The mainstream media has a rather sordid love affair with Iran; President Ahmedinejad in particular has often been portrayed as a destitute, despondent tyrant and the actual leader (for the most part held the title of 'president' for all practical purposes) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's influence over Iran's foreign and domestic policies have been largely overshadowed. But is it enough to warrant frequent walk-outs and threats against yet another sovereign country, with an elected head and cabinet? It is a shame when controversial, albeit sometimes plausible and debatable precedents are waylaid in political shrapnel as merely the rants of someone who is jealous of 'America's freedoms'.
Anyone who uses that phrase suffers from a deluded disconnect from what Arabs actually dislike for several reasons.
Most people don't know what it means and use it to describe an inane sense of irrelevant quasi-liberty, usually too vague to separate it from the responsible freedom that the world should ideally be working towards. If freedom is protecting one's economic and security interests by satisfying the moneyed few, while trundling on the moneyless many, then we might as well throw in the towel and start adjusting to living in a Gattaca-esque manufactured society, or something closer to Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World. Noam Chomsky often cites the first mention of the 'campaign of hatred against the US among the Arab world', which so disappointed the Eisenhower Administration. The air of staunch resistance and possible retribution did not faze the administration; in all reality it was a wonder as to why it had not surfaced sooner. The fact was, and remains so, that Arabs do not hate American freedoms, in fact they enjoy many freedoms that do not come out of a false sense of security. What they do hate is US foreign policy, which is why the Eisenhower administration was perplexed by the lack of retaliation and also why they dismissed the issue as expected, not just plausible.
Most people don't know what it means and use it to describe an inane sense of irrelevant quasi-liberty, usually too vague to separate it from the responsible freedom that the world should ideally be working towards. If freedom is protecting one's economic and security interests by satisfying the moneyed few, while trundling on the moneyless many, then we might as well throw in the towel and start adjusting to living in a Gattaca-esque manufactured society, or something closer to Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World. Noam Chomsky often cites the first mention of the 'campaign of hatred against the US among the Arab world', which so disappointed the Eisenhower Administration. The air of staunch resistance and possible retribution did not faze the administration; in all reality it was a wonder as to why it had not surfaced sooner. The fact was, and remains so, that Arabs do not hate American freedoms, in fact they enjoy many freedoms that do not come out of a false sense of security. What they do hate is US foreign policy, which is why the Eisenhower administration was perplexed by the lack of retaliation and also why they dismissed the issue as expected, not just plausible.
Oman has many outdoor cafes and quite a few at stunning locations. On a particularly nice morning I met a friend for breakfast at one of these quaint places, and sitting right next to us was a table of Omani women. This would have been strictly 'haraam' (taboo) if we let mainstream media dictate what we are to believe about the middle east, but it's true (although the exception to the rule is Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, to an extent, where even wives are not allowed at the same table as the husband and his friends. This also explains why Arab meals are large and often communal - it's not just religious, but also a cultural adaptation around rigid laws that separate the sexes; big table for the wife and her friends and an even bigger one for the men). In fact, some of these women even came over, excused themselves and were candidly showing us - two guys; not related; expatriates, nonetheless - some of the pictures they had snapped. Yes, they were wearing abayahs (traditional Arab cloak), but there is a myth surrounding that, which I will now distil and attempt to debunk. Abayahs and burkas are not entirely mandatory. More conservative families will require their women to wear them, just like Amish women or more conservative Jewish women, or even more traditional and orthodox Christians (to put it into perspective). Religion as an institution has imposed all sorts of 'morality' based instructions on people, and this would count as one of them. But it's not oppressive. In more progressive Muslim nations like Oman, women actually choose to wear abayahs because, well, in all honesty the men, who should be considered oppressed, won't bat an eyelid if there's a chance to give someone a good once-over.
For the longest time seeing a woman's ankles or shoulders would be enough to set off certain gonadic chemical reactions. Pornography is strictly prohibited and distribution as such has become a cultural taboo for even expatriates. Plus it gets frustratingly hot - desert temperatures are not particularly what one would refer to as 'balmy'. Although this may seem in jest, it is quite true, and as a guy, I do feel sorry for them at times. It also explains the brazen ogling (not staring, ogling) when any woman walks by wearing anything revealing. It's quite obvious now, that women, in response to this behaviour, tend to want to cover up even more, thus keeping the cycle going. So there you have it, women don't have to wear abayahs if they want to visit Oman (or most Arab nations), but ogling is not punishable by any laws.
For the longest time seeing a woman's ankles or shoulders would be enough to set off certain gonadic chemical reactions. Pornography is strictly prohibited and distribution as such has become a cultural taboo for even expatriates. Plus it gets frustratingly hot - desert temperatures are not particularly what one would refer to as 'balmy'. Although this may seem in jest, it is quite true, and as a guy, I do feel sorry for them at times. It also explains the brazen ogling (not staring, ogling) when any woman walks by wearing anything revealing. It's quite obvious now, that women, in response to this behaviour, tend to want to cover up even more, thus keeping the cycle going. So there you have it, women don't have to wear abayahs if they want to visit Oman (or most Arab nations), but ogling is not punishable by any laws.
So it's certainly not the lack of free porn that the Arabs hate the US for. Is it the democracy? Most Arab nations have councils and municipalities in each major governing city. They often form the panel of advisors to the ruling family. In fact, in Oman, H M Sultan Qaboos bin Said is not considered a 'president', as much as the representative of the ruling family. His successor will mostly be decided by a council, and in the event that they do not reach a consensus, they will revert to the predetermined selection of the Sultan.
Most movements labelled under the Arab Spring uprisings have been against oppressive leaders, who, with US aid and support, have managed to besiege their own nations with economic and social turmoil. The case is true for Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Bahrain and even Libya. Oman had its set of protests too, but were dealt with peacefully and reforms were almost immediate. Of course, their campaigns were not for the ousting of the Sultan, but for reforms in wages to match the rise in global food and commodity prices, and jobs for educated Omanis. In fact, there was even a march in the capital in support of the Sultan's leadership, which has transformed the nation in just 40 years.
Most movements labelled under the Arab Spring uprisings have been against oppressive leaders, who, with US aid and support, have managed to besiege their own nations with economic and social turmoil. The case is true for Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Bahrain and even Libya. Oman had its set of protests too, but were dealt with peacefully and reforms were almost immediate. Of course, their campaigns were not for the ousting of the Sultan, but for reforms in wages to match the rise in global food and commodity prices, and jobs for educated Omanis. In fact, there was even a march in the capital in support of the Sultan's leadership, which has transformed the nation in just 40 years.
So it's not the democracy either, could it be education? Health? Most Arab nations offer free public education to its citizens, which includes University, and most also offer the finest in healthcare for free. This is more than what the US has to boast - granted the US has a much higher population, but with the largest GDP and trillions of dollars in wasteful spending, it's not unimaginable that the US could offer at least one of the two to its citizens. It still remains the only developed nation without universal health care and has the highest infant mortality rate and worst post-natal health statistics among other equally developed nations too.
So what exactly warrants a walkout by several members of the UN when the president of Iran walks to the pulpit? He obviously posits a considerably threatening demeanour for a relatively diminutive man, who bashes the holocaust as a blatant lie and repeatedly calls for investigations into the attacks on 9/11. He brazenly supports Palestine and calls to attention the crimes of Israel and the US against the Arab world, which go largely unheeded. In a world where people are ready to point the finger and support rebel forces with weapons, artillery and NATO air support at a whim, without congressional or UN procedures, we're also quick to sideline anyone who doesn't choose to blindly follow.
It must be said that the holocaust denial incites visceral guttural criticism, and being a head of state does not authorize being able to say anything that comes to mind. But it is an unjustly biased world where King Hamad Bin Eisa Al Khalifa of Bahrain, after brutally curbing protestors and allowing Saudi forces to enter the country (to protect the royal family) and open fire on civilians as a manner of crowd control, is allowed to give a speech that is 'hailed' by the UN, while Ahmadinejad triggers a walkout before even completing his opening address. In fact, the Bahraini ruler should have been promptly and sternly reprimanded along with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for the atrocities that happened, and continue to happen in an effort to curb protests for reforms in Bahrain. What separates Bahrain from Libya is very little, except, of course, the moneyed Muslims willing to play into the pockets of US foreign policy, while ignoring the progress of the nation to its detriment. Libya, as a result, got a full scale military invasion, bolstered by the CIA for being insubordinate. Bahrain did not get a peep because they were tasked with sorting out their own internal turmoil what with the fact that it plays host to one of the US's largest offshore fleets - military action would prove fiscally and geo-politically debauching to the special relationship.
Yemen, in the meantime, sees dozens of protesters killed in violent attacks by forces loyal to president Saleh, but they offer nothing of value, and until Iran is dealt with, Syria would be a giant hurdle for the US. Libya's vast amounts of light crude - more expensive and cleaner than regular crude - proved fiscally pivotal in the decision to aid the rebels, although the African Union refused to accept a rebel government, even urging for a peaceful settlement - suggestions that are yet to be heeded to.
Yemen, in the meantime, sees dozens of protesters killed in violent attacks by forces loyal to president Saleh, but they offer nothing of value, and until Iran is dealt with, Syria would be a giant hurdle for the US. Libya's vast amounts of light crude - more expensive and cleaner than regular crude - proved fiscally pivotal in the decision to aid the rebels, although the African Union refused to accept a rebel government, even urging for a peaceful settlement - suggestions that are yet to be heeded to.
The more that is written, the more the UN looks farcical and tawdry. They veto progress and a potentially peaceful settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and celebrate a woman opening the session - Dilma Rousseff, president of Brazil - which is actually a depressing testament to the gender-bias that has dictated policy for far too long. The UN is like the shady mechanic that assures you that an oil check is a standard procedure, but guts your whole engine for spare cash, replaces parts with knockoffs, and when nothing works anymore, blames it on your car being an import. There are so many current events that fit that analogy; it's up to you to mull them over and join the dots. it's cripplingly tragic, and poignantly ironic that FIFA has more member nations than the UN. A gentleman's game, played by hooligans is more approachable than a world organisation that is meant to unite nations.
by Rohit, Muscat, Oman (Arabia)
No comments:
Post a Comment