V for Vendetta: Torture/Fear/No Fear (The Arab World and Beyond)

The blockbuster film "V for Vendetta" portrays a world besieged by global poverty, warfare, and totalitarianism. One of the main characters, Evey, ends up abducted by the revolutionary "terrorist" named "V". They become friendly with each other and V lets her go free. Later as she tries to escape the infamous state security forces she is caught. Evey ends up in a dungeon and tortured. Eventually she sees a door open and walks into V's room. She realizes it was him and not the police the entire time. As she cries and screams at him he explains why he did it. He also explains why she was sent notes in her cell claiming to be from another prisoner next door. He tells Evey these were sent to him when he was in prison. V tells her that he needed to cure her of her fear and terror that she lived under everyday. V also made her see one woman's story that never made it out alive. She leaves and realizes it worked. She went into hiding but she was no longer afraid of the despotic regime she lived under.

This part of the film I think helps explain, at least partially, how so many brave Arabs have been able to take on their authoritarian governments. In Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Yemen torture has been commonplace. A people have been terrorized into submission. Then, as if out of nowhere, Arabs-collectively-decided they were not afraid anymore. Countless blogs and interviews from these countries record people saying, "We no longer have any fear." Even as Bahrain security forces shoot men, women, and children the protesters continue to defy the authorities.

In Egypt today the Egyptian military has made a public apology for cracking down on protesters. Notice the activists response from an online article by Jailan Zayan:

Activists launched a Facebook call for fresh protests on Saturday to denounce the army's use of force.

"Peaceful protesters in Tahrir are being chased away by the military police with tasers, sticks and whips. Masked men with machine guns trying to shut down the strike by force. Many beaten, assaulted and arrested," the statement said.

"We cannot stand for this; we must stand strong against violence towards peaceful protesters."

(see http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9DzgtmVAtXVcFUArKoqZ0ZHR3kA?docId=CNG.1834cd7a64bd9ab8d352b6a21399b5f1.6f1)

In a recent article from "the Jerusalem Post" Larry Derfner discussed the inevitability of Palestinians reclaiming the West Bank. He writes what he predicts will happen:

Masses of Palestinians, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, marching to IDF checkpoints and outposts, marching to Israeli-only roads, to settlements, to the security fence – to the nearest Israeli presence and screaming, “Out! Out!”

And refusing to leave.

WHAT THE hell is the IDF going to do then? Shoot them? Arrest them? With the whole world not only watching but, for the first time, already won over by other unarmed Arab masses facing down their oppressors?

(See http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=209574)

At this point in history, Libyans are having to fight the hardest to take down the megalomaniac Qaddafi that has imposed himself on the country for over four decades. Perhaps thousands will die before he is disposed of. He will be cut down from his illusory realm of power. The process has begun and the people will not stop until he is removed.

In regards to this film clip I picked to accompany my blog's theme, I wanted to post this because it depicts (even if in a limited way) the realities of being tortured and living in fear. And the way governments can attempt to dehumanize targeted enemies of the state (in this case it was lesbians and gays).I do not like it when topics such as torture, war, and revolution become too intellectualized. This scene is very sad. I cry every time I watch it. Those of us, especially living in countries that have yet to make these scenarios common practice, should be in awe of those (in any country) standing up to repression, no longer fearful to resist.

Revolution, People, Revolution

A new blog to keep an eye on: "The people want to bring down the regime", which is a collection of "comments, contributions and visual media from the Egyptian uprising." Especially interesting is the post of graffiti (which, now that I think of it, is like the original twitter) from the uprising with translations. Here's one example:

Revolution, people, revolution

The Western media has been trying hard to spin this around the themes of caution and concern about the fate of the Egyptian people, as if they have much of a stake beyond echoing Western political self-interest. It's really about curbing the spirit of discontent that extends much farther than Egypt-- about, as Rancière would say, the hatred of democracy and egalitarian mass movements. A local example from The people want to bring down the regime:

As soon as I arrived I realised why state media has ramped up the looting and pillaging rumours which on Saturday prompted protestors to leave Tahrir Square; it is a desperate effort to break spirits and get them out. People are not frightened of tear gas or bullets any more; the old tactics no longer work because they have discovered the strength of numbers, and of camaraderie.

How, in this regard, is the Western media any different?

(Hat tip to Progressive Geographies).

The North African and Middle Eastern Revolutions: Which Side are You On?

Today CNN published an article titled "Egypt protests draw mixed reaction in region." The wrong reaction is only coming from sources or supporters of African and Middle Eastern dictatorships. What happened in Tunisia, what is happening in Yemen, Jordan,Algeria, and Egypt (more to come?) is straightforward: people are calling for basic human rights they have long been denied. Most of these dictatorships have been and are heavily supported by the US government and other nations. If a person or group does not unequivocally support these revolutions, the Egyptian one in particular,then that person or group sides with slaughter, torture, and all forms of oppression. Here is what the article shows:

Saudi Arabia "strongly condemns" the protest, it said. Mubarak assured the Saudi king "that the situation is stable" and that the protests "are merely attempts of groups who do not want stability and security for the people of Egypt, but rather they seek to achieve strange and suspicious objectives..."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called Mubarak and "affirmed his solidarity with Egypt and and his commitment to its security and stability," according to the official Palestinian news agency, Wafa...

Benjamin Ben Eliezer, a member of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, told Israel's Channel 10 that he recently spoke with Mubarak, who told him that "this is not Beirut and not Tunis" and suggested that Egyptian authorities had prepared the army in advance...Ben Eliezer is known to be the Israeli politician with the best personal relationship with Mubarak...

What is the US position? Vice President Joe Biden said on PBS News Hour, "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with – with Israel. … I would not refer to him as a dictator."

The most horrid comments come from John Bolton on Fox News!!! Then watch Gibbs mumble his garbage about Obama's position. By the way, unlike what Bolton said, Islamists have played a very small roll in all this.

I want to encourage all supporters of freedom to mobilize and demonstrate, call politicians, or whatever, to side with the Arabs against despotism. Lets be on the right side of history!

Tunisia's Freedoms

"Freedom," as Matthew Arnold observed, "is a very good horse to ride, but to ride somewhere." With protesters now demanding the ouster of the interim government, and today, the breaching security barriers to march on to government buildings, our Western intelligentsia is beginning to feel ambivalent (and that's putting it nicely!) about where--to extend the metaphor--these horses are going. Let's just look at some recent 'voice of record' NYT op-eds. Robert D. Kaplan (anti-democratic ideologue author of The Coming Anarchy) is already telling us that we ought to be careful what we wish for:

Another thing to keep in mind: in terms of American interests and regional peace, there is plenty of peril in democracy. It was not democrats, but Arab autocrats, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, who made peace with Israel. An autocrat firmly in charge can make concessions more easily than can a weak, elected leader — just witness the fragility of Mahmoud Abbas’s West Bank government. And it was democracy that brought the extremists of Hamas to power in Gaza. In fact, do we really want a relatively enlightened leader like King Abdullah in Jordan undermined by widespread street demonstrations? We should be careful what we wish for in the Middle East.

And Roger Cohen, wants those people out of the streets where things are getting shaken up, and into the polls where only a few ballots might get roughed up (and note how shamelessly he slips a bit of racism in there):

So I’d bear with Ghannouchi so long as his government works for rapid presidential and then legislative elections. [...] That’s right: chaos cannot prepare a credible vote. This is a nation where the most significant legal opposition group, the Progressive Democratic Party, boasts 1,000 members. Ahmed Bouazzi, a member of its executive committee, said, “We are walking on eggs:” the interior minister has blood on his hands, the defense minister once did sweet deals for the former first lady, the P.D.P. underplayed its hand in joining the government with a single minister — for regional economic development. Should the party now push for more?Through an open window a shout came up accusing the P.D.P. of selling out. “That’s good — free speech!” said a party member. There are going to have to be painful trade-offs if Tunisia is to demonstrate — finally — that nothing in the Arab genome [WTF?!] means one dictator must follow another.

Today I spent some time reading Richard Seymor's takes (there are multiple posts) at Lenin's Tomb, and he's quite clear about why Western pundits prefer that the masses only admire freedom rather than ride it somewhere, why we should be wary of the narrative that our media are slowly spinning:

the class character of the revolt is coming more clearly to the fore. The New York Times reports that the character of the protests has been changing, as middle class layers have accepted the new situation and celebrated a 'new freedom', while those still protesting are "more working class". But this is also a blow to imperialism, in the sense that it will prove difficult to impose a regime that simply cleaves to the solutions of the IMF and EU.

This is precisely one of the reasons why the working class protesters want the RCD  [Rassemblement constitutionnel démocratique] out. Which is not to say that the IMF and EU will lose their leverage over Tunisia. Nor is it likely in the immediate term that Tunisia would withdraw from its treaty commitments to Africom, and thus from its role in the wider structure of US imperial control in the African continent. But if, as seems increasingly possible, the revolt spreads and takes down some other pro-American regimes in Egypt, Jordan or Algeria, then Obama has problems.

Revolution In Tunisia

The January, 22 Sydney Morning Herold published an article that pinpoints the implications of the revolution in Tunisia. I will post some excerpts:

Only fools talk with certainty of what might happen next. But with all the caveats that follow, last week's revolt in a postage-stamp nation on the southern shores of the Mediterranean has to be seen as a ''maybe'' turning-point for a region in which greedy old men and their extended families are practised at stealing the power and wealth of their people; and for the most part, getting away with it as the rest of the world averts its gaze...

Restless, jobless and ambitious, these young people are increasingly angry because of a tactical mistake by their dictatorial leaders - they educated them, not knowing that they would graduate in an era in which the internet and social media might be weapons of choice for would-be revolutionaries.

If revolt can happen in a backwater like Tunisia then theoretically at least, it can happen anywhere. With food riots in Algeria; anger at price jumps in Jordan; the collapse of government in Lebanon; stepped-up repression in Iran and the farce of democracy and human rights as they are practised by corrupt leaders across the region, Tunisians rarely came into the frame as likely revolutionaries...

The Egyptian-born writer Mona Eltahawy is eloquent on this: "Not once in my 43 years have I thought that I'd see an Arab leader toppled by his people. It is nothing short of poetic justice that it was neither Islamists nor invasion-in-the-name-of-democracy that sent the waters rushing on to Ben Ali's ship but, rather, the youth of his country."

Her point is this: unlike the crushing humiliation for Arabs in the ousting of Saddam Hussein by the American-led invasion of Iraq, the home-driven demise of Ben Ali in Tunisia is something that Arabs might emulate with pride...

Could this be the start of the year, or perhaps the decade of the Arab people? There's a giddiness in the air. But because of what the people of Tunisia have already achieved, the editor of Egypt's Al-Distoor newspaper, Taalat Rumaiah, cannot be dismissed entirely when he tells The Guardian: "We can expect things to replicate in Egypt - it's possible that two or three other Arab regimes could fall this year because of popular uprisings."

Wu Ming Presents Thomas Muntzer: "Sermon to the Princes"

(Verso, 2010)

In this installment of Verso's "Revolutions" series, Italian author collective Wu Ming introduces a selection of writings by radical reformation figure Thomas Muntzer. Muntzer was a prototypical communist who lead a disastrous peasant war in the Holy Roman Empire in 1525 before being caught, tortured and brutally executed. His theology was radical in that it located the heart of revelation not in scripture, but in the personal relationship of the abjected spirit to God. Muntzer is probably most famous for Lefties for being the subject of Engels's classic study "The Peasant War in Germany" - where, it should be noted, Engels rides roughshod over the theological aspects of Muntzer's movement and paints him as a crafty political figure using religious rhetoric to push his agenda forward. Certainly there is much politicking to be found in his writings - Cf the scathing attacks on Luther - but reading him I'm not convinced that the theological and political elements can be so easily separated.

In their introduction Wu Ming touch upon what I believe is the main point of interest in the survival of the Muntzer story: specifically, his mythologization by the Left. I would have liked a more in-depth discussion of how venerating his spectacular defeat is symptomatic of a more general and highly regrettable Leftist trend, specifically wallowing in images of martyrdom (one aspect of what a friend of mine has termed "riot porn"). Nonetheless, Wu Ming do a good job of situating the Muntzer myth with reference to Genoa in 2001, and this lends itself to the kind of discussion I'm referring to.

Ultimately this book makes for good reading on a variety of levels, political, historical and theological being the most obvious. But even if all you get out of it is the experience of a religious figure publically calling his doctrinal opponents "donkey cunts" and "scrotums" and so on, this is in my opinion no small joy.

Hugo Chávez presents Simón Bolívar: The Bolívarian Revolution

I have a soft spot for Verso's "Revolutions" series. I imagine myself as a ten year old who has subscribed to a junior encycopedia set. Every few months I get a new volume; this month is aardvarks, next month bratwurst, etc. Only now I'm a 28 year old who excitedly opens his mail every few months to find a classic revolutionary text edited and introduced by a contemporary radical writer. So far the series has not failed to educate me about political history and the finer points of revolutions, though I should mention it has also spectacularly failed to include any titles by women (this winter will see the addition of Mary Wollestonecraft's Vindication, but I can't help but hope that more radical women such as Emma Goldman and Louise Michel will be the subject of future volumes).

As for "Chavez presents Bolivar", this should be required reading for anyone with a remote interest in American politics. I have to say I was shamefully unaware of "what Bolivar's deal was" besides the fact that he was an anti-colonial hero and Bolivia was named after him. There's a lot more going on, particularly some fascinating reflections on centralization vs federation, Republicanism, virtue, and mestizo identity. After reading, I was sure to visit the Bolivar statue on the way to school. Yep, we have a statue of him in Ottawa, in front of a hotel. You know, right near the big mall downtown. Huh.

I was a bit disappointed to learn that the introduction by Chavez was not a new one specially commission for the volume. Rather, it's a distillation of previous comments regarding Bolivar from speeches, other writings, etc. Nonetheless, it's great to see that Chavez's invocation of Bolivar is not an empty jesture. It is a bit hard to swallow the claim that had Boliar lived longer, he would have naturally become a socialist. But then, you have to make bygone heroes your own.