Thursday, February 19, 2015

Your Passport Please Mr.Morals


The Jordanian pilot, ISIS, vengeance, conspiracy theories and the western blue print of all of it have been on the news and social media networks in the past month or so. Regardless of the in-depth analysis, a Jordanian soldier died and the news spread. Every Jordanian was appalled to see Muaz Al Kasabe, a fighter jet pilot, burnt to death by the Islamic State’s militants. When the political leadership decided to retaliate, people expressed boisterous support to the retrieval of social dignity. The Jordanian flag hanging on the picture of the deceased pilot became the profile picture of many...the calls for vengeance for the crime committed against beloved Jordan escalated and national pride only was bolstered.
The idea of a welfare state is that which protects its citizens and provides them with all necessary services and goods to guarantee a dignified life. This promise must be met in the good and bad times. Just as the water authority is committed to supplying non-interrupted high quality water services to its citizens across the Kingdom, the army is committed to acting in utmost bravery and sacrifice to protect the nation against any attack. Sweet national social contract.
But then again, what if a neighbouring country went through a period of draught…will the neigh boring country simply ignore the pleas and suffering of the adjacent nation? And what if that same nation were under attack by a ruthless barbaric force (that posed exclusive danger to that nation and not to neighbouring countries); will people stand looking? Will the excuse of “These barbaric thugs pose no immediate danger and so we must stay still and wait” do? Will the social contract signed exclusively between the sovereign/government and the people living within a restricted geographic boundary hinder the facilitation of services to people outside the contract? To what extent are legality and morality mutually exclusive?
The death of the Jordanian pilot was tragic, but it was no more tragic than the death of thousands of children and civilians in Syria and Iraq at the hands of ISIS. The pilot was courageously performing his duties that involved a possible death…the children in ISIS’s captured lands did nor. Outraged should the society have been with the massacre and enslavement of the neighbouring nation, with equal if not surpassing indignation.
For a nation that had prided itself upon following religious codes of conducts (Muslim and Christian) and has enjoyed a long history of nationalist movements that have fought since the Great Arab Revolution for the dignity, rights and equality of Arabs, the reaction of the Jordanian street is very very disappointing. When an opinion poll reveals that many Jordanians are against the coalition forces fighting ISIS, on the premises that there are other priorities facing national security, it is no surprise to be perplexed and embarrassed. When the same poll was conducted after the slaughter of the pilot, the number of supporters to military action soared. So that means that now that a Jordanian is involved in these vicious acts, we must retaliate.
The argument that many employ against intervention is that what the ISIS is doing is no less barbaric than what the Israeli Defence Forces have been doing to Palestinians for years, or what the Americans are doing/have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, or what dictators in Arab states are doing to their very people. Other arguments are based on the claims that the USA, Israel and Gulf States are funding this bogyman to create chaos and facilitate military intervention. Clearly these arguments are neither invalid nor moral. Despite the factors leading to the birth of ISIS, the people behind it, the symmetry between their barbaric actions and those of other powerful nations, the very bottom line of the issue is wrong is wrong. By not fighting the Islamic State militants on the basis that “we are being tricked into a war orchestrated by the devil himself” is not valid. People are dying, children are being orphaned, and women are being enslaved; this IS happening, and stopping it is a moral necessity, even if injustice is not being fought elsewhere.
According to Larry Nucci, a psychologist at the University of Illinois, there are three areas that encompass social behaviour: the personal domain, the domain of social conventions, and the moral domain. In the last domain, social attitudes and conducts are intrinsically right or wrong… not socially conditioned or constructed. If we go back to morals, if we think about the essence of moral behaviour, any other considerations must be stripped off the argument. The justifications of “we are not in direct danger”, “other priorities”, “shortage of supplies”, “economic constraints”, “the western manipulation” etc. should not be any way relevant. What the ISIS is doing to these people is wrong, and our intervention is right. Loving thy nation does not mean forgetting about other nations, our humanity, or our morality. Perhaps the moral compass is broken in that segment of the society that opposed reaching out a helping hand, or perhaps our understanding of what morals are is flawed. And if it were a matter of social convention – not to interfere unless it is absolutely self-threatening -  and if morals are affected and blinded by national pride, then perhaps revisiting one’s senses of national identification and belonging needs to be done.

To conclude, and in the spirit of such a flaring moral discourse and hypocritical calls for self –sacrifice (writing this article whilst sitting safe and warm at home) I post a video of a song written and performed by a Spanish band (Mundo Chillón**). The artist relays the story of a man selling nations with a thank-you –for- buying gift…a catalogue of nations that you can choose from. Well, perhaps I too should consider disowning my national sense of belonging in the sole case of nationalist romanticism and pride possibly hazing my moral judgement. Ah self-sacrifice and moral-enslavement…thinking about Middle East suffering while recalling a night spent listening to the magical tunes of a Spanish guitar and chirpy songs in a coastal peaceful Spanish city.
** Permission has not been requested to post the video. Please don´t sue me. 

Monday, February 2, 2015

The Politics of Vengeance


A Jordanian pilot fighting the ISIS was captured in December 2014 by the Islamic State’s militants. The Jordanian government was on alert ever since, trying to develop a strategy to rescue the pilot whose life is in great peril. The IS threatened to slaughter the pilots well as the Japanese hostage if the notorious Al Qaeda terrorist detained in Jordan is not released. So what can the Jordanian government do? Re-open a channel of diplomatic communication with the terrorist state to negotiate a deal? Agree on a prisoner-swap based on “good faith”? Forget about the pilot and consider him a martyr on the job? Perhaps plan a covert attack and rescue Mr. Moaz Al Kassasbe?

A report recently being circulated in the media claims that Amman is indeed considering a deal to swap prisoners. However, should the IS decide to kill the pilot, the Jordanian government will sentence all prisoners accused of plotting terrorist attacks, having links to terrorist groups and related in any shape or form to the IS to death. Iraqi terrorist, Sajida Al Rishawi, who tried to kill hundreds of innocent people in a failed suicide bomb attack in Amman in 2005 tops the list. The news articles claim that the government sent a clear message to IS militants that it can easily and legally end the life of these prisoners, unless the pilot is returned.

I am not sure if these reports are valid, but for the sake of this article’s argument, we will assume that the plan is authentic. At first glance, one would be appalled to learn that a government that abides to the rule of law and is a signatory to all international charters on human rights and justice protocols would actually use people as a pawn. Should the detained individuals be actually guilty of terrorist crimes, then they should be fairly and legally tried before an impartial court and sentenced to serve sentence assigned by law according to the crime at hand. Sajida Al Rishawi for instance should not be used as a trade-off item. If the court found it just and legal to sentence her to death, the sentence should have been executed back then (or when scheduled) irrespective of external factors or any other considerations. Should the justice system become a player in the politics of international affairs and diplomacy, then its partiality, transparency and respect to justice will be forsaken for ever. The intelligence agency, a fourth pillar of power in Jordan, must no interfere in the justice system, as its role must be limited to transferring cases to courts that must rule fairly and justly.

Not quite partial myself on this nonetheless. Let’s see. A state that is dedicated to killing masses, enslaving women and children, terrorizing nations, expelling thousands of people from their lands and committing atrocities on a daily basis is not a state that responds to reason. Employing diplomatic measures and ethical codes in dealing with it is gullible and useless. Doing the right thing is always right, but sometimes right is not enough. Sinking to the level to IS is ludicrous and insulting, but necessary at the same time. If Jordan ever wants its pilot back, it has to use the same tactics used by IS thugs. When Sajida was detained in 2005 for failing to execute the terrorist attack, I was surprised she was not executed on the spot. I thought she was ready to kill herself along with hundreds of people; grant her the wish. Incarcerating her will serve nothing; she will not “repent” nor “adjust her conduct” nor work on reintegrating into the society as a sane, normal human being. Holding he prisoner in my innocent opinion back then was just cruel and pricey. One less crazy person in this world would have been a better scenario.

Recent events proved otherwise. The famed terrorist will be used in this “prisoner swap deal” or “vengeance act” depending on the IS decision. The tactic being employed (supposedly) is unethical; it reflects vengeance and deals with terrorists whilst abiding to no rule of justice or human rights. Nonetheless, it is necessary and crucial and effective, while no other “legal” and “respectable” strategy is. Vengeance, indeed, is a loud and impacting message that is internationally understood. And so is trade off. You kill my guys, I kill your guys. You free my guys, I free yours or (spare their lives).

It is true that “One should never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it”; but sometimes you need to get filthy and bloody even if the pig likes it.

Yesterday condemned, today embraced

Donald Trump announced on May 13th 2025 that he plans to lift sanctions imposed on Syria since 2004, by virtue of Executive Order 13338, upg...