Monday, October 11, 2010

STIEG LARSSON’S MILLENIUM TRILOGY—AND US Joe Martin

Some say it’s not serious literature. Others say it goes to the heart of our times. In any case, there is no question that Stieg Larsson’s three volume work, the Millennium trilogy has brought the high flying movement of Swedish crime fiction to its pinnacle, becoming one of the most discussed literary works on the planet. It is understandable that some people are asking whether these books of crime fiction, with their forays into violent worlds and one famous exploitation scene deserve all this attention, from radio talk shows, to major book reviews, university courses and in book clubs everywhere. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Men Who Hate Women, in the original Swedish), The Girl Who Played with Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest constitute a new world view and a new perspective: a post-modern sort of macho feminism. They are hard-hitting enough that on the Diane Rehm show on NPR, the book discussion was criticized by at least one caller who criticized the host for featuring a book that she termed “exploitation,” and indicated that furthermore this genre of fiction is not real literature.

Before we begin our discussion of this disturbing and engaging trilogy, let us put that part to rest. In Stieg Larsson’s writing, at the end of his life, there is much use of paradox, and a sense of potent style which evades either Dan Brown or Steven King, never mind that his post-humus sales have now equaled theirs. A close look at the Swedish and not just the allegedly more “ornate” English version—dabbled with by a famous publisher (causing the translator to change his name in the credits)—bears out the assertion that this strange combination of brashness and literary style works in both languages.

For those who know Swedish and Scandinavian writers, the switch from the high literary sensibilities of August Strindberg and Pär Lagerkvist, Selma Lagerlöf and even the films films of Ingmar Bergman – the screenplays for which had high literary pretentions – the works of the driven recently deceased Swedish investigative journalist and author are brashly hard hitting. They take us into the shoes of outcasts, the outsiders, and places under a microscope the hypocrisy of major media in its prurient chase after marketable news and the collusion of the media with powerful economic interests. By exploring the dark underbelly of that “innocent small country” of Sweden we love to hate (for its medical care, social services and sheltering of refugees) and alternatively idealize (for the same things) we gain some lightning insights about our not-so-innocent selves here in the heart of a world empire.

Larsson’s fiction has something much in common with the genres of the crime novel and the international intrigue (as in the works of John Le Carré). The fact is they are a different subgenre. A regular crime novel of international intrigue is a puzzle, usually with some very strange psychological quirks residing in the detective, or spy, added in. Larsson's novels are not centered on the detective or the crime solvers. The investigators are a team of sorts in the first book – but they are not police nor decetives. They are rebels, and exquisite experts in their fields, but they think outside the box. In fact, they are out and out renegades. No more Swedish Ikea milquetoast. (In each novel Ikea gets a mention in a sort of nod to its pervading bland influence. Ironically, the renegades use it most – including the muckraking Millenium magazine.) Mikael Blomkvist, is a writer for a magazine similar to Larson’s: the former exposes corporate influence in politics, the latter exposed neofascist organizations in Europe and their links with powerful sources. Blomkvist's accidental partner in all of this, Lisbeth Salander, is a highly sensitive and iconoclastic computer and hacking genius, perhaps living with Asberger’s syndrome in a highly creative way. She is a victim of horrifying abuse, which is both generated by her family life – and in an astonishingly creative leap on Larson’s part – international geopolitics.

Unlike Conan Doyle, or that other contemporary genius of crime novels from Sweden, Henning Mankell—whose long series about the obsessive and neurotic master police detective Wallendar, has already won world wide acclaim for the masters of the “Swedish genre” – these investigators are not authorized by anyone to be such. Blomkvist goes to jail in volume one for his correct evaluation of the activities of a high-powered corporate CEO – his proof is just not conclusive enough. Salander is a neo-punk ward of the state, deprived of usual rights for a supposed past of uncontrollable violence. Together these two will solve the first set of crimes of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, forming an unlikely alliance, and a mysterious bond that will last through the series.
These are books that go to the shadow side. Literary fiction and modernism often takes us to the refined side of consciousness . These novels are the shadow side – the dark side if you will – much more than the conventional crime novel. This is a place we need to go to see the truth about ourselves and our world.

These novels strike me as being of the most serious intent: they are neither pure entertainment, nor exploitation books. Larson managed, with increasing success in these books, to become something of a real stylist, and poses a lot of provocative puzzles and paradoxes about life in these, our times. The attitudes toward women are a barometer of our progress or lack thereof.

Yet, in addition, the truth belongs to those, according to Carl Jung who can look at the shadow side. If one critic here commented that the Swedes in their apparent social paradise “Look a lot more like us” in these books – it’s not that we aren’t a society more beset by violence and hatreds than Sweden. Almost any objective sociologist would say we are. Yet the fact that these phenomena exist everywhere, and seize control of our behavior, our politics and our sense of “right conduct” in business and politics is something that cannot be denied.

Stieg Larsson seems to have come to believe – as a journalist or editor like Mikael Blomkvist (though he did exposes on racist, skinhead and Nazi organizations rather than corporate criminals and various mafia networks) that one can probe and measure the degree to which society is violent or corrupted in the way women are seen.

An interesting corollary to this is the theatre--or circus--that is playing out aorund these books in Sweden.

Sweden does have a more compassionate approach to care of the elderly and sick than we do. But they have a little oversight buried in their laws. Common law spouses have no rights. Eva Gabrielson, who supported Larsson on his magazine of exposés while living with him for about three decades, was denied all rights and royalties to his works. Larsson’s father and brother have set up shop marketing and making millions of the trilogy. Many Swedes are shocked. One journalist at TTB (Sweden’s equivalent of Reuters) has perhaps gone too far when he remembers Larsson as a graphic journalist who had terrible difficulty writing, and publically suggested that Gabrielson may have been the main writer. Most Swedish critics think this goes too far. It is true that, as home and work partners, and with Gabrielson as a talented writer and journalist, the likelihood that she assisted or advised on the manuscripts are great. Larsson’s father and brother have claimed they made her a good offer: that she could keep the apartment. They find her unreasonable. Why? There is most of the draft of a new novel by Larsson on her laptop, and she will not give it up. “All they want is to make lots of money,” she complained. That’s how simple it is, in fact.

She seems to have a strong sense that Larson was on a broader mission. He wrote all three books on spec, they were not published while he was alive, and he hadn’t the slightest clue they had the potential to make him as rich as his two relentless relatives have become now. They have no interest in the deeper significance of these books. For his part, Larsson’s father said a while back that Gabrielson will never get anything in all of this because “She has no testicals.” Gabrielson is holding onto the laptop in some secret place – it will not see the light of day, she says. She also warns there is something coming: a book of her own covering her own life during those years. There is something of Lisbeth Salandar in Eva Gabrielson. The firm and more grounded part of her resemble Kalle Blomqvist’s editor and lover in the trilogy.

To my mind the central phenomenon in these books is the social outcast Lisbeth Salander. She begins as an ambiguous character, with a tough attitude bred of necessity – a punk goth anarchic streak that makes her fascinating. We soon discover that she is a genius – in even the genuine sense of the word (when she flees Sweden and roams the world in volume two, for a good while she is reading a volume on higher mathematics for pleasure). By the end of volume two, The Girl Who Played with Fire, we see that she is a force to contend with. In that second novel she will be absent from the lives of the central characters including Mikael Blomkvist – for maybe 400 pages in the Swedish version. Yet, in her very absence, her character, without being any sort of portentious punk Jedi knight (well, she has a few of those traits, and she toys with the dark side occassionally) – hovers over the book, dominates lives, moves in, tries to take control. She is faster on her feet – mentally but also physically – than most. She is explosive. She has reasons to be. But she is loyal – she doesn’t know it or admit it, but deeply loyal.

We see the first signs of this in book one. But she comes too close to something that will make her vulnerable – and breaks off all contact with Mikael till the end of the second book. The tentacles of her online research and ability to hack into secret police, criminal and corporate systems, makes her a forerunner of the “wiki-leaks” phenomenon of 2010, in which one Swedish prosecutor attempted to arrest the editor of Wiki-leaks on behalf of the US authorities whose secrets he leaked, and then was overruled by another who swiftly took over her position in the case. This is so close to the intrigues of the Millennium trilogy it raises hairs on the back of one’s neck. She helps reveal state secrets, and autonomous organizations within the security apparatus with their own agenda.

This will become the main action of the socio-political themes in the final book, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest. She is one of the victims of an autonomous organization created inside the Security Police who need to keep certain state secrets, and feed distorted news to the media. This echo of Dick Cheney’s independent organization within the CIA, which amassed the information fed to Colin Powell for his Iraq war justification speech is too close for comfort. There is a profound and intricately depicted warning in the narrative for all democracies who maintain secret services: they may have offspring that take on a life of their own. Yet Salander and Blomquist through their non-official investigative techniques employing extreme research skills (more than extreme violence) and all post-modern technology, manage to bring them down a reveal a rot in a democracy that reaches back to the Cold War. Still it is the diminutive “girl” – an expansive, with her expansive genius-like mind, who is the heart of these novels. Her hero’s quest, as Joseph Campbell would have put it, gives shape to everything. We may have thought that Blomkvist was Holmes in book one, but by the end we understand he is just a very industrious Watson to the central victim and investigative master, Lisbeth Salander.

By the final chapters of that volume, in an attempt to align with the elusive Lisbeth Salander, Mikael Blomkvist convenes a meeting of those who know her. Blomkvist, in a rare moment of true levity says: “When this is all over I’m going to found an association called ‘The Knights of the Idiotic Table’ and its purpose will be to arrange an annual dinner where we tell stories about Lisbeth Salander. You’re all members.” I want to be a member, for perhaps the books have made me a sort of idiot, like those who adopt a series of novels as the foundation for a transitory cult (See Tolkien, Lewis Carroll, Lawrence Durrell, Jens Bjørneboe in Norway, Paul Auster and others). I feel I became a member of that club without paying dues.

Perhaps the members of the “Salander table” can convene for the third and final film of the trilogy from Sweden this year, before Hollywood puts out what might well be an adrenaline pumping action film version (I hope my fears are unfounded) of the first novel next year. In the end, I think the best thing we can do, however, is read and tell tales of Lisbeth Salander, the outcast, the abused, the renegade, rebel, and the secret spirit of withdrawn generosity – who whose very life till she realizes her full powers, is that of an easy target of blame and abuse for a society that can’t look beyond appearances -- as presented to them by an elite of power-mongers, marketers and liars.

Friday, October 1, 2010

GLENN BECK'S HAMMER by Joe Martin

 

GLENN BECK’S HAMMER                                                                      Political Life

People who are ideologues do not use language to explore truths, they use it as a hammer to hammer their opponents, with the fruitless wish that it will drive the last nail in their coffin.

Glenn Beck’s word-savagery has gone over the top – after his one day off for a rally at the Lincoln Memorial in which he made vague calls to common human values which he himself equated to those of Dr Martin Luther King. This seems to have been too much repression of the fire in Beck’s belly, for within a week he went back to his oft repeated tirades against Christians who want to improve the lot of the poor and disenfranchised "Nazi's."

This time he claimed that their approach will lead to "mass death," referring especially to his bête noir, minister and leader of Sojourners, Jim Wallis. His words do a disservice to those people who really suffered under the Nazis. It diminishes the horrors of the SA, the SS, the Gestapo who claimed to represent great national traditions, while serving major corporations like IG Farben, Porsche, Krupp with war profits and slave labor . They were pro-corporate exploiters of the worst sort – even before they unleashed their murderous hatred upon Jews, gypsies and others. He is in effect, calling the Nazis “social justice Christians” (and vice versa of course) in rants that could provide us with a Saturday Night live sketch unedited. Beck forgets that those who believed in social justice went to the first concentration camps, to prepare the ground before the "final solution" was put in place. Silence from those who believed in social justice and civil rights was absolutely necessary to move on to the most massive genocide in history.

This crass propaganda exploits the suffering of the tens of millions of innocents in World War II to vilify those whose consciences are moved to do good. What is the source of the astonishing hatred Beck projects onto “social justice Christians?” There can be only one answer – from within himself. I can not speak to the particular hell Glenn Beck lives in, but one can only attribute hatred of people who assiduously avoid the language of hate and acts of anger (like Jim Wallis and the evangelical Christians of Sojourners) to a source within the man. Beck thinks he has the cure for what ails American society. I do not think most people will agree the cure is to do away with those who preach compassion. If he wants to see a cure, this is clearly a case of “physician heal thyself.” Here we have a man with the country's most powerful "pulpit" built by Rupert Murdoch, buttressed by the massive resources of  FOX News, desecrating the memories of millions by calling those people who think first of the disenfranchised in our society, in smearing them with the name of the movement (a right wing one to boot) that many regard as the agents of the worst evil the twentieth century produced. If Beck went back to the comparatively mild-mannered Reagan era, and simply attacked his perceived enemies with the sarcastic catch-phrases like "liberal do-gooders" and “bleeding-heart Liberals” that would be a step forward. At least this wouldn't be hate speech. However, hate speech is precisely the fare that Glenn Beck and FOX are serving up now.

Jim Wallis is advocating "mass death?" Is there no sane member on the FOX board? We need conservative broadcasting to get all views across, but this is florid paranoia. FOX is pushing Beck forward to whip up paranoia among its many viewers, after the "objective and fair" commentators (as they call them) put the batter in the bowl for their master propaganda chef, Mr B to whip.  He is more outrageous than the once "serious" media revelations of black helicopters, that we now laugh at. If FOX has no minute sense of responsibility, one day we will look back and laugh: "Remember Fox," we shall say.  "They had that fuzzy headed man who said Christians who believe in social justice were advocating mass killing." We shall laugh, and then hopefully turn on either our responsible progressive or conservative TV networks, and settle in to listen to balanced people make genuine attempts to dispense and analyze real events.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

A "Republic" that Stones Women?


Sakineh Mohammedie Ashtiani has waited since 2006 in jail, and after confessing to adultery when she receives 66 lashes, looking forward to death by stoning, due to occur at any time in the coming weeks at this moment. Her son released a plea to the world to save his mother, whom her children declare to be innocent. As a result he has been called into the prosector's office and threatened. Sakineh's lawyer has been forced to flee and is in a holding cell in Turkey, while Iran demands his extradition. The authroities have arrested his wife and placed her in the worst of the presons, Evin, in Tehran as collatoral to get him back. She has a baby. It gets worse. There apparently have been -- and probably are pending -- more cases of judicial barabarism involving this uniquely cruel form of capital punishment.

Sakineh's children and lawyer indicate she is innocent of the "crime" of adultery and petitions signed by by hundreds of thousands have now caused the Iranian government to issue a statement to say she actually had been guilty of "murder" which couldn't be revealed due to the "sensitivity" of her case during her trial. Brazilian President Lula de Silva' offer of amnesty has been turned down. But beyond all this is the principle that women can be executed by stoning: a especially severe and cruel death, nothing is worse, and it is reserved for women.

The act of stoning has traditionally implied that somehow that Satan is present -- and the fact that it is reserved mostly for women -- as was witch burning during the Inquisition -- indicates a special fear of women. It is a form of terror meant to keep them in their place. The Koran indicates repeatedly that it builds upon the previous "revealed books." That would include the gospels. So one must recall the key teaching: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (In the Qur'an, that would be referred to as a teaching of Isa Ibn Mariam, one of the single most important prophets along with Moses and Abraham before Muhammad in the Islamic canon.) Are these judges, shock troops, prison "interrogators" and politicians without sin? Hardly.

The current authorities in Iran need to be purged of prison torturers, rapists (in both the Basij and revolutionary guard) and judges who have been complicit in intimidation and murder. These are the men -- and make no mistake, these stones will come from the same sort of men who got a confession from Sakineh a few years back by giving her 66 lashes. This remnant of ancient barbarism in a so-called republic must end. As long as it engages in such practices, Iran's government is not a republic of any sort. It is an inquisition.

____________
For more information on Sakineh Mohammedie Ashtiani and her sentence to stoing for adultery, go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/the-free-sakineh-mohammad_n_670540.html

Friday, February 26, 2010

THE LASTING VOICE OF MAHMOUD DARWISH

Joe Martin Cultural comment

Mahmoud Darwish's passing two years ago left a gap in world culture--for he was doing something extraordinary. His poetry never leaves the tradition of Love which the centuries of mostly Sufi poets bequeathed the Islamic world, though to many he appeared modern and somewhat secular. He was a voice calling for justice, but that voice was imbued with love. It was a love that could live in the mysteries of romance and eros, but which resonated in a way that transcended physical and even emotional love. So his sense of justice was imbued with the passion of that love.

As a child, Darwish's family village was destroyed during the establishment of the state of Israel, and like many they were forced to flee. Yet as a young adult he decided to find his way back, and live within Israel. Seeking a way of living in Israel, but to be able to express opposition, in 1961 he took the only route available that included Arabs and Jews, he joined the Communist Party of Israel. This, in historical retrospect, troubling decision puts him in the company of other artistic giants who doubled as proponents peace and justice in the twentieth century--Pablo Neruda, Diego Rivera, Pablo Picasso, Bertolt Brecht, James Baldwin, Nazim Hikmet and many others. But unlike some of them, the deep seated mystic sense of Love never seems to have left his work. Though it is unclear how much he himself acknowledged the influence of the ancient gnostic tradition of poetry, he writes of a love that fits with the love called "eshq"--borrowed by Arab poets from the Persian word for a love that was both passionate and spiritual.

The following description of Darwish's role comes from The Academy of American Poets (Poet.org), though Darwish was a resident of Ramallah on in the West Bank when he died. It is written by the poet Naomi Shihab:

"Mahmoud Darwish is the Essential Breath of the Palestinian people, the eloquent witness of exile and belonging, exquisitely tuned singer of images that invoke, link, and shine a brilliant light into the world's whole heart. What he speaks has been embraced by readers around the world—his in an utterly necessary voice, unforgettable once discovered."

One need only listen to, and read, the "Wait for Her," to understand his message, and the reason that Darwish's sense of Justice opens the heart, and gave the Arab world and the Palestinian people an opposition a humanistic voice they could feel inspired by, perhaps to the same degree they felt pride in the intellectual voice Edward Said. This poem shows how deeply "eshq" penetrated his work.

"Wait for Her"

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

RUMI ON VEILING (After a Debate on "Amanpour")

Political and spiritual comment
Yousef Daoud

After viewing the highly intolerant exchange between Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Infidel) and Tariq Ramadan on PBS' "Amanpour" concerning the moves by Europe to proscribe extreme veiling in France and Netherlands via the burkha or nikab, I was disturbed by the inability to listen displayed by the two parties. I must say both of these experts protest too much--literally. Ayaan is right, but she paints Islam with a broad brush -- reminiscent of US socialists who hated Stalinism, and so joined forces with McCarthy and the ultra right. She clearly escaped a terrible environment, and endured threats from a vicious minority in Europe. She has been through hell to find freedom and self-expression as a woman. However, all her energies seem to go into being an advocate for the supposedly unavoidable "clash of civilizations."

On the Amanpour interview (Feb 2, 2010, PBS) this became clear. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's severe problems with letting someone with an opposing view speak, reveals her deep frustration. It equally reveals that the degenerate "political" Islam that she has her fight with, has led to an inability to keep a broad perpective on other currents within Islam. She has been rewarded for this with a desk at a well-funded US right-wing think tank -- a phenomenon that is not known to cause people to become more subtle or sensitive in their positions. Meanwhile, Mr Ramadan let the implications and message of the Burkha off too lightly, especially when it is introduced in the European context.

Whatever twisted form of Islam Ms. Hirsi Ali was brought up in – it was surely oppressive and distorted - she has a compulsion to label everyone who adheres to Islam with the same descriptions. They are, to her, ignorant of rational thought and a sense of either justice or freedom. On the other hand, Ramadan feels obliged to treat total body coverings as something with no semiotic "message," but only a freedom of speech issue. That is, the former maintains her right to vent anger and even hatred of the sort which is feeding terrible conflict in the world. The latter apologizes for a fossilized patriarchal version of a religion which was not even part of the picture during the lifetime of its founder. The following passage by an Islamic author 750 years ago, during Islam's Golden Age, gives a much fresher perspective than either of these two "moderns."

_________________________

A 750 YEAR OLD MUSLIM PRONOUNCEMENT ON VEILING

"God has some servants who tell a veiled woman, 'Lift your veil so that we may see your face and know who and what you are. So long as you pass by veiled, we cannot see you, and there is confusion in my mind as to who and what this person is. I am not such as to become infatuated by you if I see your face. For a long time God has made me pure and innocent of you. I am secure enough not to be tempted by the sight of you. On the other hand, if I do not see you, I am confused as to what person this is' " ... "Before 'people of the heart' it is better to unveil the face in order to escape temptation."

Mowlana Jelaluddin Rumi, Fihi ma Fihi, Chapter 42.
(Trans. WM Thackston: Signs of the Unseen)http://joemartinauthor.blogspot.com

Saturday, January 30, 2010

THE INQUISITION IN IRAN


Political comment: Joe Martin




Iran’s form of Islamic government is in free-fall, morally, ideologically and structurally. While for decades there was lack of clarity and actual disagreement as to whether the idea of an Islamic Republic was one of semi-democracy guided by religious principles, or authoritarian rule by state religion, the definition has become more stark. Former supporters of the revolution who are influential clerics turned against it in recent years. These include the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, the highest authority in religious matters in Shia Islam, and former President Khatami, especially after the substantiated fraud in the last elections. The extent of the fraud was ignored and even whitewashed by a Majlis, or parliament. That Majlis, is one in which the elected members had to be approved by the government. After the days of Khatami’s presidency, thousands of candidates were excluded by the Guidance Council due to their ideological impurity.

Now 4,000 people who were among the millions who have protested the imposition of a President (who comes across as a fanatic ideologue) by the groups supporting the unelected Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, have been arrested and have been, or will be, placed on trial. The trials continue, despite disclosures that numbers of those were arrested were tortured, and both men and women often raped under the eyes of or with the participation of either the Revolutionary Guard and the governments militias designed to facilitate mob rule, in classic “Brown Shirt” fashion. These disclosures came from opposition clerics.

Today comes the news that two young men have been hanged, and the media and government spokesmen have been unable to identify what they were hanged for. There seems to be no indicator that there was even an attempt to prove they had committed violent crimes. Reza Ali Zamani, 37, and Arash Rahmanipour, 20, “who had been convicted of being enemies of God and plotting to topple the Islamic regime” according to the official Iranian Student Broadcasting Agency (CNN.com, Jan. 30 2010). According to his lawyer, Rahmanipour was both sentenced and hanged without any notification of his family, who saw the hanging on the daily news. Thus, in classic totalitarian fashion, the government seeks to torture the families too. This method causes the aguish and terror to spread in concentric circles in society like a boulder dropped into the water.

This case is the tip of the iceberg, and seems to reveal how “justice” is being meted out. Rahmanipour’s lawyer has also revealed that the judicial authorities brought his pregnant sister before him, who had been imprisoned, and told him that in exchange for her release he would have to say what he was asked to say at his televised confession.

The fact of the matter is we do not know how many have been executed, and we have only the government’s official figures for how many demonstrators have been killed in the streets or in prison. These show trials employ the methods of the worst of 20th century totalitarianism like those of Stalinist Communism, an ideology the Iranian government has claimed to revile.

Here is another crime deemed worthy of the death penalty: As of this writing five of the hundreds of defendants, three men and two women, are charged with "moharebeh," or defying God which merits the death penalty, according to the ISNA.

These all too human ruling groups who want to destroy their enemies to maintain their power in a military dictatorship, have committed a rather clear form of hubris in saying that defying a their government is the same as defying God. In doing so they cannot but further tarnish dirty the reputation of their government, which would be better advised to open a dialogue with their critics and negotiate, rather than exterminating them. If the foundation of law of the Islamic Republic was supposed to be the Qur’an and the traditions that were handed down by the founder (hadith), surely on cannot ignore the clear pronouncement: “To kill a single human being is like destroying a world.” On that basis the violators of “moharebeh” would not be these innocents at all, but those who order their executions – with no reason proven or given. Therefore what we have is not an Islamic Republic, or a Republic of any kind. It is not even a government. It is the Inquisition, which overrules government: like the one that terrorized Europe for hundreds of years: this time in Islamic garb.

Monday, January 25, 2010

TIBET AND REALPOLITIK

Political comment, revised January 25

Joe Martin

Revised January 30
_____________

On January 25th a friend posted some comments on my Facebook posting concering a film on Tibet, which had provided a link to excerpts from a new film about the Tibet autonomous region. His comments in many ways atempt to look at the Tibetan situation from the Chinese point of view, though I am sure there are many points of view in China, and the recent arrest of yet another Chinese dissident intellectual who wants the PRC to reconsider its treatment of Tibet is a case in point. However, my friend is an expert on China, so I moved the exchange to Peace and Pieces along with my response.

I have now removed my response to his critique of my comment on the Tibetan film. I have come to feel I cannot use my dominant position on my own blog to debate friends or close associates. That is how I will proceed with this blog. Anyone, may of course, submit a posting or response to what they read here. My friend's original comments, are below.

I hope soon to share my thoughts on Peace and Pieces, on the teachings of the Dalai Lama, which might one day do much good for social consciousness and spiritual well-being in a China: a China that he has repeatedly stated will include Tibet. -- JM

_____________________

ORIGINAL POSTING BY AUTHOR ON FACEBOOK

The grinding oppression of the people of Tibet under occupation -- being overwhelmed by calculated Sino-ization, a wave of Chinese immigration and Chinese control of all governmment and infrastructure, has not slackened. The unwillingness of the Party and the bureaucracy to negotiate autonomy and self-determination as a part of China -- the Dalai Lama's proposal -- reveals an astonishing lack of conscience, and an intolerance for large and coherent ethnic groups in China outside of the Han majority by the government. Courageous films like this one, for which the director must remain in prison for 6 years while his family has received no notification concerning his disappearance or location by the Chinese authorities, represent one of the few means of getting the truth out. There is less free media coverage in Tibet than other occupied peoples get -- even the Palestinians. To occupy a people and dominate their culture corrupts the spirit of great nations, whether it be China or the US or Russia: it asks for an increasing numbness to b... [Cut off by Facebook]

http://www.nomadsland.com/video/leaving-fear-behind-save-tibet/


 ________________

From the film website: “Leaving Fear Behind” is a heroic film shot by a Tibetan inside Tibet, to bring Tibetan voices to the Beijing Olympic Games. The filmmaker spend five months traveling in Tibet on a motorcycle and interviewing hundreds of ordinary Tibetans about their views about the Dalai Lama.
Filmmaker Dhondup Wangchen, the Tibetan filmmaker is currently in Chinese detention, has been sentenced to six years imprisonment by the provincial court in Xining (capital of Qinghai province). The sentencing took place on 28 December 2009 but his relatives in Xining were neither informed about the trial nor the verdict.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

CHINA AND DEVELOPING WORLD "EXCEPTIONALISM"


Political comment

Joe Martin

As is customary, Chinese policy in the areas of climate change, summary justice in capital punishment, the jailing of writers, and the use of violence and torture in Tibet and against non-violent spiritual movements and religions is not based upon any form of logic, morality, or consistency in the law. This behavior is based upon two principles. The first is that China is too big and its momentum on the way to being a superpower too strong to have to bend to international norms. The second is that all criticism against Chinese policy from anyone in the West or developed world is irrelevant precisely because China is not yet a “developed nation” – and other nations polluted and suppressed indigenous peoples to become developed.

There are a few basic presumptions in this that are in fact widely accepted but based on dubious premises. The most common of these is the argument put forward by many so-called progressive and "pragmatic" advocates of third-world exceptionalism ever since the end of the colonial empires. This argument suggests that developing countries are unable to establish "thick" human rights norms— that is the term that is being bandied about. This terminology should invite ridicule in light of the moderate successes in building democracies in many developing countries, which have led to increased economic development. Brazil and India are examples that are hard to ignore.

One of the greatest historical proponents of this exceptionalism, in writings, speeches and interviews in the 1980s was Robert Mugabe, once a hero rather than the pariah he now is. His argument back then: Rather than striving toward democratic norms—one should strive "to have a one party state" if possible, as developing countries don't have the luxury of implementing "cake frosting" like human rights. It goes without saying, went the Mugabe argument, that strong human rights enforcement would drive development downhill. This is the same argument that has justified the MO of many African dictators. We have watched Mugabe over time turn into a monster—Bishop Tutu has said he had become a "Frankenstein"—as he methodically tried to follow the logic of this ideology until his economy went berserk, and he did too. Nobel Prize winner Wole Soyinka from Nigeria has taken much time off his literary work to criticize, in books and essays, this way of excusing the entrenchment of authoritarian law and tradition in the developing world.

The opposite argument is that it is never too early to keep moving toward structures that will bring increasing respect of human rights and democratic methods. India was a good example of this, perhaps because of the visions of Nehru—who leaned left, but believed in pluralistic Democracy –and Gandhi. Less unified than China, less militaristic, and extravagantly diverse, with a wildly free media India has had parallel success with that of China's (parallel but different, for sure). From a middle class which as late as 1980 was only 10% of the population, all the statistics point to a middle class that is no 50% of the population.

Granted -- that leaves up to 500 million poor and desperately poor in India. But the direction is right in economics, as well as individual rights. Military over-reactions aside—as in Kashmir, where the non-local military has in the past become engaged in the usual torture and assaults on a population which they see as collaborators with the enemy—the structures are in place for people to fight and win in the courts, to create new legislation promptly where abuses occur, and to at least challenge local bosses who engage in human rights abuses in a very public way.

So let's compare the two countries in the area of environmental issues. India has not posed nearly the same number of selfish roadblocks to the environmental treaties such as the Copenhagen as China has (Except for the US back in the day of the Kyoto conference). Aside from its pigheaded exploitation national pride to create a nuclear arsenal, the Indian government is at least open to refurbishing the economy with environmental industry if they can find the wherewithall. It is astonishing that, with a population that has burgeoned in tandem with China's, that it has continuously improved its difficult human rights issues, or at least showed the active will to do so.

The advocates of Third World exceptionalism in areas of human rights, democracy, and climate change, in general, are usually patronizing. They may raise interesting questions—but it has been a murderous ideology in practice. They have not been doing the people of these countries any favors.

Another interesting comparison we can make might be Egypt and Turkey. Both are "fallen" seats of powerful civilizations, even after the advent of Islam. Under Mubarak's "exceptionalist" rule—reinforced by a martial law that has lasted decades—the economy is as much a basket case as Egypt’s democracy and human rights record. Meanwhile, Turkey, in fits and starts, has shown tolerance for a multi-party system and has many savagely critical media outlets. The moderate Islamist Party which was allowed to take power, has finally brought a Prime Minster to sit down with the head of State in Armenia—after a century of denials about the Armenian genocide (Compare this with China on Tibet). The economic state of the population is well below most of Europe, but light years above Egypt.

The fact is, the world has changed since the now-developed world sloughed through the industrial revolution without a map, and the borders of nation states were drawn with blood. There are now many resources around for creating a lucrative industry that promotes sustainable development and supplies jobs. Most national borders in the world are established and mapped.

A new sort of Chinese farce will soon be replacing the Beijing Opera as the primary traditional performing art—if the Chinese ruling party insists on allying with genocidal regimes like that of Sudan at conferences designed to rescue the planet to stymie commitment to change that will prevent depletion of many countries water supplies, sink entire island nation states into the oceans, and keep entire nationalities such as the Tibetans and Uighers in a state of permanent repression and poverty.