocks, gasoline bombs, whips, knives, and clubs.
The ruling military council (SCAF) recently agreed (albeit reluctantly) to dismantle parts of the emergency laws that have been in place since Mubarak took over upon the assassination of Anwar Sadat. There's chatter that what took place last night was planned ahead of time and that the police were indeed complicit, hence their lack of involvement in doing anything to stop the massacre. Why? The military council is asserting its control and is using the riot as justification for maintaining its draconian laws as a means of further cracking down on the protesters. It's all rather obvious.
Egypt's acting head of state, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, phoned Al Ahly's satellite TV channel to offer his condolences and to assure all parties involved that the perpetrators of the violence would be dealt with accordingly and that the victims would see justice done. How convenient for him. Now all he and his military cronies have to do is point to what happened last night in Port Said as evidence that without a strong military presence, anarchy will reign.
Who are the real hooligans here?
Ciao.
Soccer hooliganism has always existed on the fringes of the world's beautiful game. A little healthy fan rivalry is an inherent part of any sport, sometimes it gets a little out of hand. Sometimes, unfortunately, it gets a lot out of hand. Over the past 30 years a handful of situations have erupted into something worse than good-natured ribbing, the deadliest of which was a stampede in which 78 people died during a soccer match in Guatemala City in 1996.
That dubious distinction was awarded anew last night in Port Said, Egypt. A match between two soccer clubs with an historic and deep-seated rivalry--El Masry of Port Said and Al Ahly of Cairo--spun violently out of control after El Masry came from behind to win the match 3-1. The winning goal was scored in the final seconds of play and then, as if on cue, El Masry's fans stormed the pitch, purportedly armed with knives, rocks, and clubs, and began attacking Al Ahly's team members and fans, chasing them on the field, killing indiscriminately. In the chaos, many others were trampled to death, some were suffocated, and apparently according to some reports, still others were pushed or thrown off the stands.
Where was security when all this was going on? Well, that's the question being asked by many, including the authorities. Video of the riot shows security merely standing around looking helpless, or at worst, passively complicit in the stampede. One of Al Ahly's top players, Mohammed Abu Trika, is quoted in the New York Times as saying: "People here are dying and no one is doing a thing. It's like a war."
Exactly. There's more to this than yet another example of soccer fans behaving badly. What happened last night in Port Said is an example of soccer fans behaving badly out of political motivation. In this part of the world, die-hard soccer fans are called Ultras. The Ultras are actually a fairly organized lot and were among the first to take to the streets when the protests against the Mubarak regime ignited last year. Last night was the eve of the first anniversary of what came to be known as the Battle of the Camels when pro-Mubarak forces attacked peaceful protesters in Tahrir Square with rocks, gasoline bombs, whips, knives, and clubs.
The ruling military council (SCAF) recently agreed (albeit reluctantly) to dismantle parts of the emergency laws that have been in place since Mubarak took over upon the assassination of Anwar Sadat. There's chatter that what took place last night was planned ahead of time and that the police were indeed complicit, hence their lack of involvement in doing anything to stop the massacre. Why? The military council is asserting its control and is using the riot as justification for maintaining its draconian laws as a means of further cracking down on the protesters. It's all rather obvious.
Egypt's acting head of state, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, phoned Al Ahly's satellite TV channel to offer his condolences and to assure all parties involved that the perpetrators of the violence would be dealt with accordingly and that the victims would see justice done. How convenient for him. Now all he and his military cronies have to do is point to what happened last night in Port Said as evidence that without a strong military presence, anarchy will reign.
Who are the real hooligans here?
Ciao.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Delhi Belly: The Best Comedy of 2011
Hi everyone!
What do you get when you cross "The Hangover" with "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" with a little disco madness in the form of the great Hindi actor Aamir Khan (who also produced the film) playing a character named "The Disco Fighter"? -- the madcap Hin-glish comedy "Delhi Belly," my pick for the funniest movie of 2011.
Never heard of it? You probably haven't unless you're one of the billion people who follow Hindi cinema, otherwise known as Bollywood. "Delhi Belly" was released last summer and grossed huge box office everywhere it seems except here in the U.S. But it is now available on Netflix in both DVD and streaming formats.
I just watched it and I have to say as ridiculous and vulgar as it is, I haven't laughed this hard in a long time.
The plot is too convoluted to really summarize but I'll try in a nutshell. Three down on their luck room-mates, Tashi (Imran Khan), Nitan (Kunaal Roy Kapur), and Arup (Vin Das) find themselves in the center of a drug and diamonds crime syndicate. A case of really bad food poisoning (hence, the Delhi Belly of the title) results in a botched drop-off involving stolen diamonds and a stool sample, a lot of shooting and chasing, a double--or was that a triple?--cross resulting in a burqa-clad getaway, and a wonderfully ludicrous end credits number to the tune of a 1970s blaxploitation pastiche called "I Hate You Like I Love You." (This is where Aamir Khan's Disco Fighter comes in.)
It definitely isn't your typical Bollywood film. Ninety-five percent of the dialogue is in English (though you may want to turn on those English subtitles for the Hindi bits) and it's running time is a brisk hour and forty-two minutes. The two musical numbers don't interrupt the flow of the story and are frankly totally tongue-in-cheek. If this had been made in the U.S. it would certainly have earned an R rating and it was criticized in India for the fact that it basically throws the Hindi film formula out the window.
I loved it.
Word of warning though: next time you order Indian take-out, you may want to rethink that Tandoori Chicken. Or, more to the point, don't order Tandoori Chicken from a street vendor in Delhi. Oh, and also...beware of living in an apartment beneath a traditional Indian dance studio. I'll say no more.
Ciao.
What do you get when you cross "The Hangover" with "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" with a little disco madness in the form of the great Hindi actor Aamir Khan (who also produced the film) playing a character named "The Disco Fighter"? -- the madcap Hin-glish comedy "Delhi Belly," my pick for the funniest movie of 2011.
Never heard of it? You probably haven't unless you're one of the billion people who follow Hindi cinema, otherwise known as Bollywood. "Delhi Belly" was released last summer and grossed huge box office everywhere it seems except here in the U.S. But it is now available on Netflix in both DVD and streaming formats.
I just watched it and I have to say as ridiculous and vulgar as it is, I haven't laughed this hard in a long time.
The plot is too convoluted to really summarize but I'll try in a nutshell. Three down on their luck room-mates, Tashi (Imran Khan), Nitan (Kunaal Roy Kapur), and Arup (Vin Das) find themselves in the center of a drug and diamonds crime syndicate. A case of really bad food poisoning (hence, the Delhi Belly of the title) results in a botched drop-off involving stolen diamonds and a stool sample, a lot of shooting and chasing, a double--or was that a triple?--cross resulting in a burqa-clad getaway, and a wonderfully ludicrous end credits number to the tune of a 1970s blaxploitation pastiche called "I Hate You Like I Love You." (This is where Aamir Khan's Disco Fighter comes in.)
It definitely isn't your typical Bollywood film. Ninety-five percent of the dialogue is in English (though you may want to turn on those English subtitles for the Hindi bits) and it's running time is a brisk hour and forty-two minutes. The two musical numbers don't interrupt the flow of the story and are frankly totally tongue-in-cheek. If this had been made in the U.S. it would certainly have earned an R rating and it was criticized in India for the fact that it basically throws the Hindi film formula out the window.
I loved it.
Word of warning though: next time you order Indian take-out, you may want to rethink that Tandoori Chicken. Or, more to the point, don't order Tandoori Chicken from a street vendor in Delhi. Oh, and also...beware of living in an apartment beneath a traditional Indian dance studio. I'll say no more.
Ciao.
Syria + Iran = A Whole Lot of Kicking and Screaming, But a Fall Nonetheless
Hi everyone!
Want to know the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions? Regime change in Syria. At least that's the theory posited by Rick Gladstone in today's New York Times. It's an interesting suggestion.
It turns out that Iran is more than a little dependent on its only true friend in the Middle East. It is through Syria that Iran channels its money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But now that Hamas's prime minister Khaled Meshal has effectively closed up shop in Damascus with no plans to return there any time soon, Iran finds itself without one of its most trusted anchors. It also seems, at least from my perspective, that Hamas is seeking to distance itself from Iran. Mr. Meshal has been on an Arab World tour lately, hoping to gain support and legitimacy from governments in the region that up until now have preferred to keep Hamas at arms' length. Iran is currently undergoing its own financial problems, what with U.S.-backed sanctions slowly crippling its economy, legal action being threatened against any banks that deal with Iran's central bank, and a threatened oil embargo. In retaliation, Iran is flexing its muscles. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, but everyone knows this move would only be self-defeating and isn't likely to really occur. The source of much of the world's consternation with Iran is its continued pursuit of nuclear enrichment, regardless of nearly universal objections. Despite its continued threats, however, Iran now appears to be taking a slightly more diplomatic tact in allowing inspectors from the IAEA back into the country.
Word on the street is that Iran is supporting the Syrian army by providing it with weapons and tactical training against the protesters. No doubt it sees itself as supporting its best friend and neighbor. But one can almost guarantee that this is only going to bite Iran in the ass when the Assad regime eventually (and inevitably) falls and the new Syrian government is comprised of the heretofore opposition who aren't going to respond kindly to any Iranian meddling. Once this happens, Iran will only find itself even more isolated than it already does. And let's face it, as sanctions continue to squeeze the Iranian economy, the amount it gives to Syria is going to dwindle to nothing. It's kind of ironic really. By continuing to provoke international sanctions upon itself, Iran is hurting its buddy Syria more than it's actually helping. No more Iranian money means less that can go toward buttressing Assad and his cronies which means the inevitable downfall of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
It won't happen overnight. Syria and Iran will go down kicking and screaming. But they will go down...
Ciao.
Want to know the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions? Regime change in Syria. At least that's the theory posited by Rick Gladstone in today's New York Times. It's an interesting suggestion.
It turns out that Iran is more than a little dependent on its only true friend in the Middle East. It is through Syria that Iran channels its money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But now that Hamas's prime minister Khaled Meshal has effectively closed up shop in Damascus with no plans to return there any time soon, Iran finds itself without one of its most trusted anchors. It also seems, at least from my perspective, that Hamas is seeking to distance itself from Iran. Mr. Meshal has been on an Arab World tour lately, hoping to gain support and legitimacy from governments in the region that up until now have preferred to keep Hamas at arms' length. Iran is currently undergoing its own financial problems, what with U.S.-backed sanctions slowly crippling its economy, legal action being threatened against any banks that deal with Iran's central bank, and a threatened oil embargo. In retaliation, Iran is flexing its muscles. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, but everyone knows this move would only be self-defeating and isn't likely to really occur. The source of much of the world's consternation with Iran is its continued pursuit of nuclear enrichment, regardless of nearly universal objections. Despite its continued threats, however, Iran now appears to be taking a slightly more diplomatic tact in allowing inspectors from the IAEA back into the country.
Word on the street is that Iran is supporting the Syrian army by providing it with weapons and tactical training against the protesters. No doubt it sees itself as supporting its best friend and neighbor. But one can almost guarantee that this is only going to bite Iran in the ass when the Assad regime eventually (and inevitably) falls and the new Syrian government is comprised of the heretofore opposition who aren't going to respond kindly to any Iranian meddling. Once this happens, Iran will only find itself even more isolated than it already does. And let's face it, as sanctions continue to squeeze the Iranian economy, the amount it gives to Syria is going to dwindle to nothing. It's kind of ironic really. By continuing to provoke international sanctions upon itself, Iran is hurting its buddy Syria more than it's actually helping. No more Iranian money means less that can go toward buttressing Assad and his cronies which means the inevitable downfall of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
It won't happen overnight. Syria and Iran will go down kicking and screaming. But they will go down...
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)