The trial of Faisal Shahzad, the Time Square would-be bomber, once again spotlighted the twisted reasoning of terrorists. Taking advantage of the publicity that comes with this trial and knowing full well that his words would be used by other terrorists to justify their murderous plots, Shahzad announced his case against America. Pleading guilty to terrorism-related charges, he said:
I want to plead guilty and I'm going to plead guilty a hundred times forward because – until the hour the U.S. pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
He also said that he intended to damage buildings and injure or kill people because: "I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attacks . . . We Muslims are one community." When asked about why he would have killed innocent pedestrians in Times Square, he replied: "Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same."
I had blogged before about themes similar to Shahzad’s self-righteous indignation: “Does Suicide Bombing Have a Moral Equivalence?” and “The Jihadi Elite and the Communist Elite.” There is no need to repeat the arguments here. But I do want to add that unless the civilized world is quick to offer direct rebuttal to these pontificating terrorists, we must not give them and their messages the light of day anymore. That is, we must not let them use these forums and communication tools with which they are able to pull off their publicity stunts. There are many unsuspecting, impressionable young minds out there that we need to protect from these false messages.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Media Reporting: Sensationalism v. Patriotism
In light of the political/military fiasco that the Rolling Stone article has brought about in regard to the untimely removal of Gen. Stan McChrystal from his Afghanistan command, one can’t help but wonder whether members of the press can appreciate the distinctions between sensationalism and patriotism. For in this case, obviously, the reporter chose to engage in sensationalism. If this is not clear to the reporter and his editors, David Brooks puts things in perspective in this New York Times article, “The Culture of Exposure,” where he argues that off-the-record trash talk, especially in Washington DC, happens to everyone:
Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.
The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. . . McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched.
. . . By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.
The media in the US have grown too big for their breeches. We ordinary readers would simply like to read objective and factual reporting. That is the true vocation of good journalism, anyway – to treat its readers to objective and professional reporting. In areas of national security where the fate of the republic hangs in the balance, we expect them to exercise some prudence and common sense. If this reporter gets the big picture, publicly airing locker- room, gung-ho talk among members of the military is not prudent. It is also not patriotic. It is sensationalism.
Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.
The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. . . McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched.
. . . By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.
The media in the US have grown too big for their breeches. We ordinary readers would simply like to read objective and factual reporting. That is the true vocation of good journalism, anyway – to treat its readers to objective and professional reporting. In areas of national security where the fate of the republic hangs in the balance, we expect them to exercise some prudence and common sense. If this reporter gets the big picture, publicly airing locker- room, gung-ho talk among members of the military is not prudent. It is also not patriotic. It is sensationalism.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
"Peddling Influence" in the Philippines
Sensing that the U.S. government is seeking to influence the presidency of Ninoy Aquino, the newly-elect President of the Philippines, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago of the Philippine Senate last week reminded Aquino of a resolution they both passed before, recommending the abrogation of the “Visiting Forces Agreement” between the Philippines and the United States so that “its lopsided provisions against Filipinos could be reviewed.” In this Philippine Star article, Santiago was quoted as saying, “I’m very concerned that America is showing its hand too early – giving him the big build-up. So that it is going to provoke the suspicion in the minds of many that America is intending to manipulate the Aquino presidency.”
This is baffling to me. Given that the Philippine government has been dealing with insurgencies being waged by communist groups, Muslim secessionist movements, and international terrorists for decades, VFA has provided much-needed technical and logistics assistance to the Philippine military. If there are lopsided provisions in the agreement, those indeed must be reviewed. But they must also be weighed against the national security interests of both countries. It seems though that anti-American sentiment is what is driving Philippine foreign policy to adopt a hard stance against U.S. military training and exercises in the country. All in the name of nationalism!
Nationalism can be dangerous if and when it slides into irrational sentiments such as close-mindedness and xenophobia. When a people judge other peoples on the basis of their ethno-linguistic identities, such a people will develop a myopic view of the world and of themselves. Other Asian countries, the likes of Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, understand the strategic importance of how to couple national security interests with international military alliances. And so they cling to U.S. military protection without in the least becoming insecure or unpatriotic about the national interests of their respective countries. Patriotism, which is a better version of nationalism, does not mean close-mindedness the way Burma defines it (which explains why Burma remains the poorest country in Asia). It doesn’t mean being anti-U.S. or anti-foreign the way the communists define it. It means positioning one’s country from a position of strength, taking what it can to promote its national interests while giving what it can towards building a more stable, secure, and peaceful world.
The newly-installed Philippine presidency must think long-terms when it comes to its security needs and problems. Such policy concerns must be thought through with objectivity and reason. For sure, the question of whether the country needs military protection from its allies is something that cannot be answered by the narrow-minded prejudices of its lawmakers.
This is baffling to me. Given that the Philippine government has been dealing with insurgencies being waged by communist groups, Muslim secessionist movements, and international terrorists for decades, VFA has provided much-needed technical and logistics assistance to the Philippine military. If there are lopsided provisions in the agreement, those indeed must be reviewed. But they must also be weighed against the national security interests of both countries. It seems though that anti-American sentiment is what is driving Philippine foreign policy to adopt a hard stance against U.S. military training and exercises in the country. All in the name of nationalism!
Nationalism can be dangerous if and when it slides into irrational sentiments such as close-mindedness and xenophobia. When a people judge other peoples on the basis of their ethno-linguistic identities, such a people will develop a myopic view of the world and of themselves. Other Asian countries, the likes of Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, understand the strategic importance of how to couple national security interests with international military alliances. And so they cling to U.S. military protection without in the least becoming insecure or unpatriotic about the national interests of their respective countries. Patriotism, which is a better version of nationalism, does not mean close-mindedness the way Burma defines it (which explains why Burma remains the poorest country in Asia). It doesn’t mean being anti-U.S. or anti-foreign the way the communists define it. It means positioning one’s country from a position of strength, taking what it can to promote its national interests while giving what it can towards building a more stable, secure, and peaceful world.
The newly-installed Philippine presidency must think long-terms when it comes to its security needs and problems. Such policy concerns must be thought through with objectivity and reason. For sure, the question of whether the country needs military protection from its allies is something that cannot be answered by the narrow-minded prejudices of its lawmakers.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Iran’s Green Movement
The National Endowment for Democracy awarded its 2010 Democracy Award last week to the Green Movement of Iran, those street protesters who a year ago braved the streets of Tehran in order to challenge the legitimacy of the current regime and demand liberal reforms. I attended the ceremony, which was made extraordinarily poignant by the absence of the recipients.
“What if the Obama Administration fully sided with the Green Movement?” is the subtitle of a Washington Post Saturday editorial, “Iran’s Chance for Change.” It went on to say that supporting the Green Movement would have been a good way to weaken the regime and its nuclear program. (I believed this was the way to go a year ago, during the time that Iranian protesters were most in need of help.) Alas, after a year (of diplomatic failures), “the administration has been inching in this direction.” Finally, but inching in this direction? What would it take to make them move forward and fast? What is it about all this that is difficult to understand? Could it be that some members of the Administration are simply clueless as to what a good Iranian policy entails? Or could it be that some of them are being duped by the enemies?
I wonder, had the Obama Administration fully sided with the Green Movement a year ago, would some of these street protesters have made it to DC to pick up their award?
“What if the Obama Administration fully sided with the Green Movement?” is the subtitle of a Washington Post Saturday editorial, “Iran’s Chance for Change.” It went on to say that supporting the Green Movement would have been a good way to weaken the regime and its nuclear program. (I believed this was the way to go a year ago, during the time that Iranian protesters were most in need of help.) Alas, after a year (of diplomatic failures), “the administration has been inching in this direction.” Finally, but inching in this direction? What would it take to make them move forward and fast? What is it about all this that is difficult to understand? Could it be that some members of the Administration are simply clueless as to what a good Iranian policy entails? Or could it be that some of them are being duped by the enemies?
I wonder, had the Obama Administration fully sided with the Green Movement a year ago, would some of these street protesters have made it to DC to pick up their award?
A Fatwa Condemning Terrorism
It is unexpected, this fatwa issued by the Council of Senior Ulema, Saudi Arabia’s top religious leadership, which condemns violence being waged by terrorist groups and the underground network that finances it [“A Saudi Fatwa for Moderation,” Washington Post, June 13, 2010].
That the most senior religious body in the kingdom is making this call is significant in many ways, one of which is that rival fatwas from a lesser religious authority will not be able to challenge it. Terrorist groups already see it as a threat and are expressing negative reactions online. It is being hailed as representing a new voice of moderation coming from no less than the Muslim clerical establishment itself.
Hopefully, this convulsion will lead to a deeper crack in the system that will pave the way for more religious freedom and liberty of conscience. It happened within the Catholic Church around the fourteenth century when both ecclesiastic powers and political powers were vested in the papacy.
That the most senior religious body in the kingdom is making this call is significant in many ways, one of which is that rival fatwas from a lesser religious authority will not be able to challenge it. Terrorist groups already see it as a threat and are expressing negative reactions online. It is being hailed as representing a new voice of moderation coming from no less than the Muslim clerical establishment itself.
Hopefully, this convulsion will lead to a deeper crack in the system that will pave the way for more religious freedom and liberty of conscience. It happened within the Catholic Church around the fourteenth century when both ecclesiastic powers and political powers were vested in the papacy.
“Deporting the ‘Son of Hamas’”: Is the INS Serious?
This renders me speechless . . . What is there to say? That there is indeed a contradiction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law? That even those who aid the United States in its global war on terror are not immune from the nuances of immigration laws? That there is no moral equivalence between the good deeds of freedom fighters and the technicality of a law?
The INS has no case against Mosab Hassan Yousef . . . certainly not in the court of reason, justice, and common sense; not even in the court of law.
The INS has no case against Mosab Hassan Yousef . . . certainly not in the court of reason, justice, and common sense; not even in the court of law.
Challenges in North Korea
I am not a soccer fan, but I am pleasantly surprised to find out that North Korea has a team competing in the World Cup. I don’t know anything about the North Korean team (or how they were able to get to play in the World Cup). They must have the support of their oppressive regime, and they must be a privileged lot in an otherwise repressed society where slavishness and poverty are a way of life.
Still and all, sports is supposedly an apolitical thing where physical prowess determines the outcome of a competition. The North Korean team probably made it to the World Cup on the basis of merit. And their achievements should not be cast aside just because they are beholden (maybe) to a tyrannical regime.
And I am thinking beyond sports. I hope that every game the North Koreans play, or for that matter, every game that is played during the tournament, is being aired on TV and radio stations in North Korea. That will be a treat to the people, their narrow window through which they could get a glimpse of the outside world.
This Washington Post op-ed piece, “Screams from North Korea,” portrays a picture of a people who have no idea of a better life outside of their country. Their minds, according to the author, have been nurtured by a tyranny, conditioned for loyalty, and fed on lies. How does a mind shaped by all these change? How does one convince North Koreans of a kind of life different from theirs when they don’t even know of the alternatives out there?
Their only sources of outside information are defectors who provide stories of freedom and opportunities that they have found in their new life. One said that from leaflet drops, he got to view images of people wearing all sorts of different clothes (enough to “spark a revolution of the mind”). Smuggled radios and cellphones from China have become important tools for disseminating information from outside. Defectors are “seeding doubts that might someday become dissent.” Like those imprisoned in Plato’s cave but got to see the outside world, these enlightened defectors are doing everything they can to tell those who are left behind that there are other realities out there, far better than the one they live in.
Closed societies like Burma and North Korea need our help. Deeply-entrenched tyrannical regimes should be removed by force. But there’s also that people-to-people “civil society” obligations that the lucky ones like us, who were able to leave Plato’s cave, owe to those who are still living in the darkness of ignorance. In this 21st century of individual rights and liberties, of free-market enterprise and prosperity, of accessible technological tools and the information revolution, no groups of people anywhere in the world should wallow in ignorance, slavishness, and poverty.
As to the North Korean soccer team, I‘ll be rooting for them, hoping that at the end of the tournament, they, too, will defect so that they can tell the world their story.
Still and all, sports is supposedly an apolitical thing where physical prowess determines the outcome of a competition. The North Korean team probably made it to the World Cup on the basis of merit. And their achievements should not be cast aside just because they are beholden (maybe) to a tyrannical regime.
And I am thinking beyond sports. I hope that every game the North Koreans play, or for that matter, every game that is played during the tournament, is being aired on TV and radio stations in North Korea. That will be a treat to the people, their narrow window through which they could get a glimpse of the outside world.
This Washington Post op-ed piece, “Screams from North Korea,” portrays a picture of a people who have no idea of a better life outside of their country. Their minds, according to the author, have been nurtured by a tyranny, conditioned for loyalty, and fed on lies. How does a mind shaped by all these change? How does one convince North Koreans of a kind of life different from theirs when they don’t even know of the alternatives out there?
Their only sources of outside information are defectors who provide stories of freedom and opportunities that they have found in their new life. One said that from leaflet drops, he got to view images of people wearing all sorts of different clothes (enough to “spark a revolution of the mind”). Smuggled radios and cellphones from China have become important tools for disseminating information from outside. Defectors are “seeding doubts that might someday become dissent.” Like those imprisoned in Plato’s cave but got to see the outside world, these enlightened defectors are doing everything they can to tell those who are left behind that there are other realities out there, far better than the one they live in.
Closed societies like Burma and North Korea need our help. Deeply-entrenched tyrannical regimes should be removed by force. But there’s also that people-to-people “civil society” obligations that the lucky ones like us, who were able to leave Plato’s cave, owe to those who are still living in the darkness of ignorance. In this 21st century of individual rights and liberties, of free-market enterprise and prosperity, of accessible technological tools and the information revolution, no groups of people anywhere in the world should wallow in ignorance, slavishness, and poverty.
As to the North Korean soccer team, I‘ll be rooting for them, hoping that at the end of the tournament, they, too, will defect so that they can tell the world their story.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
China’s One-Child Policy: Social Engineering and Its Costs
Social engineering especially concerning family life could only lead to negative societal consequences. As the most natural and most fundamental of social units, the family provides the conditions for the natural growth and development of its members, towards their becoming good human beings and useful citizens. Tampering with these natural duties and obligations is undermining the very purpose of human existence.
China is about to reap such negative consequences. Its coercive population control effort, the one-child policy that it launched some 20 years ago aimed at curbing the growth of its population, in general, and its female population, in particular, is a massive case in social engineering. Those who don’t comply are subject to either forced abortion or sterilization. Chai Ling, a former leader of China's 1989 pro-democracy movement, in this inspiring and enlightening essay, "China's one-child policy: As brutal and hypocritical as ever", condemns China’s one-child policy as barbaric and its consequences catastrophic.
What are the results of this coercive population control measure? Chai Ling enumerates them: 1) 100 million missing girls; 2) a growing gender imbalance of 120 boys over 100 girls being born (worse in rural areas where the ratio is 130 boys over 100 girls) – the prediction is such that in just 10 years, there will be 30 to 40 million more boys than girls under the age of 20 in China. (Sociologists are worried about problems of social instability -- that in the event that Chinese males are unable to find women to marry, cases of rape and other sex-related crimes will ensue); 3) the suicide rate among Chinese women is five times the world average, and is the No. 1 cause of death among rural women in China.
All this is tragic. Let it serve as a lesson to autocrats and totalitarian regimes the world over: no amount of political power in the world can alter the dictates of natural and familial living.
As to Chai Ling, she only has prayers for the women of China:
Since moving to the U.S., I have been blessed to marry the man of my dreams, and we have three beautiful daughters. Every June 1 [China’s "Children's Day"], I make sure to remind them how lucky we are to live in a country that values personal freedom more than hollow public pageants. When I tuck them in, I give them a kiss, read them a story and say a prayer for the women in China, that one day soon they may have the same freedom and safety that I have found in America and which is the birthright of my three little girls.
China is about to reap such negative consequences. Its coercive population control effort, the one-child policy that it launched some 20 years ago aimed at curbing the growth of its population, in general, and its female population, in particular, is a massive case in social engineering. Those who don’t comply are subject to either forced abortion or sterilization. Chai Ling, a former leader of China's 1989 pro-democracy movement, in this inspiring and enlightening essay, "China's one-child policy: As brutal and hypocritical as ever", condemns China’s one-child policy as barbaric and its consequences catastrophic.
What are the results of this coercive population control measure? Chai Ling enumerates them: 1) 100 million missing girls; 2) a growing gender imbalance of 120 boys over 100 girls being born (worse in rural areas where the ratio is 130 boys over 100 girls) – the prediction is such that in just 10 years, there will be 30 to 40 million more boys than girls under the age of 20 in China. (Sociologists are worried about problems of social instability -- that in the event that Chinese males are unable to find women to marry, cases of rape and other sex-related crimes will ensue); 3) the suicide rate among Chinese women is five times the world average, and is the No. 1 cause of death among rural women in China.
All this is tragic. Let it serve as a lesson to autocrats and totalitarian regimes the world over: no amount of political power in the world can alter the dictates of natural and familial living.
As to Chai Ling, she only has prayers for the women of China:
Since moving to the U.S., I have been blessed to marry the man of my dreams, and we have three beautiful daughters. Every June 1 [China’s "Children's Day"], I make sure to remind them how lucky we are to live in a country that values personal freedom more than hollow public pageants. When I tuck them in, I give them a kiss, read them a story and say a prayer for the women in China, that one day soon they may have the same freedom and safety that I have found in America and which is the birthright of my three little girls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)