Shelters Before Graves

Inspite of seeing her making out passionately with another man at the staircase, he decided to ignore the issue, but confront – and prosecute – her for the affair she had 10 years ago. I was advised* to start off with a sexy tone to lure readers into skimming through…I hope that was sexy enough, albeilt the unappealing context of this article.  Now, the hot affair is a perfect analogy for what has happened between The Netherlands and Turkey following the famous Armenian genocide recognition vote.

On 22 February, the lower house of the Dutch Parliament approved a motion that recognises the Armenian genocide of 1915 by the Ottoman Empire. According to Christin Union parliamentarian Joel Voordewind, The Netherlands ¨cannot deny history out of fear of sanctions. Our country houses the capital of international law after all, so we must not be afraid to do the right thing here too".  "We are acknowledging history", he said. Turkey obviously was livid, and explained that the Ottomans at the time acted within the context of a raging confrontation with Russia during World War One. In a clever answer, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry indicted that “The baseless decisions taken by the parliament of a country that turned a blind eye to a genocide — whose pain still has not eased — in Srebrenica, in the middle of Europe, have no legal binding or validity´´.

The question of why, the basis, and purpose of the vote will not be addressed by this article. However, the timing will be. As I am typing, Syria's besieged Eastern Ghouta region is being bombarded. Intense shelling has already killed over 400 people since Sunday evening, with 79 children among the dead. One must wonder whether this is not yet another genocide that must be given priority in international condemnation. What happened to Armenians over 100 years ago is not to be ignored or belittled, but those people have perished, and so have the governments that orchestrated their deaths. Nothing can be done to right the wrongs. Historic recognition is admirable, but has no value other than sentimental.

Perhaps parliamentarians across the world should not wait for another 100 years to cry over the unjust death of the innocent and helpless. There is still a chance to save Syrians and Yeminis and Afghanis and Iraqis from a plethora of genocide-associated-acts that are committed on a daily basis.

International recognition of the Armenian genocide came after years of documentation, research, lobbying, and persistence – all of which are commendable. No one should deny the tragedy of killing 1.5 million Armenians…but the death of 79 children is also tragic, and unjust. Only it is a contemporary type of injustice that is politically charged and historically blurred. The facts have not settled in, but people are settled in their graves.

The Netherlands, and many other countries, have acted like the wronged husband. He had every reason to confront his wife with regard to the affair she had 10 years ago, but should have prioritised the more recent, pressing, and not-totally-substantiated fully fledged affair. Doing the latter could save the marriage, while the former would not…it would only document an act of the past. The Netherlands, and the international community at large, should consider doing the same.

The relations between The Netherlands and Turkey are currently lukewarm, and the estranged NATO members have both withdrawn their diplomatic representation following another earlier dispute. Amidst present circumstances and heightened political conditions, it would be advised that these two important partners try to mend relations and look at the bigger picture. Now is not the time to recriminate one another for past mistakes committed by previous leaderships. More pressing issues are at stake, and reconciliation is necessary.

In the spirit of love and sexiness as recommended above, ELO´s song (One Step at a Time) has insights for those in rocky relations, including nations. 

*You know who you are, and how dear you are.

Thou Shall Not Consume, But I Certainly Shall

In a succinct version of a harangue, Jordan´s Prime Minister attributed the critical financial conditions in Jordan to the consumerist culture of its citizens (revert to article published in the Jordan Times on Valentine´s Day in the spirit of love). Problems that stretch from lack of transportation services to the elevated cost of rudimentary sustenance products had one root cause: the greedy, consumerist Jordanian citizen.

Interestingly, and on the same day, a news article was published in the Washington Post indicating that following a meeting between the Jordanian and Foreign Minister and the American Secretary of State, Washington pledged to give Jordan at least $1.275 billion a year annually over the next five years, replacing a previous three-year commitment of $1 billion annually. This generous support comes two months after Jordan urged Washington to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital at the famous UN vote. The US was livid, promised to jot down the names of traitors, and subsequently cut off any aid and assistance as a strong slap on the wrist.  Jordan on the other hand exposed its fangs and talons and employed its best weapon – rhetoric – against Washington´s audacious move. Clearly, water under the bridge, and Jordan and the US kissed and made up.

The message that an average Jordanian citizen would get from all of this would be that their government is unable to sustain itself without foreign aid, but that citizens should and must be able to do so. A family of six with an income that does not exceed 500 Jordanian Dinars should be able to provide the minimum and basic needs for its household, but a government that has mastered the art of aid receipt cannot. The government felt entitled to preach on the basics of financial management and self-restraint against the dangers of consumerism, but set a record for failing to implement sound economic policies. Speaking of records, someone might need to explain to the premier that purchasing a car to get to work is not attributed to Jordanians’ passion for shopping for cars, but rather to the lack of public transportation. And bread is not a meal.

While it is certainly a diplomatic victory for Jordan to have the US not only not go through with its threats but actually increase its aid to Jordan, it is a moral defeat for Jordanians who felt insulted by Trump´s arrogance and disregard to the rights of Palestinians in Jerusalem. Snubbing economic aid would have restored pride and quenched the anger of the Jordanian street – a street that is still being blamed for economic woes and misfortunes. It might not be feasible to reject aid, but a statement that explained why it was accepted and an apology for still being dependent on donations would have been nice – certainly nicer than reprimanding Jordanians for their shopping sprees.

It is only hoped that quotients of the generous American aid be channelled to citizens...after all, they must maintain their consumerist behaviour, no?

Halifax Now and Then

Movies tend to awaken senses and invite ideas to take a deeper and more profound spot in one´s mind. A series of shots with visual effects that are interwoven beautifully within a script could allow for a reassessment of notions and beliefs. In the movie 'Darkest Hour', the mute inner dialogue of Winston Churchill once he was appointed Prime Minster of England at the acme of World War II resonated with a sapient audience from the future. Churchill´s romantic and patriotic refusal to bow before German attacks and offer a dignified surrender was admired by viewers, who reminisced about the days of glory and pride. The weak, feeble figure of Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, First Earl of Halifax, was naturally ridiculed for its defeatist standpoint. After all, it was the Earl of Halifax who pushed for striking a deal with Adolf Hitler after the fall of most of Western Europe. But Churchill the hero defied his party and its leadership, and stood by the pride and will of a glorious nation. And history proved his decision right.

Interestingly, English statesman and writer, George Savile, the first Marquess of Halifax (1633 –1695) held similar views to the 20th century Halifax.  A staunch opponent to the concept of ´fundamental principles´, he defined such a hyped and defended concept as the ‘nail that everyone would use to fix what is convenient for them at a moment and keep it unshakeable. Fundamental is similar to sacred vocabulary that maintains things in their state, disallowing anyone touching them’. Such progressive intellect could be broadened to tackle the right to question any concept, belief, or costume – including national pride. A fundamental belief in any concept could be a vice that is cladded in ethical discipline. Any government that is based on a set of fundamental principles that are rigid, inherent, and defining to a nation could be subject to auto-destruction if opposed to re-evaluation and assessment.

Earl Halifax warned his English peers in 1940 of the dangers of transforming principles into causes. He championed peace, even if it meant surrender, and accepted that England´s history of victories see a setback- potentially and hopefully temporarily. Refusing to rejoice pride might have echoed the 17th century Marquess´ views regarding the need for a `radical compromise between power and freedom…whereby governments should be able to be strong to maintain peace, and liberal enough in order not to cause repression'. Had history taken another turn, most viewers would have supported Halifax´s questioning of a romantic notion that was promoted by a leader who refused to compromise a fundamental principle. A strong government must ensure peace. It is acceptable to lose at times, to surrender at others, and to start again.

If both Halifaxes were here today, they would most likely have key insights on world events. Should the question of principle kill any attempt for peace? Should a fundamental belief in a cause or an idea deny other alternative notions to emerge? Should the principle that binds Gulf Arab States together in their opposition to Persian expansion stand at a higher pedestal than potential for prosperity and harmony? Are Arab States willing to shed more blood to defend their romantic principles? While it ended well for the Allies in the 20^th century, it will likely not be case for their allies in the 21^st.