My way and the Molotov way

In his monumental history of violence and civilisation, The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker gives the lowest ratings to societies that adhere to a “culture of honour.”

He cites Islamic societies as ones with a well-documented “discourse of humiliation” that justifies the use of indiscriminate violence against any members of another civilisation they hold responsible.

No one knows this better than the publishers of the French weekly Charlie Hebdo, which describes itself as a journal d'humour, satirique, politique et social, indépendant et sans pub.

In its most famous issue yet, the smaller rival to Le Canard enchaîné renamed itself Chari Hedbo (Sharia Hedbo) as a way of "celebrating" the victory of Islamist party Ennhada in Tunisia's election.

As the Daily Telegraph reports,

A single Molotov cocktail was thrown at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris’s 20th arrondissement at around 1am. The ensuing fire was rapidly put out, but a large amount of material in the office was destroyed, police said.

As the BBC notes,

Charlie Hebdo is part of a venerable tradition in French journalism going back to the scandal sheets that denounced Marie-Antoinette in the run-up to the French Revolution.

[Today] it has moved on to politicians, the police, bankers and religion. Satire, rather than outright fabrication, is the weapon of choice.

Pinker’s point is that closed-mind totalitarian systems are incompatible with rational, open ones.

It is commendable some Muslims living in the west have condemned the use of violence. But they don’t accept that religion can be satirised in an open society.

Islam remains trapped in a “culture of honour” where pluralism of religious views – let alone secularism – has no place. It is not just satirists who should be worried by the rise of political Islam in the Arab world.

Pakistan’s saviour seeks second chance
A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing when it comes to giving advice on Pakistan.

I have met only three Pakistanis of importance – General Pervez Musharaff and writers Mohammed Hanif (A Case of Exploding Mangoes) and Fatima Bhutto (Songs of Blood and Sword).

All were personable and highly articulate. The former president spoke at a media-only dinner function in Auckland and, to my knowledge, he is the only world leader to have done so recently in New Zealand (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade doesn’t deign to subject other VIPs to such an event).

General Musharaff wasn’t afraid of his questioners and answered in both English and Urdu, depending on who was asking. He was urbane and smart, as are many Pakistanis despite their country’s pariah status.

In any case, Newsweek tells us he is planning a comeback from his base as a private citizen living in London to rescue his country from chaos and penury.

At 68, he may be past his use-by date. But despite some of his previous actions – which led to a collapse of support for him by the US, among others – he has correctly diagnosed that Pakistan needs someone – perhaps anyone – to do the right thing.

On the positive side of the ledger, General Musharraf liberalised Pakistan’s economy, passed progressive reforms and tried to crack down on corruption and Islamic extremism in the military.

He is correct to claim the present regime has backtracked on these. But his attempts to stay in power branded him an anti-democrat. His latest political foray can only add to an already heady brew.

Un-doing the UN
Foreign policy analysts are wondering about the longer-term implications of the US withdrawing its support for Unesco and other UN organisations because of the Palestinian lobby.

The Obama administration says it is required by existing US law to cut off funding for any international organisation that grants the Palestinians full membership, as Unesco has done.

While I don’t see how an outfit committed to terrorism can have anything to do with a body that promotes the opposite. But then the Palestinian cause has never been strong on scruples.

According to Foreign Policy magazine’s The Cable,

It may mean the US giving up its membership of essential bodies such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and some 16 other UN agencies.

Foreign Policy says this could be the tip of the iceberg.

The Palestinians could seek membership in more prominent international organisations, which could result in the United States defunding or even withdrawing from institutions such as the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

If so, it might be time for the US to reinvent the UN and make membership conditional on the highest bar of behaviour rather than the lowest (as with the World Trade Organisation) – not merely the majority, which in today’s world is stacked against the democracies.

Incidentally, the countries voting in favour of Palestine joining Unesco is an interesting list of places you wouldn’t want to visit.

Why one equals a thousand
I may have found an answer to my query a couple of weeks ago about how the maths stacked up when Israel traded one abducted soldier for a thousand-odd Arab prisoners.

The Jewish online publication Tablet has provided this explanation in an article on Egypt’s release of Ilan Grapel, an Israeli-American law student who was held in custody for four months on false espionage charges before being exchanged for 25 Egyptian prisoners.

For Israel, the point of freeing a thousand prisoners in exchange for one is not merely a moral calculation, but also a form of strategic communication intended to dishearten Israel’s foes. The message it sends is not only that Israel values life above all, but that the Jewish state can afford to put its enemies back on the street because in the end, no matter how numerous, those enemies have no chance of winning.