Al Qaeda's big break.
The most important thing I read today comes from Tristero at Digby's Blog, writing about the sorry Western response* to the disaster in Kashmir and what it means for the logistics of the War on Terror. In terms of mortality, the Pakistan earthquake is going to be at least 100x worse than the Katrina disaster and at least half as fatal as the Asian Tsunami that rung in the last New Year, killing between 200,000 and 275,000 people according to Wikipedia. An Oxfam press release from last Saturday predicts that as many people -- about 87,000 at last estimate -- may die from exposure, as winter hits the mountainous region, as died in the initial quake.
And then there's the politics of it. From the Asia Times:
Al-Qaeda is having a field day watching the community of nations perform so deplorably in regard to the human tragedy in Pakistan. It can, quite effectively, underscore three perspectives. First, that the illegitimacy of current Muslim governments in the wake of their failure to come to the rescue of a Muslim tragedy of epic proportions does not require any further debate, from the perspectives of al-Qaeda.
Second, the seeming lack of Western concern only underscores al-Qaeda's claim that the West does not really care about what happens to Muslims, as long as the compliant and sycophant Muslim regimes continue to preside over the political status that ensures the dominance of the West. Third, given the preceding two reasons, al-Qaeda's own unrelenting insistence on the violent overthrow of all extant Muslim regimes is further established, at least in the minds of everyone who is mildly sympathetic to that organization's criticisms.
To which Tristero (who knows more about foreign affairs than the vast majority of liberal "experts") adds that he told us so.
I might be remembering wrong, but it seems to me that both the recent terrorist attacks in Amman that have so far killed 59 and the French riots that have so far killed nobody have received as much attention, and much more "analysis", in the North American press than the Pakistan earthquake did or has. Juan Cole links to this article about several hundred Jordanians protesting the bomb attacks on their tourist industry and expressing their contempt for al-Zarqawi. This is par for the course; last summer's Pew Global Attitudes Project survey on Islamic extremism suggests that where al Qaeda attacks Muslem civilian targets, its (or at least bin Laden's) favourables plummet. But if al Qaeda can win over tens of thousands of disaster victims in Pakistan while the West indulges its "disaster fatigue" and the Musharraf government demonstrates its (well-known) weakness, then those few hundred angry Jordianians become a lot less problematic. Presumably, the more humanitarian work Islamic fundamentalists do, the more civilian killings they can afford to engage in without creating an unmanagable backlash against themselves.
The Asia Times piece also mentions the international community's self-justifications:
In a number of Western countries, the rejoinder to Musharraf's criticism [of the weak international response to the disaster] followed two general themes. First, the poor response has something to do with a general aid-related fatigue in the West, because the world has been experiencing a series of mega-human calamities. Second, a question is also being raised about why oil-rich Muslim states aren't coming to the rescue by creating about a billion-dollar aid mechanism, especially at a time when prices oil prices are so high.
I venture a third reason is simply that the Pakistan earthquake wasn't initially very geopolitically interesting. There was little to say about it in real time. You couldn't blame it on global warming, or on the overdevelopped welfare state, or on an irreverence for the trappings of pluralism, or on the jihadi instinct that lurks indescriminately in the far reaches of the Muslem mind, or on cronyism or`on the essential impotence of centralized government or on any of the other things that inform our political debates and prejudices and ideologies. In and of itself, an earthquake offers no obvious support for anyone's agenda. It was just an awful natural disaster, depressing but not blameworthy, a reminder of what Mother Nature can do to us. There was no other angle to be had. Just sorrow and giving.
But by basically ignoring the plight of the Kashmiris, we in the West have created an angle. The angle is that, through Western indifference, a natural disaster in the developing world can become a diplomatic triumph for the people who want to destroy us.
*The linked table shows each donor nation's pledges to the UN Appeal, but not how much money has actually been delivered. As of October 28, Canada had performed pretty well in terms of pledges (#5 on the list), but I couldn't find how much of that cash has actually gone through yet. The Toronto Star had a brief editorial on the subject yesterday, but no hard numbers for actual money transacted. The US pledge, by contrast, is pathetic. As of early this week, the UN Appeal remains miserably underfunded.
And then there's the politics of it. From the Asia Times:
Al-Qaeda is having a field day watching the community of nations perform so deplorably in regard to the human tragedy in Pakistan. It can, quite effectively, underscore three perspectives. First, that the illegitimacy of current Muslim governments in the wake of their failure to come to the rescue of a Muslim tragedy of epic proportions does not require any further debate, from the perspectives of al-Qaeda.
Second, the seeming lack of Western concern only underscores al-Qaeda's claim that the West does not really care about what happens to Muslims, as long as the compliant and sycophant Muslim regimes continue to preside over the political status that ensures the dominance of the West. Third, given the preceding two reasons, al-Qaeda's own unrelenting insistence on the violent overthrow of all extant Muslim regimes is further established, at least in the minds of everyone who is mildly sympathetic to that organization's criticisms.
To which Tristero (who knows more about foreign affairs than the vast majority of liberal "experts") adds that he told us so.
I might be remembering wrong, but it seems to me that both the recent terrorist attacks in Amman that have so far killed 59 and the French riots that have so far killed nobody have received as much attention, and much more "analysis", in the North American press than the Pakistan earthquake did or has. Juan Cole links to this article about several hundred Jordanians protesting the bomb attacks on their tourist industry and expressing their contempt for al-Zarqawi. This is par for the course; last summer's Pew Global Attitudes Project survey on Islamic extremism suggests that where al Qaeda attacks Muslem civilian targets, its (or at least bin Laden's) favourables plummet. But if al Qaeda can win over tens of thousands of disaster victims in Pakistan while the West indulges its "disaster fatigue" and the Musharraf government demonstrates its (well-known) weakness, then those few hundred angry Jordianians become a lot less problematic. Presumably, the more humanitarian work Islamic fundamentalists do, the more civilian killings they can afford to engage in without creating an unmanagable backlash against themselves.
The Asia Times piece also mentions the international community's self-justifications:
In a number of Western countries, the rejoinder to Musharraf's criticism [of the weak international response to the disaster] followed two general themes. First, the poor response has something to do with a general aid-related fatigue in the West, because the world has been experiencing a series of mega-human calamities. Second, a question is also being raised about why oil-rich Muslim states aren't coming to the rescue by creating about a billion-dollar aid mechanism, especially at a time when prices oil prices are so high.
I venture a third reason is simply that the Pakistan earthquake wasn't initially very geopolitically interesting. There was little to say about it in real time. You couldn't blame it on global warming, or on the overdevelopped welfare state, or on an irreverence for the trappings of pluralism, or on the jihadi instinct that lurks indescriminately in the far reaches of the Muslem mind, or on cronyism or`on the essential impotence of centralized government or on any of the other things that inform our political debates and prejudices and ideologies. In and of itself, an earthquake offers no obvious support for anyone's agenda. It was just an awful natural disaster, depressing but not blameworthy, a reminder of what Mother Nature can do to us. There was no other angle to be had. Just sorrow and giving.
But by basically ignoring the plight of the Kashmiris, we in the West have created an angle. The angle is that, through Western indifference, a natural disaster in the developing world can become a diplomatic triumph for the people who want to destroy us.
*The linked table shows each donor nation's pledges to the UN Appeal, but not how much money has actually been delivered. As of October 28, Canada had performed pretty well in terms of pledges (#5 on the list), but I couldn't find how much of that cash has actually gone through yet. The Toronto Star had a brief editorial on the subject yesterday, but no hard numbers for actual money transacted. The US pledge, by contrast, is pathetic. As of early this week, the UN Appeal remains miserably underfunded.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home