Aristotle for Afghanistan

Remember Umberto Eco's masterpiece "The Name of the Rose" ?
Remember that book about a book that allegedly never existed, while for others it merely went missing ?
The second book of the "Poetics" by Aristotle.
The one that was supposed to have dealt with "Comedy" ...

Have you never had the feeling these last ten-something years that the plot of this novel was played out in real life -hic et nunc- albeit it in, for most of you whoever will read this piece, a far different and distant place on this earth ?

The venerable Jorge had been guarding the book in the famous labyrinth of the library to keep it from the eyes of his fellow brethren, for fear that laughter would distract the attention that is due to God and to God only ... like the Taliban have tried to subdue laughter in Afghan society for it distracts attention from Allah. The old Jorge and the Taliban: all "scholars", yet so afraid of the power of words.

We all have witnessed, maybe some in the field, most from behind our screens and magazines, how this fear has worked out and has been translated in the extremist islamic rule by the Taliban before the US invasion in 2001. It was a rule of terror, based on an impossible number of prohibitions and most poignantly, reducing the status of the Afghan woman in society to something devoid of any respect for human dignity.

The US invasion in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban was probably the first and only war I wholeheartedly supported, because it promised, even if only as a side-effect of the real goal, which was going after Al-Qaeda, to redress a wrong against women that was almost intolerable even just to read or hear about, let alone having to live it. Because of this reason, I have kept believing in the justification for this war almost till this very day, but seeing this footage finally has made me seriously doubt.

For those who want to watch this part of the documentary, I have to put a strong disclaimer that there are some very graphic images being shown. The overall message is clear: life has not gotten better for Afghan women since the invasion, except maybe for some women in the major urban areas, but oppositely may have gotten worse as a result. As one of the interviewed is saying, under the Taliban, women had no rights and had to stay in their house and wear burqua's on the rare occasions they could come out; now they still have very limited rights, they still mostly stay in their houses but on top of that they now live in a war-zone and women are always disproportional victims in war-zones. Furthermore, self-immolation by Afghan women has seen a steady increase in numbers, it is said.

So where does that leave us ? If what this documentary shows is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, the major moral premisse for protracting this war, is just not there. It's not happening: women are not being empowered by the actions of the western allied forces. Worse: now even their western-backed leader, Hamid Karzai, is signing into law a proposal that does nothing less than justify rape within a marriage. It is becoming increasingly clear that we absolutely need to rethink Afghanistan in the West. Maybe we shouldn't have been there in the first place: had the US not backed the Mujahideen, which eventually evolved into the Taliban, as opposition to the Russian forces that held the country occupied in the eighties, there might not have been the current quagmire.

Yet what options do Afghan women face ? Continue living in a war zone for probably years to come, however with the intent to restore some sense of normalcy and returning them at least some of their human rights in the long run, or delivering them again in the hands of the Taliban, these venerable "scholars" who blast up schools and throw acid over young girls faces if they attempt for some education in one of those schools. The choice is more than heartwrenching.

If there's anybody who has got a copy left of the second book of the "Poetics", the one on "Comedy", by Aristotle, hidden somewhere deep down in his cellar, would he please bring it out and start mass printing it, such that laughter, even in Afghanistan, may not be lost for good once that other remaining copy is eaten by the fire in that labyrinth of the library of those that proclaim to be the true followers of Allah ?

Sincerely yours.

Bucket

I suppose it must be a highly irreverant remark for these Hindu's, but this picture (INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty Images) made me immediately smilingly think of the staging for Samuel Beckett's "Fin de Partie" (or "Endgame"):

The setting for Endgame is a bare, partially underground room, serving as shelter for the four characters: Hamm the master, Clov his servant, and Hamm's father and mother, Nagg and Nell (who live in garbage cans). Hamm is in a wheelchair and makes Clov move him around the room, fetch objects, and look out the window for signs of life. Outside all seems dead and nothing happens. Inside, the characters pass the time mortifying each other and toying with fears and illusions of a possible change, all along sensing the inevitability of their end.

 I hope these holy men won't have to wait for Godot before they can leave their garbage cans.

Sincerely Yours.

Borderstone

Now this was quite interesting...

When acclaimed director Oliver Stone was walking the red carpet of the Venice Film Festival this week, he was not alone. By his side, he had not his wife or another eyeblinding beauty, as is mostly the case at this sort of events, but ... a genuine president: Hugo Chàvez of Venezuela. The seemingly odd couple was at the festival to attend the premiere of Stone's latest documentary "South of the Border", which more or less stars Chàvez as the champion of the left-oriented "Bolivarian Revolution" in Latin-America, rooted in Venezuela but which has spread towards some of the neighbouring countries as well, most prominently the Ecuador of Rafael Correa and the Bolivia of Evo Morales.

I must admit, when I first saw the pictures and read the story, I was completely taken by surprise. I had not yet heard the first word about Stone's new movie, but lately I had started to dig a little into the figure of Chàvez. So, to see one of Hollywoods icons parade in front of the assembled press with one of the United States worst nightmares, was intriguing to say the least.

But maybe the movie shouldn't come as a surprise at all. After all, Oliver Stone had already done a political documentary in 2003 on that other Latin-American revolutionary, Fidel Castro, titled "Commandante", which was fairly supportive of the man. As such, to those that want to put Stone in the red camp, "South of the Border" will probably be considered more of the same. The usual "Quod erat demonstrandum ...".

Myself, I'm a fan of Oliver Stone. I like directors who go after the big stories, even if they are considered "controversial" among certain audiences: the Vietnam legacy in "Platoon", the murder on Kennedy in "JFK", the ethics and politics of journalism in "Salvador", free speech and porn in "The People vs. Larry Flynt" (which he produced)... Still, ever since I saw this news headline, I've been asking myself if it's not a very thin line Stone is walking by giving so much airspace to Chavez, who is himself just involved in shutting down a large amount of radiostations in Venezuela. The question is bogging me down a little bit. I'm not impressed really by "El Presidente" and what I've seen from him so far. Ofra Bikel, producer of a pretty concise documentary about Chavez on "Frontline" said he really seems like a revolutionary desperately in search of a revolution, which he never really had (Chàvez as president has always been elected, though he tried an aborted coup d'état in 1992, which landed him in prison).

"He would love to be another Castro. He admires Castro because he admires heroes. And Castro really is a hero. He was a revolutionary -- he fought. Poor Chávez, all he did was win an election -- not that heroic, and I think it embarrasses him. On the other hand, I don't think Chávez has the brains of Castro, or the bravery."

And to go and stand in front of the United Nations to give a rant about "devil" Bush, is almost like the pot blaming the kettle he's black: Chàvez is seeking out an enemy, just like the one he has picked -the United States- does, in order to give "legitimacy" to and create a perceived need for his strong leadership.

Yet, I don't know Oliver Stone other than from his movies, but I don't suspect him to be lightly indoctrinated by whoever whispers something into his ear. So if he thinks there is something to say about Chàvez and what this man represents in the wider region of Latin-America that might be of interest for the world to hear, I'm also interested to listen. Albeit only to learn about our own "western" bias in reporting on a phenomenon we may not like very much at our side of the world, but who does seem to have touched a chord with a mass of other people. Criminalizing someone based on his professed ideas of lifting the masses from poverty, is kind of a stretch to me. When you're talking the talk, but you walk an entirely different walk, that's where it's possible to nail someone down. But therefore, it is necessary to know the facts on the ground and I hope Stone's documentary will be able to learn us something in that respect. Something we didn't know yet.

But Chàvez should also heed the call and had better keep in mind when he next closes yet another TV- or radiostation, that one of those he perceives as "the enemy" took out the time and the energy to listen to him and to bring his story out, because this "enemy" had the freedom to do so and made use of that freedom, waves of undoubtedly upcoming criticism notwithstanding. It takes more to be a great leader than to confront your countrymen every Sunday afternoon with your own one-man show on television, publicly announcing populist decisions he has to withdraw just a few days later. Chàvez surely has what it takes to be a tyrant. I hope to see the documentary answer the question whether he also got what it takes to not be a tyrant.

Sincerely Yours.