For Those of You Who Enjoy a Good Conspiracy…

Yeah I know: typically conspiracies are the topics of fantasy and belong within the realm of literary fiction, not area studies. But in the case of Turkey, conspiracy theories, at least in recent years, have found a bit more merit than elsewhere. Thus, I present to you, the story of Ergenekon. For many of you, as it was for me until recently, the name probably means little. However, for the Turk’s that may be reading this, it represents the story/case that has been omnipresent in Turkish media for the better part of the last three years.
But first, a short history of Turkey:
The Turkish Republic was founded following World War I upon the principles of (among others) nationalism and secularism, despite possessing almost an entirely Muslim population. Obviously, some issues ensued, namely how the secularism was to be upheld by the government and to what extent religion was to present in government affairs. Consequently, the twentieth century represented a continuing struggle of balancing both Islam and secularism in the country. As with any other political struggle, there is of course a spectrum of participants in the debate. There are the ultra-secularists and the corresponding ultra-Islamists and the moderate left and right leaning groups in-between. But for all intents and purposes, Turkey still possesses a constitution that defines it as a secular nation and includes provisions to limit the influence of Islam on government affairs and within the public sphere.
Here’s where the issue arises: In November 2002, the Justice and Development Party (or by the Turkish acronym, AKP) was elected into power by a decisive vote in the Turkish general election. The AKP is also an Islamist political party. Much to the collective dismay of the secularist fringe, the AKP proved to be both an effective and pragmatic political institution. In the past, Islamist political parties had come to power, the Welfare Party of the 1990s being an example. However, the Welfare Party did not command the same level of pragmatism that the AKP would later have and pushed their Islamic agenda a little too far. Long story short, in 1997 there was a coup (described as “post-modernist” by many scholars as there was no actual take over by the military but merely the threat of one) on the part of the secular, military elite that removed Welfare from power.
The AKP of the twenty-first century took a different approach. Continuing the successful social programs of the Welfare Party while also dialing down their outward Islamic approach, the AKP commanded a high level of popularity and an effective government. Their platform has been shaped by the recent surge on the part of the Turkish Republic to gain entry into the European Union, and many citizens have backed them in this approach.
Despite the AKP’s popularity and pragmatic approach, there is still a significant contingent of the population that wishes to see such a party with Islamist roots removed from power. As shown above in the case of the coup that brought down the Welfare Party, this secularist segment of society has also traditionally held the majority in the military, namely at its most elite levels. I’m pretty sure you can see where I’m going with this.
The word “Ergenekon” is a reference to a legend about the genesis of the Turkish people and is the suspected name of a criminal organization within Turkey that has slowly but surely been linked to members of the government at the highest levels. According to the formal indictment that was brought against the members of the group, its intention was to bring about as much chaos as possible in Turkey in order to justify yet another military coup (there have already been four since 1923). The investigation and its consequent trial have been referred to as the case of the century, having exposed a shady and somewhat disturbing conspiracy to control and shape the progression of a government and society that has tried several times to prove to the world its commitment to democracy.
For example, the original indictment that was brought against the organization by the government in the summer of 2008 outlined a number of different plots that had a number of high profile targets in mind. These featured both the current Prime Minister of the AKP, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the world-renowned novelist and Pulitzer Prize winner, Orhan Pamuk. In addition, murders that had already been committed and the bombing of a newspaper were included in the charges. The campaign of destabilization had raged throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century and, despite the open investigation, is believed to continue until the present day.
Just this past week, another indictment was submitted to a Turkish High Criminal Court implicating 3rd Army Commander Gen. Saldıray Berk and 12 other suspects in a plot to frame the police force in the city of Erzincan. Weaponry had been planted near a dam in the city as a means of discrediting the police department and raising suspicions of its actions. What would this accomplish, you ask? Well, the Erzincan Police Department has been aiding prosecutors in the Ergenekon investigation. Furthermore, Erzincan possesses a diverse group of peoples, featuring Sunnis, Alevis, Kurds, and the plotters believed that fragmentation of public opinion made it more susceptible to manipulation. Despite the failure of many of the efforts of Ergenekon, the plots as exposed in the indictments cited above, if they are in fact completely true, are a bit frightening in their precision and calculation. One can only hope that conspiracies like this one can be uncovered and stopped before they can succeed, not merely for the lives that are immediately at risk, but also for the threat it poses to the democracy of the Turkish people generally.

A Sign of Things to Come?

The Cyrus Cylinder, an artifact revolutionary to the politics of sixth century B.C.E. Persia, is suddenly playing an active role in the politics of twenty-first century Iran. The Cylinder, believed to be the world’s first declaration of rights, was commissioned by the Persian ruler Cyrus following his conquest of Babylon. Obviously, this object holds a great deal of importance in the heritage of the Persian people and consequently was set to be placed on exhibit in Iran’s national museum starting this winter. However, reports have come out that the British Museum, who possesses the Cylinder, have now delayed the loan in order to continue a research project that they have already begun. According to the English institution, the aim of the project is to compare the Cylinder to two other artifacts that were recently discovered and are believed to date back to the same period.
The Iranian government, in response, has stated that the move to delay the loan is not due to academic reasons, but rather is a politically motivated decision based upon British opposition to the ever-growing mess that is the Iranian nuclear stand-off with the West. That’s probably a fair assumption on their part, as this decision comes in the wake of President Mahmoud Amahdinejad’s call for a resumption of his country’s uranium enrichment program, producing uranium enriched up to 20%. I ran through the nuclear fuel cycle in a previous blog, but for the sake of those that are not nuclear physicists: nuclear fuel (read: enriched uranium) for civilian purposes like nuclear power need be enriched only to about 3%. Fuel for a bomb requires enrichment up to 90%. So it’s probably safe to assume that pushing for 20% and beyond equates to the flexing of political muscle.
But what can the episode about the Cyrus Cylinder teach us about the overall political climate, and perhaps, what’s to come?
Well from what I can tell, there are three potential scenarios of which this event could represent the beginning. The first of which is simply the black-and-white scenario; that is, that the artifact’s loan to Iran is being delayed simply because of the reasons already set forth by the British Museum. If the archeologists and researchers for the British have suddenly stumbled upon new objects that necessitate comparative study with the Cylinder, why shouldn’t they be granted a longer period of with which to complete their work? The museum has contended that the Cylinder could still come to Iran as early as this summer, so in essence, what’s the problem? Put another way, if all this represents is an academic tug-o-war, then there really isn’t anything more to read into.
But what if it actually is a politically motivated act? What if the delay of the loan is actually an extension of British foreign policy toward Iran and is just one of many sanctions the U.K. wishes to impose in response to the nuclear programs of the Islamic Republic? I suppose this one could just be called sanctions scenario. The sanctioning and further sanctioning of Iran from the beginning of the nuclear debate has been the initial reaction of the West and will likely be the next one, at least to a point. For example, economic sanctions prohibiting exports to Iran, engaging in business with the Iranian oil industry and working with Iranian-owned banking institutions have been launched by the United States, and similar actions have been taken by other governments in the so-called “P5 + 1” (U.S., Russia, China, U.K., and France + Germany, or the group of nations leading the protest against Iran’s nuclear program). Now prohibiting the loan of a renowned artifact doesn’t exactly qualify as a typical economic or trade sanction, but it does have a similar effect of waging protest against government activity. The fact that members of the Iranian government have now publicly acknowledged the delay of the loan and even linked it to the United Kingdom’s opposition to their nuclear program is a testament to this possibility. From here, further and more severe actions would be taken by P5 + 1 if the Islamic Republic does not choose to scale back their enrichment efforts and return to the negotiating table. However, in the end, if sanctioning is the name of the game, it stands to reason that that is all that would come about in this scenario. Just this past week, it was reported that the Iranian Foreign Minister stated publicly that a final agreement between their leaders and the Western nations was nearly reached, but this report was dismissed, namely by Germany, as nothing nearly as constructive as it sounds. Sanction, negotiate, fail-to-agree, repeat. And so on.
For the sake of argument, let’s take this one step further and explore one more “what if?” This one I’m going to refer to as the super-paranoid scenario. What if the refusal to loan out the artifact is just the beginning of the end of negotiations with the Iranian government? What if, in the coming weeks and months, the world watches as negotiations are called off completely and replaced with missile strikes and a buildup of troops along the borders of Iran. What if the current war of words just suddenly became an actual war? It doesn’t seem very likely, given that many of the nations involved in the P5 + 1 are just getting out of a costly war in Iraq and are still involved in an equally costly war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, the English media group Telegraph reported just yesterday that the conservative political Tory party in the U.K. would support military action against the Islamic Republic. While an offensive is officially regarded by the U.K. as “inconceivable” (with similar sentiments echoed by other P5 countries), the further this pressure cooker continues to run, the more unsettlingly possible it seems to become. I’m an optimist, so I’ll throw my lot in with the diplomacy scenario and hope that a compromise spontaneously appears and the situation is diffused, but who knows. The only thing that we can really be sure of based upon this episode is that anything could happen in the days ahead.

Articles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8502654.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8502705.stm
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE61607220100207?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FUKWorldNews+%28News+%2F+UK+%2F+World+News%29
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/07/2812631.htm?section=world
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/ahmadinejad-orders-higher-enrichment-of-uranium-20100207-nklv.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7173446/Tories-would-back-war-with-Iran.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/06/iran.nuclear/index.html
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/iran/iran.shtml

Trivia

This past week during Professor Alahmad’s “Oil, Development and Power” seminar, I was afforded the opportunity to witness one of the more fun exchanges within our studies: that of the realization of a piece of profound trivial knowledge. In that particular instance, it was the acknowledgement that the oil imports for the United States come essentially from only Venezuela and Canada and not, contrary to popular belief, from the Middle East. While common knowledge to many within our discipline, facts like these do have a considerable impact on the understanding of those who are not students of Middle Eastern Studies, and thus are entertaining for us to throw into conversations outside the Kevorkian Center.
Having this in mind when reading through the news today, imagine my surprise when I came upon a review of a new edited work and a corresponding exhibition at the London Science Museum entitled 1001 Inventions that focuses on many of the forgotten technological achievements of the Middle East that have shaped the modern world. The book’s editor, Professor Salim al-Hassani (University of Manchester) was asked to give his top ten of the advancements discussed in the book and some were pretty surprising for me. They are listed in the article one by one as follows:
1. Surgery
Let’s start with the nod to Mr. Foucault. The book draws attention to the work of the doctor al-Zahrawi who published a massive illustrated medical encyclopedia that included a number of procedures he himself invented, such as a primitive caesarean operation. And this was in 1000 C.E. Also credited to the doctor was the first pair of forceps and dissolvable sutures. According to the review, his work became the reference for European medicine through 1500 C.E.
2. Coffee
Ah yes, the life blood of graduate education. This drink, a multibillion dollar per year industry today, owes its origins to 9th century Yemen (although I know at least one Classical historian and one African Studies historian who believe it was grown in Ethiopia even before then). Regardless, coffee seemed to become popular in the region long before it was a common product in Europe.
3. Flying Machine
I’m sure many of you have read about Leonardo da Vinci sketching plans for a flying machine long before the Wilbur and Orville Wright took their own machine to the sky in North Carolina. But apparently, the idea, and attempts to make it a reality are much older than that. Abbas ibn Firnas is believed to be the first to attempt the endeavor, testing a flying machine during the 9th century near Cordoba, Spain. While Professor al-Hassani concedes that he ended up falling and partially breaking his back, the effort was still bold and inventive.
4. The University
More commonly known is the fact that degree granting university’s had their origins in the Middle East. The book presents the story of the late 9th century princess Fatima al-Firhi who founded an institution in Fez, Morocco. The building operates still to this day and the Professor hopes that its existence serves as a reminder that learning occupies a major place in the Islamic tradition.
5. Algebra
Always what so many people cite as the major contribution to the world’s knowledge of quantitative reasoning and yet only understood in a limited way. 1001 Inventions describes the publication of the treatise "Kitab al-Jabr Wa l-Mugabala" (“The Book of Reasoning and Balancing”) by a 9th century Persian man. According to the review, the new algebraic order “was a unifying system for rational numbers, irrational numbers and geometrical magnitudes.”
6. Optics
In the book, a history is told of a man named Ibn al-Haitham who, in the year 1000, discovered that people are able to see objects by capturing the light reflected off of them with their eyes. Additionally, al-Hassani explains, he uncovered the camera obscura phenomenon, or how human vision corrects an image reflected upside-down so that it is processed right side-up.
7. Music
Instruments such as the lute and the rahab we introduced to Europe in the highest esteem, as the music of medieval Baghdad set the standard throughout the world. Also, so we’re told from the review, the modern musical scales are actually based on the Arabic alphabet.
8. The Toothbrush
Muslims will always note the emphasis Islam places on purity and cleanliness, both spiritually and physically. So then, is it any wonder that 1001 Inventions draws attention to the fact that the modern toothbrush may have actually been an invention of the Prophet himself? At the beginning of the 7th century, the Prophet is said to have cleaned his teeth with a small branch from the Meswak tree.
Others listed by Professor al-Hassani include the crank, a phenomenal mechanical feat in its own right, and the hospital (a nod to Foucault once more). From this short list one can see the wealth of knowledge and influence that emerged from the Middle East over the centuries and has shaped our world in the 21st century. But of course, none of us really doubt that, do we? As I said before, the fun part is dropping these neat little bombshells on those who are not students of the discipline in this country and therefore have no idea that their ideas of mathematics and medicine, or Starbucks and Colgate, actually have their origins in a place far outside the western world…in a place that is, unfortunately, not often regarded for its positive influence on humanity.

Link to article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/29/muslim.inventions/index.html

History Lesson

I wanted to talk briefly here about something I found today on CNN. It is a blog written by a man named John Blake on a discussion that has been taking place between modern military historians for a number of years now (http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/07/past-war-offers-afghanistan-lessons-and-its-not-vietnam/). You know how ever since the war in Afghanistan began, people have always tossed around the notion that the entire endeavor was reminiscent of Vietnam? Well apparently, while that may be true, the prevailing traits of that war (i.e. guerilla warfare, long-term presence and extensive casualties, etc.) are actually grounded in a war much older than Vietnam. The Philippine-American War (1899-1902) is what many historians have pointed to as the first conflict to which the contemporary action in Afghanistan can draw its parallels.
Here’s a little background for those of you unfamiliar with how this war came to be: The war in the Philippines was a direct result of the Spanish-American War, which the U.S. had won the year before. As part of the agreement reached between the two countries, Spain ceded the island nation to America. However, this came with one tiny problem: the Filipinos had previously begun fighting for their independence from Spain and were not willing to simply become a possession of the United States. And in the true imperialist fashion of the late nineteenth century, the American government illustrated how it felt about the Philippines’ independence ambitions by sending roughly 30,000 troops to their shores.
What ensued was a bloody conflict that spanned the next three years, officially, and ultimately led to a forty-six year occupation of the country. Here’s the curious thing about this whole argument: the United States is believed to have won the Philippine war, and to have done so inside of five years. Now this statement is debatable given that a troop presence was necessary far the following four and a half decades to maintain order, but nevertheless, it is cited as a victory. Why was it so? The historians quoted in Blake’s blog simply state that it came down to brutality. The Filipino rebels, like their Vietcong and Taliban counterparts, utilized guerilla tactics such as run-and-gun attacks and then blending in with the local populations to attempt to discourage the Americans. However, the U.S. military, fresh from a similar offensive against Native American Indians, simplified their troubles by merely killing everyone, civilians and combatants alike. Obviously, this could not occur, nor should it, in the modern day, but it’s interesting that the debate over “doing what is necessary” had reared its head in this war over a century ago as it has in the last decade in Afghanistan. Another interesting parallel was in the unpopularity of the Philippine war, as Blake cites that contemporary voices like those of Mark Twain and Andrew Carnegie spoke out against the blatant imperialism of the conflict. Not that this chapter in American History offers much of value for finding a way to bring the War in Afghanistan to a positive conclusion, and I wouldn’t even begin to try to use this example for such an end. But I personally find it interesting when the past mirrors the present so clearly. At the very least, the comparison between the two wars wasn’t something I had considered before.

Too Many Movies and Too Much Free Time

I just finished reading an article in this week’s news regarding, of all things, conspiracy theories that have been generated about the world’s most infamous current boogeyman, Osama bin Laden. Now, in my humble opinion, bin Laden, while holding a high status in view of international media, government security forces, and other jihadists, is still just a single, dare I say marginal, figure in the realm of global jihad. But the man still holds the world’s attention, as he has for the last decade, among both the rational and paranoid alike. As the article I just read addresses the latter group, I felt like maybe I should put in my two cents on some of their absurd claims.
Apparently, many of the conspiracy theorists out there would have you believe that Osama bin Laden was killed early in the United States invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and any subsequent communiqués attributed to him have been a means to perpetuate the myth of Osama bin Laden in order to justify a seemingly endless “War on Terror”. Yeah, I cringed a little bit too. What kind of proof do these theorists present to back up their claims? Enter David Ray Griffin, theology professor and member of the “9/11 Truth Movement”, who points to the video released in December 2001 in which bin Laden both confesses to the 9/11 attacks and looks “fatter, with shorter fingers” and is “writing with the wrong hand” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8444069.stm). Mr. Griffin contends that al-Qaeda has rarely admitted to acts of terrorism and violence and that, given later recordings of bin Laden being of the audio variety only, it leads one to believe that the video is likely a forgery. He then goes on to cite the release of a later October 2004 video of bin Laden, which he claims lacks then religious rhetoric of previous messages from al-Qaeda and may have been utilized to secure a second term for President George W. Bush, as it was released just days prior to the election.
So let’s take a step back from fantasy and into the realm of rationality. While the theories offered above by Mr. Griffin have been largely dismissed by video and intelligence experts, there is a bit of debate over a video released in September 2007, that features a more youthful looking Osama bin Laden and has number of eyebrow-raising technical glitches, like points during which the video freezes but bin Laden’s audio continues to play. But go figure, none of these issues add up to a massive western government conspiracy. More likely, according to former CIA agent Robert Baer, al-Qaeda themselves faked the tape (if it was in fact a forgery) in order to rally their forces around the figure of bin Laden and to reinvest their followers devotions. Many who entertain these wild conspiracy ideas and simply ignoring an obvious truth: the U.S. is just fighting a difficult and capable enemy and, at the end of the day, this country, or any other, isn’t capable of maintaining such a massive conspiracy without any leaks or any evidence of its existence. I should say briefly here that I am American, I love my country, and I believe in its principles completely. But is it really so hard to believe that this country just simply cannot find this individual and that the message of al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups is not a tool of our government but rather something in the world beyond our control? This country is not some infallible, invincible force in the world that is the master controller of all things; no, we’re just like all the rest. So put the wild theories to bed, people, because they hold no weight. They are merely the musings of those out there who have seen too many movies and who have too much free time.

Resolutions

For those of you that don’t know me, I am part of that minority within our study body that does not live within the boundaries of the five boroughs of New York City. No my friends, each day I come from the strange and far away land many know as “Jersey”. Needless to say, a large portion of my New York University experience is based on the proverbial commute and all of its fun little idiosyncrasies. As such, in taking part in the annual process of introspection at the beginning of each new year, I’ve decided to make my resolution for 2010 to become a better commuter. Better how? Well, better in the sense that I plan to both deal with the stress of getting into and out of one of the world’s largest cities on a daily basis better and be willing to find a little more joy and fun in the process as a whole.
All of this is based on the simple and obvious principle of patience. It is a virtue after all and it is a must if you are going to achieve what I am vying for. Have you ever found yourself in a crowded subway station trapped behind the guy who likes to just stroll along at his own leisurely pace while you are currently ten minutes late for your exam and still are twenty minutes and two transfers away from being even remotely close to the Kevorkian Center? Yeah, we all have. And if you’re anything like me, you spent an awfully long time hating that guy. But unfortunately, that guy is an inevitability of the public transportation system as we know it, and he’s not walking any faster anytime soon. So there’s really only one option if you don’t want to lose your mind every day, and that’s to just shrug it off and be patient. You will get to where you’re going when you get there, and no sooner. So for me that means leaving a bit sooner, expect to run into that guy sooner or later and then just have a little bit of patience because it’s just not worth getting worked up over.
That said, the other key step to the whole thing, like so many other aspects of life, is having a good sense of humor about everything. Laugh more; it’s that easy and simple. And commuting into the city is no exception. No matter what it is, the A train that likes to take its sweet time getting to West 4th St, the NJ Transit buses that constantly wait to break down until they’re in the middle of the Lincoln Tunnel, or even the guy above who takes his Sunday stroll through the Union Square station at 9am on a Monday morning, you’ve got to be able to stop and realize how funny all of it really is. Yeah, I know, there will be days when you can’t afford to lose a second and you need to be where you are going absolutely as quickly as possible. But most days will not be a matter of life and death and it’s important, more important than many realize, to relax and try to enjoy yourself as much as you can. So why stress out over things that are out of our control, namely the ride to and from school each day? I’ve found that once you’re relaxed in the heat of a commute, looking around at how stressed everyone else seems is often pretty funny. Ok, so maybe my resolution is more about being a patient and upbeat person generally and the commute just provides a useful example. But regardless, I think they are good traits to pursue, and not just for myself, but all of us should strive for those characteristics in the new year that’s upon us. Just a little something to think about.

How Will the Blackwater Controversy End?

In skimming around the news today, I found several continued discussions of the controversial ruling favoring the infamous Blackwater military contractor in the case over the events of 16 September 2007. For those of you that haven’t followed this case that closely, a brief summary of it is as follows: In September, 2007, the private contractor, Blackwater, had been hired by the United States government to act as security personnel for a number of different institutions, areas and mobilizations in Iraq. On 16 September of that year, company personnel were acting under this mandate by overseeing security for a State Department convoy that was passing through Baghdad’s Nusour Square. However, during this movement, five of the guards on duty (Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, Dustin Heard, Donald Ball and Nicholas Slatten) claimed that the convoy came under attack by insurgents and they began to return fire. In the process, 17 Iraqi civilians were killed. In the aftermath, the events on that day were heavily disputed, and many, namely the Iraqi government, contend that the security guards acted in a manner outside of the rules of warfare, the attack they launched was unprovoked and that they fired indiscriminately at civilians, effectively committing murder.
That brings us to the trial that concluded this past week in the U.S. The prosecution, which based its case largely on the findings of a U.S. Justice Department investigation, was unsuccessful in its attempt to convict the five former Blackwater security guards on a variety of counts, including manslaughter and attempted manslaughter. U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina dismissed the case on the grounds that the evidence against the guards centered on testimonies which they gave under the pretense of a threat of job loss as well as the fact that these testimonies often provided inconsistent accounts of the day in question. Due to the questionable and limited evidence, the judge felt that he had no choice but to throw out the case.
Obviously, the Iraqi government displayed heavy disappointment over the ruling and has asked the Justice Department to appeal the ruling. In the meantime, a witch-hunt has been launched by the Iraqi government to pursue and expel any current and former employees of Blackwater, now known as Xe, still operating within their borders.
So that’s about where this story is at for the moment, but I couldn’t help but think of the potential consequences of it in the future. How, exactly, is this one going to end? Clearly, the appeal will be filed and the five guards will likely end up back on trial for what happened, whatever did happen, in Nusour Square. But if they are convicted the second time around, what will this mean for the newest trend in modern warfare, the employment of Private Military Contractors (PMCs)? Will someone question the use of companies who are arguably independent of the rules of conduct that control the state military machine? If they aren’t convicted, will the presence of PMCs become a permanent fixture in warfare in the years to come as a necessary supplement to armed forces of a nation, any nation, engaged in conflict? I don’t know, maybe those questions are a bit extreme and the realities of the situation are much more muted. But personally, I’ve always found PMCs, like any other mercenaries, to be inherently problematic as their independence tends to lead to issues of control. If the government wants to release thousands of guns-for-hire onto battlefields where the potential for civilian collateral damage is great, I would certainly hope that these are questions that are given their proper consideration before any deployment is initiated.

Introducing the “iQuran” (Yes, you read that right.)

So I recently came into possession of a new Apple iTouch mp3 player and have basically spent nearly every moment of the last week playing with its variety of features. Not gunna lie, it’s probably the best toy I’ve ever had. But in downloading a variety of applications for use on the device, I found something that made my jaw hit the floor as soon as I laid eyes on it. Boys and girls, there is, in fact, an iQur’an application for download from the Apple store. Let that sink in: there’s an app for that. The application is a digital representation of the Islamic holy book in original Arabic with an English translation right alongside.
I could not help myself and simply had to have it. The app, created by a website known as GuidedWays.com (http://www.guidedways.com/index.php) opens with a user-friendly breakdown of the Qur’an divided first by sura, then verse, then line to easily find any particular quotes you may be looking for. Additionally, an audio recitation is available from the popular Shiekh Husary. I was so thoroughly intrigued by the creation of this application that I looked up Guided Ways, and found that the iQur’an is merely one of an array of Islamic software apps for Apple products and PCs. Others include the iZakah, Prayer Times for PCs, and the iSubha for a digital representation of Islamic prayer beads.
Now I’m sure there are a number of purists out there that may object to the digitalization of sacred Islamic texts and religious symbols, but for me, I find this to be a laudable example of the potential and thorough reconciliation of tradition and modernity that is so often the subject of study for academics in our field. Take that and chew on it for a while, orientalists. The people at Guided Ways have found a great way for modern Muslims to interact with their faith in a fast-paced and ever increasingly technological world (not to mention, a handy reference for students of Near Eastern studies…). So if any of you out there happen to have an iTouch or an iPhone, search out some of these apps and give ‘em a try and see what you think for yourselves. If nothing else, whatever your faith is, it’s always interesting to see religion and technology feed off one another.

Where this “Next War” Really Is

Is anybody else annoyed by the recent contention on the part of many in the West that Yemen is somehow the future of the ongoing exercise to combat extremism commonly known as the “War on Terror”? Yemen’s place as a foundation for al-Qaeda’s activities throughout the world, or the activities of any extremist group for that matter, is by no means a sudden and new development. The movement of such groups in the region stretches back to an unknown period, but has at least been acknowledged several times throughout the last ten years. Yet time and again, people get distracted by the major foreign policy events, and lose sight of the minor ones. Unfortunately, as we are now beginning to see again, the minor ones have this nagging tendency to become gigantic problems later if they are neglected. Additionally, I’m not just talking about Yemen, but the countries of Eastern Africa as well, that are slowly but surely becoming the new center of global jihad.
First, Yemen’s issues are just not new. End of story. I’ve been watching the coverage of the attempted attack by Mr. Abdulmutallab since Christmas Day and I just can’t get around this feeling that many people discussing his rise to jihadism are incorporating Yemen into their arguments like it’s a part of the map they never noticed before but suddenly explains so much about an enemy they desperately try to understand. Yes, it appears true, thus far, that there are active groups in Yemen that have partnered with the great al-Qaeda network and are willing to launch attacks against western countries. And yes, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was apparently working with such a group when he decided to pack an explosive in his underwear for the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit last week. But other than a few scattered references to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, no one seems to be asking about the long-term strategic significance Yemen or any of the surrounding countries has held for jihadis.
Currently, the Yemeni government is caught in a struggle to maintain its power in the face of insurgent groups scattered throughout the country. These groups are battling the weak government for control of several areas of territory and are motivated by religious and social interests. According to a New York Times article, one of the main rebels groups, known as the Houthis, have been engaged in all-out war with the government since August (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/middleeast/25yemen.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=yemen&st=nyt). But this war, as most wars commonly do, has opened the door to instability and chaos in Yemen. The article cited concludes with the following quote:
“Many Yemenis fear that this war will continue until the army is really tired,” said Majid al-Fahed, the director of a private group called the Civic Democratic Foundation, who spent time in Saada (in northern Yemen) late last month. “Then who will defend the rest of the country?”
Good question. Who will? It’s no secret that jihadist groups flourish in countries without an effective and stable central government. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise us when extremists have begun to use Yemen as a base of operations, as the government’s inability to stabilize their society has fostered a comfortable home for groups like the one responsible for the botched attack on Christmas Day.
Since the attempted bombing last week, it appears that the United States and the Yemenis have been building a partnership to combat both the extremist groups and the insurgency that threatens the government’s position. However, in my humble opinion, Yemen and its internal issues are neither the source of this “new” development in jihadism, nor is it it’s only base. I recalled a number of reports that have come out of Eastern Africa over the last decade and time and again, it seemed like extremist groups were surfacing in that region.
I did a bit of preliminary digging on this and came up with a few articles in the New York Times on specifically Somalia and Ethiopia. For example, this past July a pair of French men were taken hostage in Somalia. The Times article I found discusses two influential Islamic extremist groups, Shabab and Hizbul Islam, who had brokered a deal to “share the hostages” and any benefits that could be garnered from them (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/world/africa/17somalia.html?_r=1&scp=8&sq=somalia&st=nyt). If the early 1990s taught us anything, it’s that Somalia certain has its own issues with separatist groups targeting central government control. With a history of warlord rule, and now a weak Islamist government in power, extremist groups, like the two just mentioned, are able to successfully operate in the country. And, of course, Shabab, according to U.S. intelligence, is aligned with al-Qaeda.
Another example is seen in neighboring Ethiopia, where other jihadi groups were found to be prevalent back in 2007 and well before that. Another article I found, written more than two years ago, describes a trip taken by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who toured Eastern African nations to assess the threat posed by these groups. The contention of the article was such that in Ethiopia and Somalia, as well as Djibouti, Sudan and Yemen, extremists are able to “move through the region” in the “ungoverned parts” (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/asia/04gates.html?scp=10&sq=ethiopia&st=nyt).
Common everybody, let’s open our eyes here. The fact that an attack attempted against American and other western citizens was launched from Yemen should not surprise anyone, nor should we be liberally tossing around terms like “new war”. And for that matter, Yemen is not the center of these groups, as their presence is felt across the Gulf of Aden in the Horn of Africa. Somalia, Ethiopia and other African countries with difficulties controlling their territories have become comfortable bases of operations for jihadi groups and well continue to be. Therefore, this so-called “next war” is not a war in Yemen as the media portrays it, but rather an effort against groups that now occupy areas throughout the entirety of the southern Arabian Peninsula and the nearby African continent.

Ashura

Here’s to wishing a happy and peaceful holiday to all, including our fellow Shiite Muslims, who just this past week have been celebrating the observance of Ashura, or commemoration of the martyrdom of Hussein. While the day is intended for Shiites to pay their respects to the fallen son of Ali at Karbala and consequently one of the most important moments in the history of Islam, this year it has also been the backdrop of a number of contemporary developments in Middle East. In both Iraq and Iran, one finds both positive and negative events surrounding this profoundly religious holiday, and the ways in which its symbolism is utilized in the modern context.
Beginning first with the place of Hussein’s death, Karbala has seen its fair share of difficult days during past Ashura celebrations. Since 2003, the events of the Iraq War have made it a bit complicated for Shiite citizens to observe holidays peacefully and a quiet end to this particular week-long celebration has been something elusive. Enter the Iraqi government of late 2009: a government now faced with an impending withdrawal of foreign troops who have provided support for that same government’s security since its inception (the reasons behind that support and troop presence, I’m not touching with a ten-foot pole; suffice it to say that the fledgling government has relied significantly on that troop presence). Thus, it is now critically important for the government to demonstrate a measure of control and self-sufficiency in the face of near complete autonomy. In several of the articles I read this past weekend, one addressed just this issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8432114.stm). Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki praised a substantial police presence of 20,000 in Karbala this past weekend who defused nine bombs presumed to have been set as an attack on Shiite worshippers in the holy city. Ultimately, the festivities passed without any incident and, minus other acts of violence and instability elsewhere in the country going on at the time, painted government forces in a positive light.
In neighboring Iran, Ashura ended on a much different note. According to a Washington Post article, the holiday was intended to set the stage for several anti-government protests, reigniting the voices of dissent against the result of the June election for president in the Islamic Republic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/12/27/ST2009122701517.html). In response, the government has allegedly used brutal tactics to subdue the protests; tactics which resulted in the deaths of five people and the arrests of hundreds. Now I personally have trouble wrapping my head around all of the international media’s reports on Iran. From the negotiations with the U.N. and western countries over the nuclear program, to the takeover of oil fields within the borders of Iraq, to this latest story, I have no idea what to make of the actions of the Iranian government. That’s not my point though. What is my point is that Ashura, for these protestors, was a symbol which they utilized for a modern conflict in Iranian politics. It’s interesting to examine the ways in which Islamic symbols are used and manipulated throughout history for a variety of ends (legitimacy, popular support, etc.). Obviously, this past weekend isn’t the only time this has happened and it’s something worth noticing whenever we look to contemporary developments. Regardless, religious symbols are always important to consider, especially during this time of so many religious holidays. Just some food for thought.

Iraqi Oil Issues

This past week has marked quite a flurry of activity for the Iraqi Oil ministry, as foreign militant forces allegedly took control of one eastern oil field, another group sabotaged a western pipeline and all throughout new deals were being struck with foreign companies for the rights to Iraq’s abundant black resource. While reports on the three events are still coming in, it appears as though the recent contract negotiations with foreign companies have precipitated the other violent acts. Let’s take a closer look at each incident below.
Along the eastern border of Iraq in the Maysan Province, there exists the Fakka oil field. This past week, the oil field was taken by what Iraqi officials described as an armed Iranian group, who subsequently raised the Iranian flag above the oil field’s tallest tower. Clearly a matter of disputed territory, many have attributed the events to the unclearly defined border between Iraq and Iran. Since the end of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the border both countries share and its lack of definition has been a matter of continuous tension. On Friday, CNN reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki publicly denounced the incident and headed to a meeting with his National Security Council to determine the next course of action (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/19/iran.iraq.oil.well/index.html). As of Sunday morning, the seizure was still taking place, but a committee had been established by the Iraqi government to facilitate negotiations with the armed group.
As for the sabotage issue: despite an eighteen month furlough on attacks (which had been common since the beginning of the war in 2003), attacks against Iraqi pipelines resumed this past autumn, according to a report by al-Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009122013166878529.html). Regardless, the most recent attack occurred just this past week against a pipeline controlled by the Northern Oil Company which leads to the Turkish port city of Ceyhan. Currently, the investigation is still pending on the attack, but it was released that a 55km section of the pipe was damaged and that it took place approximately 325km north of Baghdad.
What’s the point of citing these events? Well I doubt its mere coincidence that both of these incidents occurred on the same week as the finalization of ten oil deals with foreign companies to begin their extraction of Iraqi oil. The influence of the new companies on Iraqi exports will be massive. Reports have stated that the foreign companies, including Europe’s Royal Dutch Shell, will increase the production of oil from 2.5 million bpd (barrels per day) to 12 million bpd, rivaling Saudi Arabia’s production. However, as al-Jazeera notes, not everyone has endorsed the deals and even former Iraqi oil minister, Issam al-Chalabi, has stated that the deals may not be entirely legal since Iraq law requires parliamentary consent on such contracts that was not obtained. So is it possible that many people this week viewed the deals as an exercise in selling out to foreign exploitation, and consequently carried out the incidents above in protest? Maybe; of course they could also be totally unrelated. Not enough is known yet to say with any certainty. But the potential for protest of these deals is something worth considering, for us as students and for the Iraqi government alike.

Celebrate the End of the Semester with Some Old World Wine

I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I finally sent out my last term paper this week, I felt like I both needed and deserved a good drink. So how ironic was it that during my post-semester celebration, I stumbled upon an article on CNN entitled “’Very Old World’ Wine Makes a Comeback in Lebanon and Syria” (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/17/middle.east.wine/index.html). That got me thinking about this blog entry. In addition, I took a good long look at our blog recently, and I realized that there is a significant lack of positive entries on it. True, in following current events through international media, which seems to be the inspiration for many blog entries (myself largely included), there tends to be three main themes: 1) war, 2) potential war, and 3) terrorism. Yeah, I know, that’s a gross simplification, considering I’m writing this based on a news article I just read, but the point I’m trying to make is that we could use some more fun on here. Thus, in the spirit of my jubilation (and hopefully yours as well), let’s talk about wine for a little while.
The article I read discussed a recent reemergence in wine production within the countries of Lebanon and Syria. While wine production in the region dates back thousands of years and is not unheard of, the current growth rate of the industry along with its popularity among the local population is certainly interesting. According to Mr. Michael Karam, author of a regional guide to wine in Lebanon, the number of vineyards has more than doubled in the past five years. While Christians in Lebanon have always been reliable wine consumers, current studies have shown that Muslims are also taking part in the trend. Wine consumption generally, says the reporter, has been on the rise since the end of the Civil War in 1991. Furthermore, psychologists studying alcohol in the region claim that another variable is the return of people who have lived abroad in Europe and the United States, and been exposed to good wines, to Lebanon.
In neighboring Syria, the wine production industry is growing, albeit, much slower. While the largely Muslim population is much less liberal when it comes to wine consumption, a successful Lebanese-vineyard owning family known as the Saade’s have just opened the first private vineyard in that country. One Saade brother is quoted in the article as saying that it is the region’s “rich limestone”, “weather” and “high altitude” that contribute to the success of the local vineyards. The statistics cited do make one curious, as roughly three-quarters of their wine is consumed abroad and is not low-end. Apparently, a bottle of the Syrian wine produced by the Saade family will run about $58 for a bottle.
You know what? In spite of that pricetag, they’ve sold me. I now know what I’ll be toasting with for the rest of the week. But all kidding aside, as far as a potential research project goes, there may be a lot here to consider. The sociological/historical impact of a flourishing wine industry in Muslim countries poses some very curious questions, even if they need a bit more time to be objectively posed. Regardless, the field research would be a great time. Cheers, everybody.

Settlers/Palestinians Vexation

A recent report from CNN News indicated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood up for his new initiative to halt settlement activities in the West Bank this week by meeting with 25 municipal leaders from those settlements in Tel Aviv (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/03/israel.settlements/index.html). The meeting was intended to field the complaints and grievances of settlers due to the new plan. The settler leaders hinted that despite their government’s enforcement of the new initiative, they would be unwilling to slow or even stop any development in the West Bank for the during of the 10-month building freeze. Settlement developers have even been accused of refusing to cooperate with Israeli government inspectors who come to their sites to make sure activities are ceased. All of this has come amidst the claims by the Palestinian Authority that the building-freeze is not expansive enough to reignite negotiations between themselves and the Israelis, given that it both does not include east Jerusalem and is temporary.
While one has to give Netanyahu credit from trying such a bold program given his right-winged affiliation, it appears as though this project has nowhere to go but failure. Settlers seem determined to continue and do not appear to take seriously the Israeli government’s resolve to see their plan come to fruition. Combined with the feelings of the PA that the effort overall will ultimately prove ineffective, I have a hard time seeing what will be gained from this situation for either Palestinians or Israelis.
Now many of you may be thinking that any effort to get talks going again is at least something, given that negotiations between Zionists and Palestinians has proven to be the ultimately stalemate of the last sixty years. Generally speaking, Israel, the PA or Hamas’ attempts to get things moving can never stem from a temporary fix if they are actually interested in developing a lasting solution to the crisis. And, unfortunately, that is all this latest chapter really is, and its failings are already readily apparent. The problem with only going halfway on a concession, as Netanyahu is by offering a temporary building-freeze is that not only do you upset the Palestinians with a superficial offering, but you upset your own people by limiting their abilities too. Obviously, by its very definition someone would be upset if a compromise is ever reached, but (and this goes for all parties involved) you can’t ride the proverbial fence. You need to commit fully, one way or the other. Now Netanyahu faces public opposition from the PA and will have settlers and their supporters picketing outside of his residence until the freeze is lifted. So I ask once more, what was gained from this? If the parties want to develop real solutions, than they need to offer real initiatives, not just what this project appears to be: a half-hearted political side-step.

The Bin Laden Question

So in scanning the news this past week for a good topic to write on, I found a number of different items. Some were interesting and some were less so, but all were viable blog-able stories. Then I saw a short commentary pop up this morning on U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ comments on ABC’s This Week news program regarding the American hunt for the world’s most infamous jihadist, Osama Bin Laden. Now forgive me for choosing what a certain professor of mine may refer to as the “sexy” story of the week, but like the rest of you I have a wealth of term papers due in the next week and a half and I wanted to choose something flashier to write on. Anyway, with that aside, Secretary Gates summed up the pursuit of Bin Laden simply by saying, "Well, we don't know for a fact where Osama Bin Laden is. If we did, we'd go get him." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8397684.stm). Well, yeah, ok. That makes sense. But what are the prospects like for finding this man in the near future? When asked about when the U.S. last had any strong intelligence on the matter, Gates’ replied that it had been years. So it’s not looking too good, huh?
Actually, I’m citing this story to draw attention to an interesting discussion in which I took part in my Islam and Politics class this past Friday. Since September 11th, the goal of the United States and its allies has been the apprehension of this one man, and perhaps his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Obviously, the importance of an individual like Bin Laden stems from his image as the international face of al-Qaeda. But when one really stops to consider all of the facts of the matter, it becomes clear that not only is Bin Laden not the only jihadist who presents a threat to western countries, but his own role in global jihad in the last decade has been less operative more symbolic than anything else. So really, what is it about this one man that makes him the pinnacle of global jihad as it is understood by the West?
I don’t mean to sound in anyway insensitive to the significance of September 11th. I hail from a Jersey town that had nearly forty families with a family member killed in the attacks on the towers and I personally would never marginalize the suffering of even a single individual. But with that in mind, how much of the near decade-old pursuit of Osama Bin Laden merely about avenging that day than it is about prevent another such attack on innocent civilians? Also featured in our discussion in class on Friday was the notion that Bin Laden himself actually initially rejected the plan to use planes to attack American landmarks, a plan devised by Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. It was only later that he returned to the idea, but he had little to do with its initial inception. And throughout the world today there are undoubtedly thousands of men who are becoming radicalized Muslims through the horrors and war and persecution. And there are also undoubtedly those who are hatching new plans to attack targets throughout the Western world, possibly with an even greater loss of life than 9/11. So that leaves us with the question: what is gained by capturing/killing Bin Laden? Personal satisfaction, the feeling of justice, and the gratification of going after a symbol of global jihad as jihadists went after symbols of American capitalism are all answers to that question. But I have a nagging feeling that the capture of Bin Laden is seen by many as an endgame to this war between the West and Jihadists that has seen collateral damage in the form of civilian causalities throughout the world. And it simply isn’t. Al-Qaeda would continue without him or even al-Zawahiri, and new groups will continue to rise in place of the old ones. So why, above all of this, is Osama Bin Laden so valuable at the end of the day? I honestly don’t know. That is the Bin Laden question.

The Iranian Nuclear Debate Continues to Build Pressure

Last week, I was discussing the Iranian’s desire to maintain their own state run sites for enriching uranium for the purposes of producing nuclear fuel for power plants…or weapons, depending on your opinion. Well, it would seem that this week has offered up just a little bit more of the same and I felt it would be important to follow up on that last post with a short update.
This week, the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution that condemned the Iranians for developing an enrichment center near the town of Qom. More than two-thirds of the countries who make up the IAEA voted in support of the resolution against the Islamic Republic. In a CNN News report, the White House said the "overwhelming vote" underscores "the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran's nuclear program" and senior administration officials said the United States had warned Iran Friday that it is prepared to push for significantly stronger economic sanctions in wake of the resolution (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/11/27/iran.nuclear/index.html).
In response, the Iranian government has decided to take a less than friendly stance on the level of cooperation they are prepared to give to the IAEA for the duration of this debate. This weekend, the Iranian Parliament signed a letter urging their government to reduce its cooperation with the international agency and to take an even harder stance against the opposition to their nuclear programs. Additionally, it was reported that there are plans to move forward with the creation of new facilities in Iran for the enrichment of uranium. Totaling ten new sites, the government has already begun preliminary construction of the first five. The Iranian government has announced that the site will be used to produce enough nuclear fuel to power the entire country, an estimated 250-300 tons of fuel (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8385275.stm).
Many on the other side of the debate will undoubtedly see the opening of new centers for enrichment a direct slap in the face of the international community seeking to limit the efforts of the Iranians’ nuclear program. How will the United Nations, the West and other respond? Only the week to come will bring the answer to that question. Although the debate over whether or not Iran even has the right to nuclear capability appears to be getting hotter long before its cooling off, and that does not bode well for future stability in both the Middle East and Central Asia. There will be much more to come on this topic, I can guarantee it.

The U.K.’s Iraq Inquisition

An interesting story that caught my eye this past week in several media outlets is the inquiry launched but the United Kingdom into the events surrounding the British’s involvement in the 2003 Iraqi War. While not a criminal tribunal, the inquiry has been set up to determine what brought the county to Iraq and, apparently, whether or not those motives and actions had legitimacy. Case in point, this week has brought under scrutiny the justification Tony Blair’s government sought from the United Nations to sign on to the conflict more than six years ago.
Enter Sir Jeremy Greenstock. Sir Jeremy was the permanent representative for the United Kingdom to the U.N. from 1997 through 2003. He was also the man who was trying to get the international organization to pass a resolution against Saddam Hussein’s regime in early 2003 condemning the leader’s failure to reveal his weapons stockpile, giving him a final ultimatum for allowing U.N. weapons inspectors to examine anything the country possessed and essentially justifying any subsequent military action against him. However, said U.N. Resolution never came to fruition. Why?
Obviously, the U.K. had sought the resolution in 2003 for the reason that it was concerned about the legality of an invasion of Iraq. The United States at the time was touting not only a condemnation of secret weapons stockpiles, but also an urge for regime change. The U.K. has begun to sign on to an effort against the Iraqi regime, but only under the pretense of the former, not the latter reasoning. And it was not prepared, at least at first, to move forward without the proper legal backing. According to BBC News, Sir Jeremy told the inquiry that previous resolutions, such as 1441 made in November of 2002, made by U.N. regarding Iraq had provided “sufficient legal cover” for any action, but only if it was determined that Iraq was in material breach of its disarmament obligations (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8382194.stm). Sir Jeremy was then asked about the overall legality of the war, to which he responded that there were differing opinions and that no single consensus on the legitimacy of the war was ever achieved.
There’s where that missing resolution would have helped, huh?
It would appear that the need for such a resolution was two-fold: either the weapons inspectors would have been allowed in and found the alleged weapons of mass destruction, squelching all international fears, or Saddam Hussein would have remained defiant and military action could then move forward. But the United Nations was not willing to back a resolution. Members of the U.N. Security Council understood that the resolution would be used to justify an invasion of Iraq had it been passed. But France and other council members weren’t willing to allow it to go through. This, many believe, is indicative of the illegality of the invasion and war.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock was additionally asked why, if there were other resolutions made, they needed a further resolution in 2003. Again, he cited the “safest legal grounds” rational. But the U.N. backing never came. So in short, the inquiry was about to determine that justification was sought from the U.N. but never achieved and the U.K. moved forward with a military action without any measurable consensus on whether or not it was even legal to do so. There is a long way to go in this inquiry, slated to wrap up by next December, and I am quite eager to see what their overall conclusions are.

“I Was Distracted with School” Isn’t an Acceptable Excuse for Banks

It hasn’t been a fun week. Actually, it’s been a terrible week. I’m going to write this story as a warning to all of you graduate students out there who know the value of stretching every penny, and how much it can sting when you lose some of those funds. The lesson here should be stated before, during and after my little story that follows: watch your bank accounts. Check them everyday at least twice: once in the morning and once after the business day ends. I cannot stress this enough. Now I’m sure many of you are very careful with your money. I believe that I am (at least I did). But if you’re not the kind of person that watches the flow of every dollar through your account then I can say quite honestly that you need to be, because you never know when a mistake can occur or how hard you’ll have to pay for that mistake.
This past Monday, I looked up my checking account online as I typically do once or twice throughout the week and found that my available balance was in the negative. Actually, $120 in the negative to be exact. Concerned, I called my bank’s customer service hotline and asked them to look into it for me. It didn’t make sense to me, because I had just been paid the week before and made two large deposits on top of that. So when the customer service representative spoke to me, he told me that it was showing as negative because a couple of online bill payments I had made over the weekend were posting to the account and the deposits had not fully cleared. I then asked him if there was anything I should be concerned about, to which he replied no and the funds should all clear by Tuesday, bringing me back above zero. Relieved, I said thank you and hung up.
So after this conversation, I merely went about my week. Finishing up my reading from my Problems and Methods class on Tuesday, getting my Turkish work done, and making sure that I put in a decent amount of time at my job were all my concerns. My bank account was not. I didn’t take a single moment to check it all week.
So on Friday morning I decided to finally look into my account and see what the balance was. To my awful surprise, I found that I was not only still in the negative, but I was now hundreds of dollars below zero. I went immediately to my bank to find out what had happened. In a nutshell, that negative balance from Monday never went away. My charges from the weekend cleared before my deposits ever did, resulting in overdraft fees. Overdraft fees: for any of you that have had experience of ever receiving these little gems, you’ll know they’re roughly the monetary equivalent of your bank slapping you across the face. But that’s not all. Most of the time, at least in my experience, you may over draft your account with one or two charges and have to pay one or two typically $35.00 fees. But due to my negligence and my ignorance of what my exact account balance was all week, every single charge I made from Monday to Friday accrued its own $35.00 fee. How many charges did you make this week, Matt? I’ll tell you: fourteen. Fourteen separate charges and fourteen separate fees. That’s right: $490 in banking fees just because I wasn’t smart enough to check on my account all week.
It started with the first couple of overdraft fees from Monday when my account was in the negative which were able to keep my balance low enough when the deposits cleared to have subsequent charges bring the account back down below zero. And that resulted in further fees. And from then on, every time I bought a two dollar cup of coffee, it was actually $37. Every time a check I had written someone was deposited, that amount was compounded with another fee. And on and on it went for five days. I had taken the customer service rep I had spoken to on Monday at face value, and I believed on Tuesday that my account would be fine and I’d have nothing to worry about. That was not a good decision.
The first few bank people I appealed to were unsympathetic, stating that despite what I was told on the phone, watching my account was my responsibility and therefore any fees accrued were also my responsibility. Fortunately, the third person I spoke to was different and saw that my banking record prior to this event was flawless, having never overdrawn even once. As a courtesy for that record, I was forgiven for half of my over all charges, but that still left me out almost $250. The funny part is that none of my charges were in excess of my deposits. The total amounts matched up. I never actually over-drew of my own doing, but when the first few charges came in ahead of my deposits fully clearing, it started a chain reaction of fees that destroyed my balance.
Watch your bank accounts, boys and girls. Check on them every day when you have a couple of extra minutes. There are a dozen different ways to do this without even leaving your room, from text alerts to online banking and so on. Believe me, it’s critically important that you watch every dollar because inevitably there will be some error. If I had been watching, I could have caught this on Tuesday and saved myself literally hundreds of dollars in fees. But I was distracted. Look, I understand we each have a million things to finish and half of them should have been done yesterday, but we cannot get complacent when it comes to the important aspects of our lives outside of academia and/or work. I say watch your accounts, but what I really mean is take the time to watch everything in your life. If you become too consumed with your work, things will always be missed. How you will end up paying for those mistakes will vary, but you should never find yourself in that position to begin with. It’s very easy to get into trouble. Take it from me, because I’ll never let anything go overlooked again no matter how busy I am.

Iran, Uranium, and Frustrated Diplomats

Well, this week has certainly presented another interesting chapter in the ongoing saga of tense relations between the United States and Iran. On Wednesday, Iranian Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced that his country had refused to send its partly enriched uranium abroad to be converted into lightly enriched uranium for the purposes of medical research. Instead, Mr. Mottaki said that Iran wishes to reprocess the material within its own borders. This is in conflict with the deal agreed upon during diplomatic talks in October that included the International Atomic Energy Agency. Needless to say, many who had helped in garnering the deal found themselves a bit frustrated at the end of this week.
But let’s have a little sidebar before going forward: what exactly is this enrichment process and what does it mean for Iran or any country’s nuclear ambitions? With the help of the BBC’s brief “Nuclear Fuel Cycle” chart (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/nuclear_fuel/html/mining.stm), one can see the important highlights of the process and why the talks between Iran and other countries have focused on the enrichment process. Essentially, uranium is first mined and then is transformed from a powder ore to a solid known as yellowcake. It is then heated and converted into a gas that is fed through centrifuges, separating its denser atoms (U-238) from its lighter atoms (U-235). It is the U-235 atoms that a country looking to produced nuclear power or nuclear weapons will want to harvest. But here is the important difference: once the atoms are separated in the centrifuge, one needs to obtain uranium enriched to contain only 2-3% u-235 to work in a reactor. Conversely, weapons-grade uranium needs to contain 90% u-235.
So, with all that in mind, where are the talks at this juncture? Iran possesses a large amount of raw uranium and has shown at least a fledgling capability for converting it into lightly enriched uranium. But it appears as though it is only a matter of time before the Iranians are capable of producing weapons-grade enriched uranium. Now as to whether or not those of you reading this believe Iran has a right to this power or doesn’t, I’ll leave it for you all to debate. I’m merely interested in discussing the state of the argument. And right now, other countries are not thrilled about the Iranians’ reluctance to maintain their end of the October deal. France's Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner said he was disappointed.
"There is a clear and negative response from the Iranians," he said (BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8366880.stm).
President Obama has also publicly condemned the rebuff. Announcing in South Korea this past week, he said, "Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal ... and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences…We weren't going to duplicate what has happened with North Korea, in which talks just continue forever without any actual resolution to the issue," (Al-Jazeera News, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/2009111962711262687.html).
In response to the strong statements, the Iranians have organized a massive military exercise throughout the western side of the country. The exercise began Sunday and is slated to continue for five days. Thus, the proverbial flexing-of-the-muscles has ensued on both sides. What will it mean in the long-run? Obviously, the true nature of any negotiation is difficult ascertain and predict from the outside, but what will be gained from this stand-off for the Iranians? And do the western nations pitted against the Islamic Republic have the resolve to back-up their strong words if Iran does not fulfill their end of the bargain? The notion of further sanctions on Iran has floated around as of late, but at least one Iranian official scoffs at the idea as being unnecessary and ineffective.
"Sanction was the literature of the 60s and 70s," Manouchehr Mottaki, who is currently visiting Philippines, said at a news conference (Al-Jazeera News , http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/2009111962711262687.html).
"I think they are wise enough not to repeat failed experiences," he said.
So can there be a diplomatic resolution in this tense climate? Honestly, I’m not sure. Hopefully it can, but it certainly won’t come easily.

Images

I feel like I would be remiss not to mention some of what I’ve been thinking about this past week in light of the recent events at Fort Hood. Obviously, all of what could be said on what transpired at the military compound two weeks ago and the massacre caused by Major Nidal Hasan has pretty much already been said. However, I feel there is one area of the discussion that is only beginning to get its proper acknowledgment. That is, the effect such a tragedy has on the image of Muslim-Americans in this country.
Yes I know: it’s a broken record. We all remember the anti-Muslim backlash in varying degrees following 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole attack, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the (insert violent extremist event here), etc., etc. But unfortunately, our own nature in this country is to fear and hate first and ask questions later. That’s the way it has always been (see “World War II Japanese internment camps”) and, at least for the foreseeable future, that’s the way it will be. But the way I see it, that is where we come in. As students of the area and as somewhat enlightened people to our own natures, I feel we have a duty to combat this prevailing image with our understanding. We know the difference between the peaceful doctrines of Islam and its own prohibitions against violence and the radical doctrines of a select few who choose to reinterpret it for, well, other reasons. It should be at least partially, if not fully, on us and scholars like us to deflect the inaccurate notions people harbor of Muslims and the Islamic faith within this country.
Case in point, I’m sure many of you read the email circulated this week on the comments made in Forbes magazine by, frighteningly enough, an academic from NYU. Professor Tunku Varadarajan, in an article discussing the events at Fort Hood, coins a colorful new term, “Going Muslim”, to “describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American--a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood--discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans.” (Pause for disapproving sigh). It was a graduate student here from the Steinhardt School of Nutrition, Food studies and Public Health, James A. Ferguson, who spoke out first in an email to President Sexton, among others, condemning the ideas in Professor Varadarajan’s article. In his email, he says,
“I dislike this sort of fear-mongering; it reminds me of the dark times of 9/11 where people were suspicious of their Muslim neighbors. I am a Muslim-American who was born in this country; the implication that I and other Muslims are actually something non-American deep down is highly offensive to me, and to the thousands of Muslim-Americans who currently serve in the armed forces and strongly condemned the murders at Fort Hood last week. “
First, I commend Mr. Ferguson on his valiant stance on such a grossly ignorant implication to be made of the entire Muslim-American community. Second, I feel that while most, if not all, of us here in the Kevorkian Center share Mr. Ferguson’s view, our voice should be much louder in preventing the spread of Islamophobic ideas. And I don’t mean that we all need to submit counter arguments to Forbes so much as I feel we need to use our training to promote understanding in the place of fear to those around us in our personal lives or classes throughout NYU. After all, it is we who have decided to devote ourselves to the pursuit of knowledge and truthful understanding. So what does it say about us if we are to idly ignore the dissemination of ignorant and fearful ideas? I can’t speak for all of us, but I certainly know what it would say about me.

Why We're Here: Part II

You know, this week I really wasn’t planning on writing another commentary on the ins and outs of our program and what were supposed to understand from it. But then I sat through my Tuesday lecture in the Problems and Methods class. Now for those of you who are reading this from outside the program, the Problems and Methods in Middle Eastern Studies class is one of the required courses for the program and deals largely in, as the title suggests, the various methodologies experts in the field utilize in their work. This particular class focused on biographical dictionaries, a genre within the primary source material that incorporates formulaic entries of personal data on practically anyone considered noteworthy in a given area of the region at a given point in history. Of course, who the dictionary entries focused on depended on who was writing them, but more often than not, it was a means of cataloguing members of the ‘ulama and where they came from.
It wasn’t the subject matter that caught my attention so much as it was the tangents the lecture led to toward the end of class, namely those dealing with open-minded approaches to research. But before I get to that, a brief summary may be in order. My problems and methods course is taught by Professor Khalid Fahmy, but this week Professor Tamer al-Leithy came in as a guest lecturer to discuss his use of biographical dictionaries in his dissertation on conversion in Mamluk Egypt. Professor al-Leithy focused on how Coptic bureaucrats were led to convert to Islam during this period of the latter religion’s ever increasing prominence as well as the particulars of what that conversion meant and how it was received by other Muslims. This was all achieved in large part by examining the biographical literature and thinking about not just what it literally said, but rather what it reflected about the society that produced it. For example, some of the biographers who wrote about prominent Coptic converts during the Mamluk era described them with the epithet “al-Qibti” which denoted their convert status. Essentially, it was meant to indicate that they were less of a Muslim because of their conversion being due to practical political reasons rather than genuinely spiritual ones. Why am I telling you all of this? Well, what was most interesting about this lecture and the point I’m trying to draw attention to, as Professor al-Leithy made abundantly clear, was that the ultimate form of his dissertation was not actually his original focus. Not at all.
Our guest lecturer discussed how, during his research in the archives, he began to pick up on this pattern of Coptic conversion within the biographical literature. From there, he couldn’t help but question what more there was to this story. And more and more, he became distracted from his original project and took on these new questions. It was at this point that Professor Fahmy impressed upon us the need to allow ourselves similar opportunities to become distracted within our research. In many other countries throughout the world, historians and other social scientists are trained to focus on only a singular topic of research and that’s it. It follows a simple pattern: come up with a dissertation topic, defend it, research it, and then produce the paper. Professors Fahmy and al-Leithy, however, said that this should not be the case. Allow yourself to be distracted and let your mind wander through the material you’re looking into. These are the principles that they believe should guide historians and other researchers through archives and source material, not some central static focus. By allowing yourself to become distracted, you can open your mind up to larger, and often, more important questions. In other words, let the material guide you to your conclusions, not the other way around. And be open to drastic shifts in thinking on your way there. This is what Professor al-Leithy did, as has Professor Fahmy and countless others. This is the measure of a creative and successful academic. And personally, I think it makes our craft all the more fun.