Between a tyrant and a mountebank, Bangladesh has displayed quite a spectacle. By the former I refer to the prime minister, and by the latter, Mohammed Yunus, formerly of Grameen Bank.
We know that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded purely on political - and politicised - considerations. Yunus had lobbied hard to get the Prize. And the west wanted to blinker the world to the fact that they were not going to do anything for the truly poor of the world - there would be no more export-led growth, as in East Asia. So some kind of opium was necessary, and microcredit came along. We also know it doesn't work. Indeed, microfinance has been known to kill the poor. The model is not only useless, but dangerous. In fact, gouging the poor has not been a recent story. And, as the Norwegian documentary has shown, the original borrower died in poverty and her children are beggars.
But that's not surprising: even Elie Wiesel won the Peace Prize. As did Barack Obama (we'll never figure that one out).
What is shocking, then, is not Yunus getting the Prize, but Bangladeshis feeling that he's done them proud. We claim that he brought us dignity and prestige. Can a bauble really do that?
Dignity and prestige comes from honesty, fair dealing, uprightness, equity, compassion...not from foreigners and their tinsel.
Al-Ghazali said that any work undertaken with equity and compassion is ibadat. Where are equity and compassion in Bangladesh?
Our intellectuals are hired liars, as has been obvious from the exhibition on both sides of the farce. Self-respect comes from the self, not from others.
One has but to consider one of Yunus's closest drinking buddies, a rogue known as Bill Clinton. This unconscionable man coldbloodedly murdered 1.7 million children in Iraq through sanctions; and his lackey, the secretary of state, went on prime-time TV equally coldbloodedly to defend the indefensible.
A man is judged by the company he keeps, or should be: and this is the kind of man we consider a hero in Bangladesh. That says a lot about Bangladesh.
This whole circus has revealed nothing but our moral bankruptcy.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Better Sixty Years Of Tyranny
Tunisia | Riots | Middle East | US | Democracy: "But one thing is clear from the “Tunisian example”: People in the Middle East have given up any hope that the United States can be a force for democratic change. As the uprising spread in Tunisia, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama stayed largely silent until the day Ben Ali fled. That was when Obama issued a statement condemning the use of violence against peaceful protesters and applauding “the courage and dignity” of Tunisians. By then, it was too late: The U.S.-backed dictator was gone, and the Arab world chalked up another example of how Washington favors stability over democracy.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
This analysis is flawed.
It is not only the US government that prefers stability over democracy: so do the Arabs, and other non-western people. Democracy is a (western) historical accident. "The forum polity – democracies and republics – owes its origin to two major accidents in human history: accidents that were unique to the western world, and which, indeed, created western civilisation in contrast to the others, which were all palace polities." These are my words, and the two unique events were the two Dark Ages: the one in Greece around 1100 BC to 750 BC, and the one in Western Europe. These events removed government for prolonged periods of time, ensuring a love of 'freedom', or suspicion and questioning of government.
The Tunisians revolted because they had been infected by ideas coming from the West. Otherwise, they would have endured their lot, and, therefore, no repression would have been necessary. It is interesting and important to note that during the long military rule of General Ershad there was no desire except among a handful of westernised Bangladeshi intellectuals to remove the dictator, and finally it was the donors that removed him. He did not need to repress at all because there was no one to repress: there was no opposition to his rule.
Even Imam Khomeini had to face criticism from the clergy during the height of his struggle against the Shah. "A certain akhund wrote to me a few years ago to ask me: "Why do you oppose the government? Do you not know that God gives authority to whomever He wishes?" writes the great Imam. Plainly the akhund was echoing Al-Ghazzali's dictum that one must never overthrow a ruler 'no matter how mad or bad'. "Sixty years of tyranny are better than an hour of civil strife,"maintained al-Ghazzali.
In the Introduction to Sa'adi's Golestan, we find the poet referring to the king as "zel Allah tala fe arze": the shadow of Allah on earth". This implies complete obedience, and remember, Sa'adi had just lived through the Mongol onslaught and chaos. Imam Khomenie says, "Yes, the Islamic ruler is the shadow of God, but...."
"But now we find one of the `ulama (may God grant him mercy) saying: "If the Imam of the Age (pbuh) considers it to be the appropriate time then he will come. I cannot claim to be more concerned for Islam than he is and he is well aware of the present situation. Thus, he is the one who must make the first move to remedy our affairs and not I!" This is plainly a reference to the Shia belief in the return of the Mahdi. Not until he returns, bringing peace and justice, should one rise up against the authorities. "There are people among us who tell us we must swallow whatever poison the "holders of authority" wish to force down our throats, simply because they are the "authorities". We mustn't say a word against these tyrannical "authorities"".
He rebuts these arguments with his own, and I leave it to the reader to judge their effectiveness. All I am pointing out right now is that there is a considerable consensus among Muslim scholars that we should not rise against our rulers. Indeed, we must not even speak out against them: this leaves democracy out completely as a possibility.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
This analysis is flawed.
It is not only the US government that prefers stability over democracy: so do the Arabs, and other non-western people. Democracy is a (western) historical accident. "The forum polity – democracies and republics – owes its origin to two major accidents in human history: accidents that were unique to the western world, and which, indeed, created western civilisation in contrast to the others, which were all palace polities." These are my words, and the two unique events were the two Dark Ages: the one in Greece around 1100 BC to 750 BC, and the one in Western Europe. These events removed government for prolonged periods of time, ensuring a love of 'freedom', or suspicion and questioning of government.
The Tunisians revolted because they had been infected by ideas coming from the West. Otherwise, they would have endured their lot, and, therefore, no repression would have been necessary. It is interesting and important to note that during the long military rule of General Ershad there was no desire except among a handful of westernised Bangladeshi intellectuals to remove the dictator, and finally it was the donors that removed him. He did not need to repress at all because there was no one to repress: there was no opposition to his rule.
Even Imam Khomeini had to face criticism from the clergy during the height of his struggle against the Shah. "A certain akhund wrote to me a few years ago to ask me: "Why do you oppose the government? Do you not know that God gives authority to whomever He wishes?" writes the great Imam. Plainly the akhund was echoing Al-Ghazzali's dictum that one must never overthrow a ruler 'no matter how mad or bad'. "Sixty years of tyranny are better than an hour of civil strife,"maintained al-Ghazzali.
In the Introduction to Sa'adi's Golestan, we find the poet referring to the king as "zel Allah tala fe arze": the shadow of Allah on earth". This implies complete obedience, and remember, Sa'adi had just lived through the Mongol onslaught and chaos. Imam Khomenie says, "Yes, the Islamic ruler is the shadow of God, but...."
"But now we find one of the `ulama (may God grant him mercy) saying: "If the Imam of the Age (pbuh) considers it to be the appropriate time then he will come. I cannot claim to be more concerned for Islam than he is and he is well aware of the present situation. Thus, he is the one who must make the first move to remedy our affairs and not I!" This is plainly a reference to the Shia belief in the return of the Mahdi. Not until he returns, bringing peace and justice, should one rise up against the authorities. "There are people among us who tell us we must swallow whatever poison the "holders of authority" wish to force down our throats, simply because they are the "authorities". We mustn't say a word against these tyrannical "authorities"".
He rebuts these arguments with his own, and I leave it to the reader to judge their effectiveness. All I am pointing out right now is that there is a considerable consensus among Muslim scholars that we should not rise against our rulers. Indeed, we must not even speak out against them: this leaves democracy out completely as a possibility.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Hear ye! Hear ye! Genocidaire to prevent genocide!
"Preventing genocide is what one of Barack Obama's advisers call 'a problem from hell'. But this week a group called the Genocide Prevention Task Force published some helpful guidelines for the president-elect. It is a serious group, led by Madeleine Albright (a former secretary of state) and William Cohen (a former defence secretary). And its report is steeped in good sense."
The Economist, December 13th 2008, p 44
Not so fast!
Did you say Madeleine Albright? She who said that the killing of over a million Iraqi children through sanctions had been 'worth it'?*
This woman (?) is going to prevent future genocides?
Maybe somebody should tell her that she herself is a genocidaire.
Maybe it takes one to know one. But now I've heard everything.
*
"Health Ministry Statistics say that the incidence of abnormal births has increased 400-fold since 1991. The Iraqis also say that, all told, 1.7m children have died because of the various effects of UN sanctions."
The Economist, September 14th 2002
The Economist, December 13th 2008, p 44
Not so fast!
Did you say Madeleine Albright? She who said that the killing of over a million Iraqi children through sanctions had been 'worth it'?*
This woman (?) is going to prevent future genocides?
Maybe somebody should tell her that she herself is a genocidaire.
Maybe it takes one to know one. But now I've heard everything.
*
"Health Ministry Statistics say that the incidence of abnormal births has increased 400-fold since 1991. The Iraqis also say that, all told, 1.7m children have died because of the various effects of UN sanctions."
The Economist, September 14th 2002
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
"God Damn America" (2)
Postscript: one would imagine that America's southern neighbours would have been electrified at the prospect of a black person running their northern neighbour. Guess what?
Only 29% thought a Barack "biofuel" Obama victory would be good for their country; 8% thought the other cove would be better; and – wait for it! – 30% believed there would be no difference whatsoever, while – and I love this! – fully 31% were totally ignorant of the proceedings. That means a whopping 61% were indifferent to the so-called "epochal" election (The Economist, October25th 2008, p 52).
Being so close to Uncle Sam, these guys know that nothing changes for them; indeed, after 9/11, when Europe, Canada and even Iran were crying rivers, Latin Americans did not mount a single vigil; they felt that America deserved it.
One more observation: a few years ago the first Amerindian president, Evo Morales, was elected Bolivia's president – the world did not even notice! Why? For one thing, persecution of both slaves and natives was less intense in the Iberian colonies than the Anglo-Saxon one up above; secondly, Bolivia hurts nobody but itself, while America hurts everybody, including some of its own people.
As a Latin American leader once lamented: "so far from God, and so close to America".
Only 29% thought a Barack "biofuel" Obama victory would be good for their country; 8% thought the other cove would be better; and – wait for it! – 30% believed there would be no difference whatsoever, while – and I love this! – fully 31% were totally ignorant of the proceedings. That means a whopping 61% were indifferent to the so-called "epochal" election (The Economist, October25th 2008, p 52).
Being so close to Uncle Sam, these guys know that nothing changes for them; indeed, after 9/11, when Europe, Canada and even Iran were crying rivers, Latin Americans did not mount a single vigil; they felt that America deserved it.
One more observation: a few years ago the first Amerindian president, Evo Morales, was elected Bolivia's president – the world did not even notice! Why? For one thing, persecution of both slaves and natives was less intense in the Iberian colonies than the Anglo-Saxon one up above; secondly, Bolivia hurts nobody but itself, while America hurts everybody, including some of its own people.
As a Latin American leader once lamented: "so far from God, and so close to America".
Friday, November 7, 2008
"God Damn America"
It would appear that the election of Barack Hussein Obama has galvanised the intelligentsia of Bangladesh. According to Dr. Muzaffer Ahmed, ""From the verdict of the American people, we shall learn that the dissenting voice is more important than the supporting ones."
"It may be a lesson for our political parties that people may not accept [them] if they take any anti-people policy or go back to the old confrontational political culture," said Dilara Chowdhury. "Through active participation, people can liberate themselves from unhealthy politics which results from manipulation of the powerful and the corrupt who disempower them and undermine the democratic institutions with the help of money, the media and other instrument of control," gushed Dr Kamal Hossain.
One can draw inspiration from any event, no matter how trivial and distant, but surely there should be some relevance to the situation in our own country. For instance, I have never heard the intellectuals go ga-ga over the achievements of China, which has raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Now, why might this be? Why are our binoculars trained on America, and not further east?
Barack Obama, like many American politicians, was generously larded with benefits by the mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These people allowed "regulatory capture" to take place under their very noses, because they needed the dosh. They actively encouraged the agencies to make as many loans – of whatsoever dubious quality – to as many people as possible to grab their votes. Result: the subprime meltdown, and today a world recession, pushing millions of people throughout the world back into poverty.
Barack Obama pandered to Iowan farmers saying that he would continue to subsidise biofuels – he had the interest of American farmers at heart, not the interest of the Bangladeshi poor. Biofuel subsidies caused poverty worldwide, as farmers switched out of food crops into maize. So, we received a double whammy from the US of A.
As for the complexion of the new president, I think his former pastor (whom he disowned outright after being mentored by him for years) said most eloquently what the relationship between God and America, and our prayers for the latter, should be.
"God Damn America."
Amen.
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=62088
"It may be a lesson for our political parties that people may not accept [them] if they take any anti-people policy or go back to the old confrontational political culture," said Dilara Chowdhury. "Through active participation, people can liberate themselves from unhealthy politics which results from manipulation of the powerful and the corrupt who disempower them and undermine the democratic institutions with the help of money, the media and other instrument of control," gushed Dr Kamal Hossain.
One can draw inspiration from any event, no matter how trivial and distant, but surely there should be some relevance to the situation in our own country. For instance, I have never heard the intellectuals go ga-ga over the achievements of China, which has raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Now, why might this be? Why are our binoculars trained on America, and not further east?
Barack Obama, like many American politicians, was generously larded with benefits by the mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These people allowed "regulatory capture" to take place under their very noses, because they needed the dosh. They actively encouraged the agencies to make as many loans – of whatsoever dubious quality – to as many people as possible to grab their votes. Result: the subprime meltdown, and today a world recession, pushing millions of people throughout the world back into poverty.
Barack Obama pandered to Iowan farmers saying that he would continue to subsidise biofuels – he had the interest of American farmers at heart, not the interest of the Bangladeshi poor. Biofuel subsidies caused poverty worldwide, as farmers switched out of food crops into maize. So, we received a double whammy from the US of A.
As for the complexion of the new president, I think his former pastor (whom he disowned outright after being mentored by him for years) said most eloquently what the relationship between God and America, and our prayers for the latter, should be.
"God Damn America."
Amen.
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=62088
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
