Nemesis

           MIGRANT HISTORY REPEATS

            Waleed Aly The Australian-February 23, 2006

            WHY MUSLIM LEADERS DARE NOT
            
            SPEAK THE TRUTH?

Waleed Aly’s article is a display of dazzling historical and sociological acrobatics on immigration that leaves his audience breathless. But in his attempt to win the applause of the latter, he forces himself to take some foolhardy risks on the threadbare wire of his argument trying to prove its correctness, that make him lose his reflective balance and fall on a nettles ground that bounces him into the embrace of the seventy virgins. What is more dangerous, to be historically and sociologically incorrect or to be in the company of seventy virgins, is for others to judge.

But let us deal with the premise of his argument and the historical facts of immigration as he presents them, with which he builds his “matchsticks” sociological theory of Muslim terrorism to make his case. His contention is that the so-called local Islamic terrorism of our contemporary times is no different from the Mafiosi terrorism of the 60s, from the Vietnamese triad gangs of the 80s, and treating the Greeks and the Catholics more gently, from the Mediterranean Back welfare fraud of the former and the allegiance of the latter to the Pope. No doubt, all these actions of the above groups are contrary to Australian values, nonetheless they arise from a minority of their communities and therefore it would be both illogical and unfair to blacken their whole communities for the actions of few. Neither, the sociological “deviancy” of a Trimboli or a Condello could denigrate the Italian community in toto and its great achievements as assimilated migrants in this country. Therefore, in similar mode, the beliefs and actions of a small number of Muslim radicals have a sociological pedigree going back to the 60s and 80s, and are of a passing nature, as the deviancy of the few radicals, as it happened with other immigrant groups in the past, will be absorbed within the majority of assimilated Muslims to Australian values in the near future.  Hence, according to Aly, history will be repeating itself, neither as a tragedy nor as a farce, as Marx believed, but as progress toward the embracing of Australian laws and values by all immigrant communities, including Muslims.  

In scope and depth this proposition is as serious as claiming, that soft “pasta” made terrorism is similar to religious fanatic terrorism that is fomented by an Islamofascist suicidal ideology and whose reach is global.  That religion, which plays such an authoritarian and dominant role among Muslims, can be relegated to sociology. To keep his canoe theory afloat in the billowing waters of reality, Aly, like a magician has to conjure away the history of Islam as a supremacist religion, which the precepts of its prophet Mohammed reveal and attest.  He also has to hide the fact, that this superiority of Muslim religion and culture inspires the minds and senses of most Muslims. Therefore, any assertion by Muslims that they support and ardently embrace multiculturalism is not only disingenuous but a blatant lie. To expect of them to accept multiculturalism will be akin of expecting them to become votaries of polytheism.

Aly”s argument, that Muslims will be as easily assimilated to Western values as other migrant groups have done from Christian and Buddhist backgrounds, is demolished by his co-religionists leaders.  The Montreal Muslim News, on February 26, among whom one of its hosts is the President of The Muslim Council of Montreal who is considered to be by all media outlets the representative of the views of the community, in criticizing the comments of Treasurer Costello that all citizens should accept the laws and values of Australia, stated the following: “If we look deeply into the sickness that passes for ‘western values’ one can see why we chose Allah over human made systems of morality and conduct”.  It’s this rigid, bigoted, and supremacist beliefs of Muslims that makes Western values terra rejectanus to them. One also must take note of the historical fact, that unlike Christianity which had its Reformation that Luther nailed on the door of dogmatic papacy, Islam never had its reformation and it’s still “mind-locked” in the dark ages of the 8th Century and therefore it’s completely incapable spiritually of immersing itself in the torrential stream of modernity. This is the reason why, despite the Midas wealth of many Muslim countries, their peoples live in poverty and in cultural ghettos isolated and detached from the modern world under authoritarian regimes. And this is why when they emigrate to the West they remain in their religious and social ghettoes, instead of reaching out from the windows of opportunity that a dynamic free enterprise economy is offering them and reaping the economic and social benefits that emanate from Western education, and engagement with the advanced world of globalization. Hence, bailing out from high rates of mostly voluntary unemployment and dependency on welfare, with all their dire social consequences.  But the question is how can a group of people who spent so much time (praying seven times a day) in the affairs of the other world succeed in the affairs of this one?

All the interactions that Muslims have, even in their dress and in their appearance, e.g. hijabs, white caps, and beards, with other Australians are motivated first and foremost by their religion. To claim as Aly does, that Muslim migrants are “rejecting culture altogether, Western or other wise’’ and leaving it at that without probing and answering, especially, why they reject the Western variety, is to say the least shallow sociology. They are rejecting it because being chained from head to foot with the rigidity of their culture are unwilling to break their chains and thus become free to accept the tenets of a modern world that will lead them to social and individual success. Ultimately therefore, they reject Western society because deep down they feel that they will fail in all their endeavors to succeed. Hence, like all failed cultures, they will scapegoat all the successful ones and blame them for their own shortcomings. And for this vicious circle failure, they will seek and find solace in, and embrace, the millenarian teachings of fundamentalist Islam and its Jihad against the great Satan America and its future promise of a caliphate and paradisiacal bliss.  

It’s for all the above reasons and the following fact that the claim of Aly that terrorism in Australia is a “fringe element”, to quote him, is as far from the truth, if it’s not a “warring” lie-as according to Mohammed in war telling lies by Muslims is justifiable- when the radical Sheikh Omran of Melbourne, who considers bin Laden to be a good man, has more than ten thousand followers.

One remains nonplussed, why an intelligent person such as Waleed Aly, leaves all the above facts out from his article? And dons the top hat of a conjuror that attempts to present the beliefs and deeds of religious fanaticism as being sociological and similar to the innocuous, by comparison, deviancy of a Condello from the mainstream? What does he have to hide? It’s up to his keen readers to answer the non-answer of Waleed that dares not speak the truth.          

Con George-Kotzabasis (Former Director of SBS TV 1986-96)

March 2, 2006 – Melbourne AUSTRALIA

RECOMMENDATION TO THE USA PRESIDENT

This letter was sent to the USA President on March 21,2006

Dear Mr. President

It’s admirable to see, that in your National Security Strategy you continue to stand like a Titan against your Democratic opponents and the rabble-rattlers of the media, in respect of your historically insightful strategy of pre-emptive war.

Humbly, I would like to make the following suggestions in regard to the great threat emanating from Iran in its determination to acquire nuclear weapons. I don’t believe that conventional realist diplomacy will convince the Ahmadinejad regime, especially when the latter can see the fraction that exists among the major nations that try to stop it from acquiring its nuclear arsenal, such as presently Russia and China, to change course and submit to the demands of this seemingly powerful combination of nations. I believe that only a diplomacy that is backed by the threat of an unequivocally resolute use of military action against Iran, if the latter does not conform to its dictates, and which makes it quite clear to its leaders that such action will not only target its nuclear plants, but, also, its political and religious leadership in toto as well as the higher echelons of the military. I think that such a “kiss of death” diplomacy pressed upon the foreheads of the triangular leadership of Iran, has the great potential to sow the seeds of division within it that could oust the radicals and replace them by moderates, who would be keen to accept the injunctions of this “armed” diplomacy.

Thus a “palace revolt” against the theocratic regime could be instigated by means of diplomacy, and usher your policy of regime change in the most peaceful way. And needless to say only the USA under your leadership could exercise this diplomacy. Of course such diplomacy will not attract multilateral support. This, however, will not be an obstacle to your resolute leadership. But you will have the support of the Coalition of the willing, and that will be enough on this high stakes issue. The probability of achieving this peaceful transformation of regime change is far from being a long shot. But if uncertainty, that rules in the affairs of men and beyond, uncannily plays its mischievous role and negates this probability, then you will have no other option but to resort to a pre-emptive attack against Iran’s nuclear plants and against its triangular leadership.

Mr. President, it’s a terrible and tragic burden to carry on your shoulders. But that is the price that statesmanship must pay in this most dangerous times that issue from the coupling of terrorists and rogue states armed with nuclear weapons.

Alea jacta est

Melbourne Australia

TIME FOR RALLYING AROUND A STRONG LEADERSHIP

Con George-Kotzabasis


“The greater the danger is, the greater is
the need to reach agreement quickly and
easily about what must be done; not
misunderstanding in times of danger
is what human beings simply cannot do
without in their relations”. Friedrich Nietzsche

Francis Fukayama in his intellectual volte face from a neo-conservative who supported the war in Iraq has now, with the difficulties that have issued from the war, turned himself into a “soft-power” conservative. In his article in The Melbourne Age on April 8, 06, “Time For Softer, Smarter US”, he argues, “that before the Iraqi war, we were probably at war with no more than a few thousand people who would consider martyring themselves and causing nihilistic damage to the US”, whereas now we are facing tens of thousands as a result of our invasion of Iraq. Because of this America should use “soft power rather than hard power” promoting “political and economic development… by focusing primarily on good governance, political accountability, democracy and strong institutions”. Another reason why a soft power policy is more prudent is that the “unipolar world that emerged after the Cold War has stoked broad new currents of anti-Americanism”, and one way to mitigate the latter is for the US to use its power latently, instead of displaying it arrogantly. Also, the broader involvement of international institutions is a prerequisite, if this new policy is to bear its fruit. Although he concedes that these institutions “are inherently slow, rigid and hobbled by cumbersome procedures”. And he admits that the implementation of such a policy cannot be quick and would “require tremendous patience”. But the conundrum of what to do with the war in Iraq continuous to haunt him. As he states, that “walking away… would leave a festering terrorist sanctuary”. And finally,and unwillingly, giving credit to where credit is due, to President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption, he acknowledges that the war against terrorists could be pre-emptive and could often violate the principle of national sovereignty.

There are however historical, political, and strategic reasons that Fukayama’s soft power strategy will be a greater failure than the presumed failure of hard power. Moreover, one cannot contrive “smarter” US policies as a recipe of success. All policies of government in their major part are made by smart people. But in the scope of their implementation are often “outsmarted” by a multiplicity of variables that no human mind can foresee or imagine or absolutely control. But that does not mean that one has to be nihilistic about intelligence. The latter rules the world, but it’s not an absolute sovereign. It has its limits. And within these limits governments carry out their realpolitik on calculations of the highest probability and without being immune from committing errors. The war in Iraq is an illustration of this. It started with a smart military strategy which within three weeks defeated Saddam’s army. But at the commencement of the American occupation, US strategists committed a series of mistakes, such as the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the delay in setting up an interim Iraqi government, which had the result that units of the disbanded military personnel regrouped into the ranks of the future insurgency. No one anticipated that from the ashes of the defeat of Saddam’s forces the Phoenix of insurgency would rise. Only a clairvoyant could possibly see the unraveling of this possibility and could have prevented the errors of the Americans.

But let us deal with the main reasons why Fukayama’s soft power idyll has no chance of being successful. The historical and political ones go together. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, as a result of its inability to compete with the unsurpassable economic and military power of the US, the latter became the sole hyperpower in a unipolar world. It carried, like Atlas, all the burdens of the globe on its shoulders as well as the responsibilities of keeping the world in order, and suppressing either by diplomacy or force the tribal and sectarian conflicts that would arise from nascent states in their pursuit to expand and consolidate their power, but which could destabilize parts of the rest of the world – not to advert to the humanitarian issues. But responsibilities are coupled with dangers. Dangers that emanate both from success and failure. The US has both on its scorecard. The defeat by the might of its military power of the Axis alliance in World War II, and especially the defeat of the Soviet Behemoth by its economic power and belligerent diplomacy, brought in its wake both the admiration and the envy of the world upon the US. But admiration is a passing passion, unlike envy. The former lasts as long as when the performance ends. The duration of the latter however does not end in one act, but continues to exude its bitter vapors against the US as long as the latter dominates the world scene. Monopoly of power, generates monopoly of hate. Not only by nations that have been pushed by the US from their former positions of power, but also by nations that have been America’s allies during the Cold War, as a result of being cast to play, as nations with proud cultures such as France, a secondary role in the affairs of the world. And of course, by most Islamic nations, whose failure to make their entry into the world of economic development and prosperity blame America for their condition, which is more likely than not the outcome of their failed culture, and the overdetermination of their people’s lives by religion in a secular world where people can only succeed by adopting whole-heartedly the latter’s values.

This is the fate of America as “Prometheus Unbound”, in a unipolar, unequal, and enviable world. Whatever America will be doing in the affairs of the world, it will not be able to avert the wrath of these nations. Even its most benign, if not altruistic, humanitarian actions will be seen as having a rapacious interest at hand. In the political domain, the policies of democracy, good governance, that Fukayama is suggesting, if they are going to be implemented under US auspices, will be seen by many nations as latent expansion of US imperialism. America therefore finds itself in the unenviable situation of being “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t”.

But in the dangerous situation that the Western world has been placed by the attacks on New York and London, it’s better to be damned for one’s actions than for one’s inactions. As strategically,only by swift hard power action can one ward off and prevent such danger from expanding into an even more lethal form than 9/11. And this cannot be otherwise, even if, because of the magnitude of scale and its uncertainties, mistakes will occur, as it happens in all wars, in the performance of these actions.

A strong leadership, such as the Bush administration is – despite the critique of the malevolent rabble-rattlers of the media and the populist cocottes of its political opponents - cannot mortgage its strategic policies against this potential mortal threat to the weathervane of polls nor to its fickle allies and that Babel of discord and indecision, the United Nations. And the people of the Western world who have not lost their pride for the achievements of Western civilization, must rally behind a strong leadership that protects this civilization from the deadly attacks of a horde of fanatic barbarians.