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

A double-edged Olympic sword

As a part of a diplomatic offensive this week, the Chinese government has criticized American human rights record, poverty and racial divides, after the American Department of State only mildly critiziced Chinese human rights abuses, and even erased the country from the list of the serious human rights abuses, to the outrage of international human rights NGO´s. China´s protest constitutes a shameful and hypocritical move, since China´s performance in these fields is among the worst in the planet. The offensive tries to counteract Western condemnation of Chinese human rights abuses just before the Olympic Games in Beijing. China has staked enormously in the gigantic public relations operation the Games amount to, whose aim is to show the world how far has China reached in its quest for development. However, the idea Chinese officials have in mind when thinking about development may have nothing to do with the image it conjures up for the Westerner, since the latter includes not only living conditions but also freedom and respect for individuals, whereas the former just points to a kind of competition to attain material and technological goals. In other words, it is all about national pride, a very Asian concept, by the way.

The Olympic Games should have never been granted to China, probably the most serious human rights violator in the world. Once the appropriate international bodies took the decision, the only action left for democratic governments and peoples is to actively boycott them. And for the boycott to be really effective, it should be a widespread Western decision, regardless the Chinese reaction to it. During the Cold War, the Moscow 1980 Olympic Games Western boycott did not lead us to the Third World War; if anything, it contributed to the Soviet regime´s collapse. Moreover, China needs Western markets desperatedly, so here we have a powerful tool to exert influence on the country. And to those claiming we should not mix sports with politics, let us note an event such as the Olympic Games is one of the best examples of global politics nowadays. Besides, the political nature of the Games is officially recorgnized by the Chinese government, which rightly weighted the huge opportunities to improve its international image the gathering offered. However, when betting on the Games, Chinese officials seemed oblivious to the fact that in our globalized world, they are a double-edged sword. Therefore, a big-scale fiasco would project a multiplied image of incompetence, corruption and, ultimately, backwardness. That would imply losing face, again, a very important concept in Asian cultures.

It is this multiplier effect we need to take advantage of to expose China´s abusive public policies towards its own citizens, raise awareness about its immoral international behaviour -i.e.: its role in the Darfur crisis-, and show our solidarity with Chinese dissidents and human rights activists. No one is denying China its right to economic and social development, but the Free World -a Cold War expression which is nevertheless relevant today, unfortunately- should send a clear message: if the Chinese government wants its country to be accepted as a major actor in the international community, it should respect life, freedom, and human rights.

Read on:

Human Rights Watch last report on China´s abuses on Beijing´s migrant construction workers.

On China´s disastrous environmental record.

On China´s international public relations setbacks as a consecuence of the Olympic Games exposure.

On Chinese officials defending China´s stand in Darfur and criticizing the Olympics tie-in.

Photo: Woman holding a dog, Beijing, 2007 © Nataliebehring

Tell it like it is. Loud

In particular, I am writing this post for people who may read it from abroad, so you may know what is the reality of terror in Spain.

Some time ago, I noted in this blog how for the international media two plus two not always equals four (“Not separatists but terrorists”). Today, killers from the Basque terrorist group ETA gunned to death a man in the Spanish village of Mondragon. They did it as cowardly as usual, five bullets shot from behind, and in front of his wife and one of his daughters. Isaias Carrasco´s crime was to be a former councilor with the Socialist Party in a Basque village, that is, he was guilty of believing in democracy and pluralism; moreover, he did so in a region -the Basque Country- where believing in freedom and individual rights and publicly stating this position may be deadley dangerous. There is no democracy in the Basque Country, thanks to the ETA mob and its nationalist political allies, who threaten to kill anyone not sharing their insane political views. Often, the so-called moderate nationalists -who benefit from a virtual monopoly of political power thanks to the lack of freedom in the region- have made a subtle but invaluable contribution to this state of affairs.

Having abandoned politics because of radical nationalist pressures, Isaias was now just a lay worker. It did not matter. The totalitarian terrorists singled him out as member of the ‘oppresor class’ preventing the glorious Basque nation to set free, according to their extreme nationalistic nightmarish dream.

Nine months after my post, is sad to realize the non-Spanish media still consider this horrendous mafia as a bunch of romantic liberation activists. Shamefully enough, today the headlines are almost the same as they were nine months ago. Some extracts from leading international newspapers´ online editions today echoing the terrorist killing: “A gunman suspected of belonging to the Basque militant group ETA…” (The New York Times); “l’organisation séparatiste basque ETA…” (Le Monde); “…blamed the killing on the Basque separatist group ETA” (The Globe and Mail); “Officials blame the attack on Basque separatists.” (Los Angeles Times). It just goes on and on…

An organized group threatening and killing other people just because they do not agree with them is not a separatist group. It is a totalitarian terrorist group. Should we say it again? They are just TOTALITARIAN and TERRORISTS. Is it not obvious enough?

In Memoriam, Isaias Carrasco, 2008

Not separatists but terrorists

ETA announced today its break of the so called cease-fire it declared a year ago and which actually broke last December with a deadly attack at the Madrid airport. The international press echoes the announcement and, as always, there is a consensus on calling this Basque mob a ’separatist group’. Let us take a quick look at today´s online edition of some international papers. ‘Basque separatist group ETA calls off cease-fire’, The International Herald Tribune; ‘Basque separatist group to resume violence after halting 14-month ceasefire’, The Guardian; ‘Basque Group Ends Ceasefire’, The New York Times; ‘L’organisation séparatiste basque a annoncé…’, Le Monde; ‘Basque separatists call off year-old ceasefire’, The Globe and Mail . One hoped that after the 9/11 and the surge of global terror networks, terrorist groups would be called what they really are, and not designed by adjectives that perhaps conjure up an image of a romantic fight for freedom against an occupying power, but which nevertheless are far from reality. We in Spain have been suffering terror for more than thirty years. ETA has killed more than 800 people throughout these years, including policemen, politicians, civilians, and children. It is high time the world knows we cherish our democratic freedoms and have a constitutional system in which everyone may defend all sorts of ideas in the political arena, including independence and secession. However, the only way our laws allow it to be done is through non-violent and democratic means. ETA and its political branch, Batasuna, consider acceptable to kill anyone who does oppose their views. That is not separatism but a sheer practice of terror. The Spanish paper El País offered in today´s edition the best definition of these mafiosi: ‘An armed group in search of excuses not to disappear’.