Biased prestige

Venezuela´s President, Hugo Chavez, received last week the American scholar and linguist Noam Chomsky, who declared upon arrival that “Chavez is building a different and viable world in Venezuela”. Hours before, Chomsky criticised Washington´s “imperial mentality” and accused his country of “aggravating tensions in Latin America”. According to the Spanish newspaper El País, “the prestigious intellectual has allowed himself to be seduced by the Venezuelan President”. The paper goes on to stress that Chomsky is “among the best known and respected American intellectuals abroad”.

So, according to this newspaper, our man is undoubtedly prestigious. What is this claim based on? Which is the source of his prestige?

Noam Chomsky is an emeritus professor of linguistics at the MIT in Massachusetts, well known for his contributions to the philosophy of language and mind with concepts and theories such as the generative grammar. He is also known to be a leading critic of US foreign policy.

Whereas the scientific community values his work in the field of linguistics as a paramount contribution to the advance of the discipline, his political views are often controversial. Hence, we must conclude that, for the Spanish newspaper -in fact, for everyone regarding him as an acclaimed thinker-, Chomsky is prestigious and, therefore, his political views are to be taken as authoritative ones, either because he is a renowned linguist, or because he is a foremost leftist critic of American foreign policy. Though there is no logical causality in the former claim -being an expert on language does not imply the same expertise in the field of international affairs-, a combination of the former and the latter seems to be a plausible source of prestige in this case. Many people, and a vast sector of the serious media -employing the usual term, prestigious media, would produce an unnecessary circularity- deem someone prestigious if that particular individual is (a) critical with the US domestic or foreign policies, and (b) possesses a certain stature as an academic or theorist, but not necessarily in the mentioned fields. That is, being extremely but scholarly critical of the US is a good way to attain professional and intellectual prestige.

Given the fact that Chomsky´s assertions about the new world being built in Venezuela may be contradicted by the grim reality most Venezuelans and Latin Americans have to face in their daily lives -a direct consecuence of Chavez decisions or other colectivist policies-, in which way might we claim those views are prestigious at all?

And, worse still, would the public, and these media, see him as equally prestigious if he was a fierce supporter of US interventions abroad to restore democracy or to achieve any other declared goals of liberal foreign policy?

Photo: Noam Chomsky, 2006 © Randombassist

It´s Afghanistan, stupid!

Following what President Obama stated during his campaign, the new American administration has started shifting its foreign policy efforts away from Irak to focus on Afghanistan. Along with a deployment of additional troops, however, comes the news that the administration is seriously considering displacing Afghan President Karzai from government, in favor of some new and apparently more reliable and potentially effective candidates.

Despite the corruption cases in Karzai´s government, and the presence of warlords both in the national and local administration, the US should not involve itself in the daily political management of the country. On the one hand, it comes as no surprise corruption is thriving in one of the poorer countries on earth; on the other hand President Karzai had to co-opt certain warlords as the only way to mantain peace and keep some provinces (more or less) under Kabul´s rule. Politics in Afghanistan is a chaotic and undemocratic business but, what were we in the Western world expecting after a 30 years war in a country that always remained stuck in a sort of economic and social Middle Ages? What do we expect after failing to live up to our promises to assist them with substantial economic and financial help and the deployment of enough troops to guarantee peace in the country? We are helping them, somehow, though this is far from enough, and also far from what we committed ourselves to do, but nevertheless our patience is running out with countries such as Afghanistan, which do not democratize at the pace we want them to become Jeffersonian democracies.

After the tragic failure of the ill-conceived experiment in Irak, it should be clear for everyone that Afghanistan is the primary token if the West is to be trusted in its claims to be working to bring democracy and prosperity to countries that still enjoy no political freedom. If we are to succeed here, both in our terms -international security and democratic principles- and in theirs -Afghans are asking for our help to build a peaceful, viable State-, we should devote our efforts not to the realm of micro-politics but to building capacities, that is, infraestructure, roads, hospitals, schools, telecommunications, police, internal safety, law enforcement, market development, criminal justice, women´s health, education and protection… All this implies devoting money and personnel, and lots of it, but also trusting locals and working with them in identifiying their own needs, as opposed to imposing our goals. Only as a consecuence of a long term economic and social transformation could this place start its journey towards a viable, sustainable and fair democracy. We cannot change overnight what has remained like this for ages. We cannot allow ourselves to be inpatient. We should be ready to commit ourselves for a long time. It is worth it, and not only for Afghanistan itself and their inhabitants, but also as an example of what we are willing to do to help other countries and even as a proof of the coherence between our beliefs and our democracy promotion efforts.

Photo: ‘Kabul, Afghanistan’, 2009 © Lyndsey Addario, The New York Times

Puppet minorities

‘If we collaborate with the army, the terrorists try to kill us. If we collaborate with the terrorists, he will kill us’. Thus speaks to a foreign journalist the inhabitant of a Kurdish village in South-Eastern Turkey.[1] The terrorists are the PKK, the guerrilla of the Turkish kurds, while he is the officer of the Turkish military police who shadows the journalist everywhere he goes in the area.

We tend to think of minorities in certain regions torn by war, poverty and terror as inevitably repressed in every possible realm by the government of the country they are settled in, and perhaps by the majoritarian social group as well. While this is generally the case, especially if the minority belongs to a different ethnic group than the majority, or possesses a distinct culture, language or religion, or supported the wrong side in a recent armed conflict involving the country, we risk overlooking another important fact which also prevents peace and social tolerance from being accomplished. Quite often, minorities are manipulated by the leaders of neighbouring Nation-States in which the ethno-cultural group of the minority in question constitutes the social majority and/or enjoys significant political or military power. In other words, some governments and armed groups tend to manipulate minorities settled in nearby countries when both belong to the same ethno-cultural family, and they do so out of sheer geopolitical interests. Thus, sometimes minorities are not only victims of their oppressors, but also of their unwillingness to integration and adaptation to the new circumstances, a reluctance which reaches tragic proportions when the prospects for democratization are real.

While this phenomenon has been somehow present in many armed conflicts throughout history -let us remember, for instance, Italy´s manipulation of Italian communities in the Austro-Hungarian Empire territories, and the role these Irredenta claims played during World War I-, it is perhaps in the contemporary world where it has shown the real measure of its disruptive capabilities.

In the aforementioned example of the Kurdish communities of Eastern Turkey, both the PKK guerrillas and some Iraqi Kurdish leaders have influenced the Turkish kurds into not making compatible their belonging to the Turkish State with their maintaining their Kurdish cultural ties. In the India-administered part of Kashmir -Jammu and Kashmir-, Pakistan-sponsored groups have been pressuring muslim population not to comply with Indian legislation nor obeying Indian authorities. Obviously, Turkish and local Indian repression -particularly in the former case-, respectively, has not made things easy for those minorities.

Examples abound, but perhaps two of the most salient in global affairs are those of Kosovo´s serbs and Palestinian refugees. The Serb residents of Mitrovica, in northern Kosovo, are just pawns in the regional game the government of Serbia is playing against the international community not to acknowledge the former Serb province´s independence. While they affirm to be defending the interest of that community, it is obvious they detached themselves from it a long time ago.[2] The life of that Kosovan minority would improve substantially if it accepted the new institutions, though the EU and the UN will have to be vigilant and force the Kosovan government to live up to its democratic constitution.

In the same manner, during more than half a century, Palestinian refugees have been equally manipulated by Arab leaders, who, claiming to be backing up their quest for returning to the Palestinian lands they left -forced by the Israeli army or voluntarily-, kept them in refugee camps and prevented them from integrating in their host countries, where many of them -or their descendants-, after 50 or 60 years, still do not have a full citizenship status, and are among the poorest inhabitants in their respective host countries.[3] They have also been pawns in a greater game, the one being played in the Middle Eastern power politics.

As in every conflict, often attributions of pure good and evil are difficult to make. Reality is much more complex than what defenders of different sides want us to believe.

References:

[1] Michael Ignatieff, Blood and belonging. Journeys into the new nationalism, London, Vintage, 1994.

[2] Michael Ignatieff, Empire lite, London, Vintage, 2003.

[3] Joan B. Culla, Israel, el somni I la tragèdia. Del sionisme al conflicte de Palestina, Barcelona, Edicions La campana, 2005.

Photo: Erbil refugee camp, Iraqi Kurdistan, 2007 © Emmanuel Smague

Unaffected crackdown

Are Chinese authorities worried because the eyes of the world are on them now Olympics are approaching? Do they recently initiated conversations with the Tibetan leaders in exile really acknowledging the status quo in the region must change? Apparently, the answer to both questions is ‘No’. Though they claim to have realeased hundreds of prisoners in the last weeks, actually they keep more than one thousand Tibetan protesters in prison. According to Amnesty International, many of those detainees are kept in dire conditions, without enough food and frequently beaten, and some of them have been judged and ’sentenced after questionable trials”. Meanwhile, Chinese journalists continue working amidst the extreme censorship stablished around their job when the riots began, and foreign ones are simply blocked from entering Tibet.

Isn´t it high time we ceased to reward the Chinese dictatorship with international events -such as the Olympics- for free? Shouldn´t the international community be exerting a stronger pressure on the Chinese government on behalf of human rights and the rule of law?

Read Amnesty´s report here.

Photo: Police, Lhasa, Tibet, 2007 © culturalvisions

Reciprocal atrocities

On Dec. 31st, the number of casualties reaches 450 on both sides. On March 31st, it reaches 2,000 casualties and 4,000 injured. Both parts anounce ceasefires that are almost inmediately breached. Savage retaliation acts against civilians on both sides follow each other. The UN endorses a two states solution in Palestine as the only quick and effective way of stopping the bloodbath. The divided Arab ruling class has been unable of defending efficiently its people´s interests and couldn´t prepare the Palestines for the armed conflict either. On April 9th, Irgun and Lehi troops kill 100 Palestinian civilians in Deir Yassim, west of Jerusalem. In revenge, the Arabs attack a Hebrew group of trucks travelling with medical equipment; as a result, 77 people die. The number of Palestinian refugees reaches 750,000 by November. They and their descendants will remain in exile in camps in Egipt, Lebanon,west of the Jordan river and Syria, festering their anger and resentment and unable to integrate in the new foster societies, thanks to the official Arab policy towards them. Expelled, robbed of their properties, hundreds of Hebrews suffer retaliation all over the Middle East.*

Is this a description of recent attacks on Israeli population by Palestinian terrorists and on Palestinian population by the Israeli army? No, these events happened in 1947-1948, right after the Israeli declaration of independence, but they could be yesterday´s headlines; they have never ceased to take place, as both peoples wage war on each other since then. Soon it will be the 60th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, 60 years of bloody attacks on soldiers and civilians on both parts, a mutual disregard for the rights of each other, and countless actions and policies aimed at impeding a peaceful and prosperous co-existence of two political communities. All this murderous nonsense is bound to go on until both peoples are weary of fighting each other. Then, they will be ready to elect responsible and corageous leaders who are willing to compromise and let the inhabitants of this war-torn region have a future.

(*) Data from Joan B. Culla, Israel, el somni i la tragèdia. Del sionisme al conflicte de Palestina [Israel, the dream and the tragedy. From Zionism to the Palestinian conflict], Barcelona, Edicions La Campana, 2005.

Photo: Balata Refugee Camp, September 2005 © Shabtai Gold