There are some topics that are hard to discuss – not so much
because the topic is difficult but the readers have no frame of reference. For example, how can an American audience
relate to the selling of children into prostitution because it brings money in for
the family? How can an American audience
relate to the killing of government opposition in order to quell
dissatisfaction? Even more difficult is suicide
as protest. Sadly, Americans have plenty
experience with suicide but only as it relates to mental illness – not as a
form of protest from one of “sound mind and body.” There was an interesting article in Foreign Policy on the psychological
components of a suicide protestor, highlighting differences between sanguinary
and communicative objectives but it is fair to also consider the effectiveness
of the tactic.
My article is not a moral argument but more a practical
one. The two main types of suicide as
protest (as also highlighted in the article) are suicide bombers (sanguinary)
and suicide by self-immolation (communicative). While
both profess to do the same thing (attempt to alter a present condition through
self-sacrifice), they are radically different in their approaches and in how
others perceive the acts.
The suicide bomber is largely seen negatively from a western
mind-set because the protest involves the death of others (typically,
innocents) and the motives are not always pure.
Studies done on the subject show that seldom are these “martyrs”
ideologues. Though these acts are not
approved of, they are effective. Suicide
bombings have changed the course of European governments and have compelled
them to accept what was generally considered antithetical to their
beliefs. Examples include Spain’s quick
withdrawal from Iraq after the Madrid bombings and the condemnation over
cartoons depicting Muhammad negatively instead of defense of free speech. It would be one thing if these governments
presented an argument that defined their policies separate from the bombings,
especially in the case of Spain, but more typically, the hope is that by
deferring they can avoid the possibility of bombings in their country.
Never mind that we are talking about European countries and
other western democracies responding to the actions and beliefs of a few, but
ultimately, it might not matter.
Consider the recent violence between Israelis and Hamas. The Palestinians fire rockets from schools,
hospitals and other civilian centers.
They admit this in press conferences.
When Israel responds, world news outlets characterize the measure as
brutal and criminal. When Palestinian
and Hamas leadership say they “must” fire from these locations, no one
challenges their near-complete lack of rationale nor challenges their assertion
that in the same breath, they blame the Israelis for killing their
civilians. This is in conjunction with
suicide bombers sent into Israel but the actions are the same. The use of sacrifice to make and implement a point but on a much larger scale than an individual bomber. The sacrifices are working as Palestinians are gaining in international support.
On the other hand, we see a recent uptick in self-immolation
by Buddhist priests, a resurgence of an old tactic from the Viet Nam War era. The most famous of these suicide protests was
done by Vietnamese monk Thích Quẚng Dức in protest of the Ngo Dinh Diem
government in the South in 1963. These
measures, most recently seen in Burma and Tibet, are universally admired and
register with people because of the self-sacrifice, without other casualties,
against a repressive regime. There is
also something to the pain and suffering that goes into the sacrifice, separate
from the instantaneous and otherwise painless sacrifice of suicide bombers. There is also a widely held belief that the
sacrifice is being done by one much more aware and dedicated to their
cause. However, they are the least
effective. Neither the South Vietnamese
government nor the more modern Burmese government was shaken by the protests
and it was not what brought down these regimes.
Tibet activists have made little headway against China though they have
gained world-wide support.
What we hate, we respond to and what we appreciate, we
ignore. Part of this is due to China’s
prominence in world affairs, as opposed to many Middle Eastern countries who
largely play little economic role internationally. With each suicide bomber, we witness the
death and destruction and, for some, there is a permanent change in the perception
of Islam as a faith of extremism. To
make matters worse, we validate and value that perception by how we
respond. We back away from time-honored
liberties and rights while twisting our world view to accept the paradigm of
terrorists. In doing so, we also give no
help to those who seek to right the ship and take back the core of Arab and
Islamic values.
No comments:
Post a Comment