An update

Several weeks ago I posted about how responsible the Egyptian military had been while the Revolution of Tehrir Square played out.  Well, over the past couple of weeks we have been witnessing a very different, and at times diametrically opposite, face of the Egyptian military.
Mubarak has been ousted, but he has been replaced by a military regime.  Though the military government purports to be merely transitional, the Egyptian people have quite naturally been less than sanguine about the regime and the intentions of its constituent members.  And so, to ensure that this transitional government does not forget its mandate, crowds of protestors have continued to gather every Friday at Tahrir Square.  And as these protests continue with unabated intensity, reports have been pouring in of dissidents being imprisoned and tortured, journalists being obstructed and suppressed, and just today, we hear news of an Egyptian blogger being sentenced to prison by a military court.
So I fear that I spoke too soon, and was too readily wooed by the men in khaki.  The Egyptian military's supposedly-transitional government is now, by all accounts, a junta.
Vive le revolucion...

Mixed signals?

A few days ago, we were confronted with two pieces of news that were seemingly at odds with each other.  First, we heard that the Arab League had endorsed the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya.  Second, we heard that many Gulf States (Saudi Arabia and the UAE included) were sending troops to Bahrain to help the ruling family put down civilian protests. My first reaction to this was to think that surely we had here two incompatible stances. On the one hand, the Arab League was acquiescing to foreign intervention to aid rebels in their bid to oust the leader of an Arab state; and on the other hand, they were actively providing military support to an Arab regime to quash unarmed rebellion within its territory.  Mixed messages?
On further reflection, I realized that there was a huge difference in the way these countries perceived Libya and its leadership (for want of a better term), and the way they perceived Bahrain and its ruling family.  And the word 'family' is one of the keys to this conundrum.
Libya is certainly like the Gulf States in that its politics and society is shaped in many ways (perhaps even dominated) by issues of clan/tribe membership, and Qaddafi's loyalties to his al-Qaddafa tribe speak to this matter.  However, the origins and the sources of Qaddafi's power are markedly different.  A colonel in the army of Libya's King Irdis, Qaddafi staged a successful coup in 1969, abolished monarchy and established a republic. His power is based on an anti-monarchical stance, and is entirely contemporary in origin.
Contrasted to this are the ruling families of the Gulf States.  The ruling families in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and the various city-states of the United Arab Emirates trace their power to authority that has been inherited, and not usurped.  Though the domination of such families as al-Saud, al-Nahyan, and  al-Khalifa can be traced back only a few generations, these families most likely see their rule as an entitlement, rather than a consequence of various fairly-recent geo-political forces (such as colonialism, the discovery of oil and various bargains made with the religious elite).  In this view, while the ouster of the upstart Qaddafi is a worthy cause, the dethroning of the al-Khalifa family is not at all an option.  The power vested in the al-Khalifa family is too much like the power they possess.  Theirs is power taken for granted as a consequence of their birth; Qaddafi's power comes from its seizure, and can therefore be seized away from him just as surely.
The presence of a large Shia population ruled by a Sunni ruling family in many of these Gulf States has also a role to play in this drama. But that may have to be the topic of another post.

The world changed ever so slightly

I was listening to NPR the other day, and the panel of commentators and experts were discussing the labour and union-related protests in Wisconsin.  And as the discussion wound down, one of the panelists said something that gave me pause.  She said that the intensity of the protests in Wisconsin may not let up as soon as one might imagine, and that some of that endurance and resilience could be a direct result of the events in Egypt.  That the power of the masses was tested and proven half a world away in Egypt, and the people in Wisconsin drew strength from this.


Had I heard the mainstream media in America ever speak of events in the Middle East in such terms before?  Arabs had flexed their democratic muscle and how refreshingly odd it was to hear of Americans drawing inspiration from this.  I had become so accustomed to hearing of freedom and democracy as America's primary exports to the world.  But here the current of ideas and ideologies seemed to have changed direction in a way that I would not have predicted as possible a mere month ago.


Perhaps this is a temporary reversal of roles, and perhaps American presumptions about the rest of the world shall in the long term remain unaltered.  But the optimist in me would like to believe that something has changed for good, if ever so slightly.  For once, our gaze in America looks farther away than the limits of red, white and blue.  For once, there is an acknowledgement that the freedom of another people is not being won at the end of American gun-barrels; that the rage of a mass of bearded men is a just rage; that veiled women are women with will and women with voices that can and are heard; and that we who have been lulled into complacence by the warm and fuzzy ideal of 'inalienable rights' have been awakened from our stupor by the voices of men and women we presumed to be mute.


How can we go back to the way we were after all this? 

Egypt, 2011: The military amid the protesters

Protesters graffiti-ed tanks with anti-government slogans; the 

military did not stop them. This tank says, "Down with Mubarak"

and "No to Mubarak". 

The events of the past two weeks in Egypt have been breathtaking to say the least. Images of tens of thousands of people gathering in Cairo's Tahrir Square, insisting that their voices be heard, have left us inspired, concerned, jubilant and hopeful.  This is the metaphorical public square reified.
But in all of this, I have been left stunned by the maturity shown by Egypt's military.  As the protests began some thirteen days ago, the one issue I was most curious and concerned about was what the response of the military would be to the situation .  Who would they side with? Would we see a brutal and bloody repression of the largely peaceful protests at the hands of the Egyptian armed forces?  If it were so, it would not have been the first time in the history of the modern world when the military had come to the aid of a regime that found itself in a precarious position.  
I certainly breathed a sigh of relief the day that I woke to the news that the Egyptian army had announced it would not fire on protesters.  How easy it would have been for the army to decide that these protests were disrupting a stable political, economic and social environment (which they are), and thus had to be repressed.  How uncomplicated it would have been for it to side with the powers that be.  But in all of this, the Egyptian military has not taken the easy and uncomplicated way out.  It has decided that its job is not to defend the Egyptian regime, but the Egyptian people; that it is a neutral entity when it comes to political stances and changes, and it is not for the military to decide which way the socio-political sands shall be allowed to shift.  

Over the past two weeks we have seen them act as arbiters of order, without ever attempting to muffle the voices of dissent in a sham of orderliness.  They have acted as a bedrock of strength amidst the throngs of protesters, without ever actively flexing its military muscle. There were moments when the seemingly miraculous balance achieved seemed to tip in the direction of violence - all it would have taken was one bullet fired by a uniformed soldier.  But the Egyptian military's promise to the Egyptian people has held.  
I can only hope that this maturity and foresight holds strong in the weeks, months and years ahead, as Egypt and its people undoubtedly face turbulent and uncertain times ahead.  I will watch, with baited breath, to see if the Egyptian military continues to respect its mandate as a defender of the nation's people, and not the brokers of power and authority. 

The cringe test

I'l admit that I'm more than a little amazed at the hullabaloo that surrounded Juan Williams' remarks about being afraid of Muslims in "Muslim garb" (whatever that is...) on planes, and his subsequent firing. Actually, what really amazed me was how little was said about his remarks before NPR decided to fire him for them. The outrage, it seems, is less about his seriously troubling remark and more about NPR's "intolerance".  Yes, the world 'intolerance' has been tossed about quite a bit these past couple of days, and most of it with reference to NPR.  Check out these headlines: "NPR's Taxpayer-Funded Intolerance" [WSJ, Oct 22]; "NPRs Intolerant Funding of Juan Williams" [The Examiner, Washington, Oct 21]; "a Brief History of NPR's Intolerance" [foxmews.com, Oct 21]. 

And of course, the whole "free-speech" argument is made.  And this is what makes it all so tricky. Should Williams have been fired for exercising his freedom of speech?  Now, there are a couple of points I want to make in this regard. One, is that while we all are awarded the freedom of speech here, I do think that as with most freedoms, this one too comes with certain responsibilities.  And if we occupy a position where our opinion is heard, considered and given more value than that of the average schmoe, it is doubly incumbent upon us to exercise this freedom with some thought and restraint.  Two, we may be free to say what we want, but we are not guaranteed freedom from every consequence of what we say.  So, really, we ought to think more before we speak. Free speech is so much more valuable when it is thought-provoking, rather than being merely provocative. In this world of tweets and sound-bites, considered speech seems to have taken a back seat to merely free speech.  And our lives are not the better for it. 

But if still in doubt, then I strongly recommend putting the rhetoric in question through the "Cringe Test".  Here's how it works:  replace the word 'Muslim' (or whatever other ethnic, religious, political category is currently under scrutiny) with the word 'Jew' or 'Black man/woman'.  If the resulting statement makes you cringe, then it's probably not as acceptable as folks would have you believe.  Try it.

On a side note, the best response I have encountered to this whole fracas has been the site, "Pictures of Muslims Wearing Things." 

Why does it matter?

I read recently that the apparel retailer 'Gap' had come out with a new logo, but then ended up reinstating the old one because of a huge outcry.  To quote from the BBC article: 


"US clothes retailer Gap has scrapped a new logo just one week after its introduction following an "outpouring of comments" online...The new logo on the website had "Gap" written in black against a light background with a small blue square behind the top of the letter "p". But critics attacked the rebranding on social networks and online forums.

More than 2,000 comments were posted on the company's Facebook page on the issue, with many demanding the return of the traditional logo." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11520930) 

And reading this, I wondered, "Who are these people?!"  Personally, I don't think I could get myself worked up enough about the logo of a company unless they threatened to paint it on my front-door.  If the company is making the same clothes as before, their stores are not moving en-mass to the other end of town, and their stance on wages, sweatshops, out-sourcing, resourcing or what have you has not changed in any substantial way, why in the world does it matter if their logo looks different?  

Are people's lives so insipid that something as pointless as this could get them all riled up?  There are other more pressing issues that could do with some of that consumer anger and angst.  Facebook's removal of their lovely round-edged thumbnails, for instance... It makes me so angry...

Meeting the bug-eyed aliens...

I read this article the other day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11041449.  It talked about the suggestion that folks ought to expand the search for extra-terrestrial life to include "sentient machines" and not just biological life. And this got me thinking. Who is doing the looking?  And has anyone really granted them the right to look? Let me explain. 


I'm an optimist, and I've been bred on my fair share of well-intentioned  aliens.  But  for every pointy-eared stoic Vulcan who has taught us something about being human, there is a menagerie of fanged, slavering, bug-eyed, ice-cold, robotic-limbed, cybernetically enhanced, disappearing, mind-reading, probing, spindly-fingered creatures that has given us the shivers.  And while trying to assess any possible intelligent life out there through an anthropomorphic lens of 'good' and 'evil' may be silly, it still begs one to wonder if contacting these intelligent beings may not be in our best interest.  After all, most humans don't consider themselves evil for tromping over ants in our path or eating chicken.  What if the alien beings who may be out there just consider our little planet a yummy source of food or fuel, or just another rock in the way of a Galactic Super Highway (shout-out to Douglas Adams!)?  Do we really want to be letting these critters know we're out here?


And this brings me to my main point: Considering the potential hazards of signalling our existence, has anyone asked humanity for its collective permission to seek out alien life-forms?  Generally speaking, we don't really take the folks looking for aliens too seriously. But this means that there has never been a referendum to determine if such a search is a good idea or not.  For something that could have huge implications (for better or for worse) for everyone on this planet, we have not really stopped to ask if this is ok with the rest of humanity.  There has been no vote on whether all of us, or even if most of us, want to find or contact alien intelligence.  And if/when this does happen, we may be asking ourselves one big question: who the hell signed off on this?