Introduction, part II - on me versus Arabs

I didn't start my studies of Arabic due to any particular affection. I thought Arabic is the language of an important part of the world, that's important to follow and try to understand; and I don't wish to wait for translations to be made for me.

But when you study a language, it helps a lot if you can work up some degree of enthusiasm and affection for culture and people, and this I've tried to.

I feel particularly affiliated with expatriats (refugees) who fled due to their opposition against totalitarian rulers and regimes, but I also have learned to know some Palestinians who fled misarable conditions under Israeli occupation.

It would be ridiculous of me to pose as objective. I most certainly am not. I am strongly in favor of democratic reforms in the Arab world (and in Persia and in Afghanistan...).

My own national heritage, and my knowledge of Europe's 19th and 20th century history, make me cautious about wars. I think the civilians' sufferings too often are far greater than their gain of any somehow "positive result" of a war. This doesn't at all make me a peacenik or a conscientious objector or anything like that. I agree that every country has an army — her own or someone else's. And I think conscription is natural for any healthy people. As is resistance against occupation.

I was also initially favoring an international military alliance with the agreed purpose to improve the situation for Iraq's population. However, the diplomatic crisis following the Security Councill resolution in November 2002 made me think that the conditions for a successful campaign were not yet met. My point of view was primarily one of legitimacy, although I also feared that the number of troops fluent in Arabic and understanding the culture in question would be insufficient if Arabic countries, and Arabic expatriats, couldn't be convinced of the importance of a mission.

Peace, justice, liberty and societal stability was what I hoped for — not only for the Iraqi people, but subsequently also for the neighboring peoples. The outcome of the invasion was however far worse than I'd imagined, and now my principal fear is that anti-Western and anti-Democratic thoughts have grown, and will continue to grow, among ordinary people in the Arab world.

I maybe also can say that my understanding of Islam is fairly limited, and unfortunately I feel not inclined to learn much more right now.

Swedish supreme court rules religious hate speech lawful

I wrote a comment to an Anglican blog post on the acquittal [1][2] of the Swedish preacher Åke Green, a.k.a. Ake Green. While my comment "awaited moderation" I decided to copy it here too.

It’s important to consider that the Swedish law since two years makes no distinction between religious minorities and sexual minorities. This can be considered good or bad, but that is not what ought to be discussed in connection with this verdict.

As I understand the consequences, if someone in a sermon says that Jews are a tumour on the body of our society, or in some similar way imply that Christian presence on holy Muslim land must come to an immediate end, only the followers who act out, not the demagogues, can be held responsible in Swedish courts.

Tactically this acquittal might be good, in the short run, but it can be feared that it will also boost the tensions in the Swedish society. Like in Denmark, religion, race and ethnicity are at the core for these tensions that have grown much in the recent 15 years.

12% of Sweden’s population are now immigrants (defined as born abroad), many of whom are Muslims. Segregation and discrimination burdens the immigrants, social security expenses, street gang criminality and visible expressions of otherness angers the ethnic Swedes.

More than many other EU countries, Sweden badly needs to address this issue. The verdict may elevate the topic on the political agenda, but meanwhile the minorities are at risk — ethnic minorities and religious minorities as well as sexual minorities.

More on the verdict can be read in the lawyer Krister Bruzelius' blog.

The leading Swedish mainstream broadsheet, Dagens Nyheter supports the verdict in today's leading editorial (English version):

An open society has to have room to manoeuvre. This is the only way of dealing with meetings between different cultures and religions in the age of globalization, and of defending free speech, even blasphemy in all of its forms.

Åke Green is a case for debate rather than the courts, even if his cancer simile was truly close to the edge. We know that homosexuals are still a vulnerable group in Swedish society. They are discriminated against and are often victims of violence.

For the time being it may seem as if intolerance has won a victory, but in actual fact it is just the opposite. It is always darkest before the dawn. It is when openness and freedom are close at hand that resistance intensifies in word and deed.

Åke Green's sermon can be found in an English version seemingly certified by Green at http://www.akegreen.org /sermon_transcript .htm. The theme of the sermon is homosexuality. The most controversial passage, at least in my eyes, comes with regard to men and women who engage in bestiality or men who engage in anal intercourse with other men, referenced to Leviticus 18:22-23 and 18:27:

The Bible clearly teaches about these abnormalities. Sexual abnormalities are a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society. The Lord knows that sexually twisted people will rape the animals. [...] He writes it with the thought in mind that people will act this way when they abandon God. Because of these sins, the land will vomit out its inhabitants. The political response to this in our country is then what Paul talks about: "We know God's righteous decree that those who live that way deserve death. Still it is in that very way they live, and worse yet, they think it is good when others do it."

To combine a scripture quote ...they deserve death... with his own words ...a deep cancerous tumor in the society... is pretty bad in my eyes.



update December, 3rd:
Thanks to technorati, more exchange of thoughts on this issue can be found at:

• 21st century paladin


• Todd's classical Anglican


• The Local – site on Sweden


• Christianity, Homosexuality and Consistency [Allan Grey]


• The problem of morality [Allan Grey]


• Green's sermon [Krister Bruzelius' blog]


• Åke Green acquitted [Krister Bruzelius' blog]

Diplomacy badly needed before troops can leave Iraq

The Independent Institute's Ivan Eland is maybe not an accomplished expert on the Middle East, but at least he tries hard to take the realities on the ground as starting point for analyses. One doesn't need to agree with everything to find his articles memorable.

In yesterday's article he argues:

Saving Iraq will require the Bush administration to alter its fundamental goal in Iraq: a unified country. Iraq is an artificial country that has been held together over the years by the brute force of dictators. It is now being held together only by a foreign military. As that military exits, Iraq will break apart one way or another. In fact, with all of the armed factions policing parts of Iraq, the country already has a de facto partition.

Neither I am any expert on the Middle East, but there have been a few aspects of the allies' policies in Iraq that amazes also them who base their understanding on nothing but an ordinary all-round education. From the beginning, it was particularly amazing how great importance was put on rebuffing the Kurds' wishes for a state of their own. Of course the neighbouring Iran, Turkey, Armenia and Syria would have grumbled, and now the U.S. can argue that it's not their fault if Kurdistan starts to exist. But it won't convince anyone. The Kurds' dawning independence have coincided with the Bushs' wars — it happened on the Americans' watch, although they missed the chance to earn the connected goodwill among the Kurds, of whom many live as refuges in Western Countries.

Eland continues, and I must agree:

...the United States should mediate a controlled partition of Iraq so that each group’s militia can rule its own area free of fear of oppression from a strong central government. As an incentive for Sunni acquiescence, any partition arrangement would have to contain an agreement to share petroleum revenues or oil fields. To provide an incentive for the Shi’a and Kurds to share some of that oil wealth for a halt in the Sunni rebellion, the United States would announce an immediate withdraw of its forces [...] Those forces are the only thing currently propping up the Shi’ite–Kurdish government. Most likely, either Iraq will be partitioned in this controlled peaceful way or violently by the civil war that will intensify as the United States conducts its gradual troop withdrawal.

Unfortunately, the Anglo-Saxon policies have in recent years had far too much flavor of compulsory burning of their bridges. For an accord on a peaceful partition, it would really help, and in reality be pretty crucial, to include the neighbours in the discussions as well as in the outcome. They have at the moment tons of reasons not to do the United States any favors, and they will not easily agree to recognize an independent Kurdistan. But that is probably what's needed before the U.S. troops can return home.

What were the intentions with the Iraq crisis?

Abuse worse than under Saddam, Allawi says

By now it probably stands clear for all but the most ignorant that the U.S. and the UK pursued quite other goals with their invasion of Iraq than they’d announced. However, no-one outside of the innermost circles of the White House and 10 Downing Street can know which these real goals actually were, or are, and to what extent they correspond to the current chaos. It’s up to us bystanders to guess if Pentagon bristles with unspeakable incompetence or if there is a plan to impoverish Iraq and induce a manageable conflict that can serve as excuse for keeping strong Western troops in the area and maybe distract attention from the Palestinians’ misery nearby. What we guess may depend on our general opinion and experience of Americans and Britons.

One can wonder what the members of the coalition of the willing think about this now. Did they join primarily out of a will to demonstrate their obedience with the Anglo-Saxons, then they can be quite content of course. Their loyalty has been proven, and they have some grounds to hope for a favorable treatment by the United States.

They who on the other hand believed in some of the stated goals hardly can. In the end, the United Kingdom and the United States have sent the clear signal that they don’t respect any other nation that much, “allies” or not, that they care to appear trustworthy. For some nations this may appear intimidating making them to become more subservient in the future, which is good seen from the perspective of Northern America, of course, but what about the rest?

Introduction: Personal interests

I've for many years been much involved in the godfathering program for international exchange students at my university. This I find rewarding and important.

I've never had a pet (except for a pair of Stick Insects), but spent many summers at my granduncle's family, and grew fond of Labrador Retrievers, Bullmastiffs, German Shepherds, and St. Bernards. If I ever grow up and settle down somewhere outside of towns and suburbs, I'm sure a dog or two will be important family members.

I am more fond of real theater with live actors on a stage than on cinema or television, though only as a spectator.

Introduction

I’m a Finn who’s spent most of my life’s 25 years abroad.

Maybe most impressive were three years as a teenager in Latin America.

Recently I spent little more than five months in New York (State and City). Initially I was visiting my sister, who studies there, then I got romantically involved and decided to extend my visit. It was never intended to be a lifelong commitment, and now I’m back at school trying to get my acts together and write my final paper to graduate (in political science).

The last years I actually studied Arabic language and culture. It must be admitted that it’s been a particular challenge to do that right now, at a time when a lot of not only Arabs consider me and other westerners as members of a particularly arrogant aggressor.

As a Finn, the belonging to a Western tradition and the Western World is at the very core of my cultural and ideological identity. The Finns have, for at least a thousand years, lived at the very border to (what we consider as) The East — in other words to Russia.

So I easily identify myself as a Westerner, but many events of recent years have made me question what this actually represents for non-Westerners.

Maybe I’ll be able to use this spot to examine my thoughts on this point.


More introduction:

Personal interests

on me versus Arabs (and the invasion of Iraq)

Respect for Russia