Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Tick-tock on Darfur.

The situation in Darufr right now is extremely, extremely critical. After months end, a race of people could be literally wiped off the face of the earth. The African Union is leaving at the end of September. If the UN doesn't come in to fill the void and protect the Darfurian people, the aid workers will leave. 2 and a half million innocent people could be starve or slaughtered to death simply because of their race.

Canadian retired General Romeo Dallaire, veteran of the Rwandan genocide: "Darfur is tasting, smelling, looking in every way, shape and form like a repetition on a similar scale of what happened in Rwanda."

George Clooney, speaking to the UN Security Council:

The United States has called it genocide. For you, it’s called ethnic cleansing. But make no mistake, it is the first genocide of the 21st century, and if it continues unchecked it will not be the last.

Now, my job is to come here today and to beg you, on behalf of the millions of people who will die — and make no mistake they will die — for you to take real and effective measures to put an end to this. Of course it’s complex, but when you see entire villages raped and killed, wells poisoned and then filled with the bodies of its villagers, then all complexities disappear and it comes down to simply right and wrong.

It’s not getting better. It’s getting much, much worse, and it is only the international community that can help us. Now, I know there are members of you here that, for what I’m sure are sensible reasons, have failed to use leverage at times to keep the — to get the peacekeepers on the ground. Well, we now have a date. The date is September.

My generation will be marked by how it responds now. This is a critical point in human history. Now is the time to take a stand and stop would could become the worse genocide in decades. Join a Darfur advocacy organization, like Canadian Students for Darfur. Join a human rights organization like Amnesty or Human Rights Watch. Educate yourself on this issue. Write letters to your government leader and to you Sudanese ambassador. Do what you have to.

Update: African Union troops have agreed to stay through the rest of the calendar year. Still, that does nothing to stop the genocide; it merely impedes it's progress. The AU is still severely understaffed, and the UN is still not living up to its responsibility to stop a genocide in progress.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

One hundred year anniversary of Satyagraha

Today is the fifth anniversary of 9/11.

Significantly, it is also the 100 year anniversary of a speech given by Mohandas Gandhi, marking the beginning of Satyagraha. He was at a meeting in South Africa where he presented a resolution encouraging a protest of the unjust pass law. He was emphatic that the refusal to comply had to be nonviolent. I believe in the movie Gandhi, he says something like they may have our bodies, but not our obedience.

Thus, this day finds us with not only redisover a phiilosophy that could help us out of this mess. To that end, here is part of that speech, from Gandhi's Satyagraha in South Africa.

We all believe in one and the same God, the differences of nomenclature in Hinduism and Islam notwithstanding. To pledge ourselves or to take an oath in the name of that God or with him as witness is not something to be trifled with. If having taken such an oath we violate our pledge we are guilty before God and man. Personally I hold that a man, who deliberately and intelligently takes a pledge and then breads it, forfeits his manhood. And just as a copper coin treated with mercury not only becomes valueless when detected but also makes its owner liable to punishment, in the same way a man who lightly pledges his word and then breaks it becomes a man of straw and fits himself for punishment here as well as hereafter. Sheth Haji Habib is proposing to administer an oath of very serious character. There is no one in this meeting who can be classed as an infant or as wanting in understanding. You are all well advanced in age and have seen the world; many of you are delegates and have discharged responsibilities in a greater or lesser measure. No one present, therefore, can ever hope to excuse himself by saying that he did not know what he was about when he took the oath.

I know that pledges and vows are, and should be, taken on rare occasions. A man who takes a vow every now and then is sure to stumble. But if I can imagine a crisis in the history of the Indian community of South Africa when it would be in the fitness of things to take pledges that crisis is surely now. There is wisdom in taking serious steps with great caution and hesitation. But caution and hesitation have their limits, and we have now passed them. The Government has taken leave of all sense of decency. We would only be betraying our unworthiness and cowardice, if we cannot stake our all in the face of the conflagration which envelopes us and sit watching it with folded hands. There is no doubt, therefore, that the present is a proper occasion for taking pledges. But every one of us must think out for himself if he has the will and the ability to pledge himself. Resolutions of this nature cannot passed by a majority vote. Only those who take a pledge can be bound by it. This pledge must not be taken with a view to produce an effect on outsiders. No one should trouble to consider what impression it might have upon the Local Government, the Imperial Government, or the Government of India. Every one must only search his own heart, and if the inner voice assures him that he has the requisite strength to carry him through, then only should he pledge himself and then only will his pledge bear fruit.

A few words now as to the consequences. Hoping for the best, we may say that if a majority of the Indians pledge themselves to resistance and if all who take the pledge prove true to themselves, the Ordinance may not be passed and, if passed, may be soon repealed. It may be that we may not be called upon to suffer at all. But if on the hand a man who takes a pledge must be a robust optimist, on the other hand he must be prepared for the worst. Therefore I want to give you an idea of the worst that might happen to us in the present struggle. Imagine that of us present here numbering 3,000 at the most pledge ourselves. Imagine again that the remaining 10,000 Indians take no such pledge. We will only provoke ridicule in the beginning. Again, it is quite possible that in spite of the present warning some or many of those who pledge themselves may weaken at the very first trial. We many have to go to jail, where we many be insulted. We many have to go hungry and suffer extreme heat or cold. Hard labour may be imposed upon us. We may be flogged by rude warders. We may be fined heavily and our property may be attached and held up to auction if there are only a few resisters left. Opulent today we may be reduced to abject poverty tomorrow. We may be deported. Suffering from starvation and similar hardships in jail, some of us may fall ill and even die, In short, therefore, it is not at all impossible that we may have to endure every hardship that we can imagine, and wisdom lies in pledging ourselves on the understanding that we shall have to suffer all that and worse. If some one asks me when and how the struggle may end, I may say that if the entire community manfully stands the test, the end will be near. If many of us fall back under storm and stress, the struggle will be prolonged. But I can boldly declare, and with certainty, that so long as there is even a handful of men true to their pledge, there can only be one end to the struggle, and that is victory.

A word about my personal responsibility. If I am warning you of the risks attendant upon the pledge, I am at the same time inviting you to pledge yourselves, and I am fully conscious of my responsibility in the matter. It is possible that a majority of those present here many take the pledge in a fit of enthusiasm or indignation but may weaken under the ordeal, and only a handful may be left to face the final test. Even then there is only one course open to some one like me, to die but not to submit to the law. It is quite unlikely but even if every one else flinched leaving me alone to face the music, I am confident that I would never violate my pledge. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying this out of vanity, but I wish to put you, especially the leaders upon the platform, on your guard. I wish respectfully to suggest it to you that if you have not the will or the ability to stand firm even when you are perfectly isolated, you must not only not take the pledge yourselves but you must declare your opposition before the resolution is put to the meeting and before its members begin to take pledges and you must not make yourselves parties to the resolution. Although we are going to take the pledge in a body, no one should imagine that default on the part of one or many can absolve the rest from their obligation. Every one should fully realize his responsibility, then only pledge himself independently of others and understand that he himself must be true to his pledge even unto death, no matter what others do.

In the same chapter, he went on to explain his philosophy:

None of us knew what name to give to our movement I then used the term ‘passive resistance' in describing it. I did not quite understand the implications of ‘passive resistance' as I called it. I only knew that some new principle had come into being. As the struggle advanced, the phrase ‘passive resistance' gave rise to confusion and it appeared shameful to permit this great struggle to be known only by an English name. Again, that foreign phrase could hardly pass as current coin among the community. A small prize was therefore announced in Indian Opinion t o be awarded to the reader who invented the best designation for our struggle. We thus received a number of suggestions. The meaning of the struggle had been then fully discussed in Indian Opinion and the competitors for the prize had fairly sufficient material to serve as a basis for their exploration. Shri Maganlal Gandhi was one of the competitors and he suggested the word ‘Sadagraha,' meaning. ‘firmness in a good cause.' I liked the work, but it did not fully represent the whole idea I wished it to connote. I therefore corrected it to ‘Satyagraha.' Truth (Satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement ‘Satyagraha,' that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase ‘passive resistance,' in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing we often avoided it and used instead the work ‘Satyagraha' itself or some other equivalent English phrase, This then was the genesis of the movement which came to be known as `Satyagraha, and of the word used as a designation for it. Before we proceed any further with our history we shall do well to grasp the differences between passive resistance and Satyagraha, Which is the subject of our next chapter.

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Watching the watchers of Human Rights Watch

It seems that no one can criticize the government of Israel without being labelled anti-Semetic or anti Israel. Absurd as it may seem, a Phillip Roth of a reputable organization like Human Rights Watch is not immune to these attacks.

Phillip Roth is a Jew whose father fled Nazi Germany. According to Rosa Brooks, upon criticizing Israel for war crimes against Lebanon,

The backlash was prompt. Roth and Human Rights Watch soon found themselves accused of unethical behavior, giving aid and comfort to terrorists and anti-Semitism. The conservative New York Sun attacked Roth (who is Jewish) for having a "clear pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel bias" and accused him of engaging in "the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism." Neocon commentator David Horowitz called Roth a "reflexive Israel-basher … who, in his zest to pillory Israel at every turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians." The New Republic piled on, as did Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Human Rights Watch "cooks the books" to make Israel look bad. And writing in the Jewish Exponent, Jonathan Rosenblum accused Roth of resorting to a "slur about primitive Jewish bloodlust.

Anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch — or with Roth — knows this to be lunacy. Human Rights Watch is nonpartisan — it doesn't "take sides" in conflicts. And the notion that Roth is anti-Semitic verges on the insane.

But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and his organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and fantastical. What's most troubling is that it's typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash enough to criticize Israel can expect to encounter. In the United States today, it just isn't possible to have a civil debate about Israel, because any serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of anti-Semitism. Think Israel's tactics against Hezbollah were too heavy-handed, or that Israel hasn't always been wholly fair to the Palestinians, or that the United States should reconsider its unquestioning financial and military support for Israel? Shhh: Don't voice those sentiments unless you want to be called an anti-Semite — and probably a terrorist sympathizer to boot.

How did adopting a reflexively pro-Israel stance come to be a mandatory aspect of American Jewish identity? Skepticism — a willingness to ask tough questions, a refusal to embrace dogma — has always been central to the Jewish intellectual tradition. Ironically, this tradition remains alive in Israel, where respected public figures routinely criticize the government in far harsher terms than those used by Human Rights Watch.