Swine Flu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Egypt had experienced several deaths caused by the highly virulent H5N1 (“birds’ flu”) virus. However, culling pigs might be the most stupid action in fighting the developing pandemic. No pig has so far been infected by the H1N1 virus. It is a human virus. When the Egyptian government had ordered the other day slaughtering all 400’000 pigs in the country this should in fact be regarded a hostile and discriminating act of inhumanity against the some 500’000 Christians in the country. While pigs are considered unclean by most Muslims so are to one degree or the other the other “People of the Book” as well.

The Egyptian government has promised to pay compensation for the culling which is said to be a preventive measure for avoiding any panic among the Muslim majority in the country. One has to ask the question, what does panic mean here, anew pogroms among Christians? Education of the masses might be a better investvent in the future of any Muslim country. Pigs are not less clean than other animals. Not to talk about human beings.

 

See also on this blog

The book review of Daniel Tsadik’s study about anti-Semitism in 19^th century’s Iran.

Pope Benedict

Pope Bededict’s remark on his first Apostolic Journey to Africa (Cameroon and Angola) that the continent’s fight against HIV/AIDS is a problem that “cannot be solved by the distribution of condoms: on the contrary, it will increase it”, has led to a fierce editorial in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. Irrespective of whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or because of a deliberate attempt to exact Catholic ideology, it had led to sharp criticism among several European governments and international health organizations. Now the scientific community condemns disastrous remarks as well, in particular as the Vatican is not withdrawing the devastating message but maneuvers with different versions and interpretations.

 

What can be found on the web site of the Holy See looks, in fact, a bit different than what had been reported at first:

 

Q. – Your Holiness, among the many ills that beset Africa, one of the most pressing is the spread of Aids. The position of the Catholic Church on the way to fight it is often considered unrealistic and ineffective. Will you address this theme during the journey? Holy Father, would you be able to respond in French to this question?

 

A. – I would say the opposite. I think that the most efficient, most truly present player in the fight against Aids is the Catholic Church herself, with her movements and her various organizations. I think of the Sant’Egidio community that does so much, visibly and also behind the scenes, in the struggle against Aids, I think of the Camillians, and so much more besides, I think of all the Sisters who take care of the sick. I would say that this problem of Aids cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behavior], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practice self-denial, to be alongside the suffering. And so these are the factors that help and that lead to real progress: our twofold effort to renew humanity inwardly, to give spiritual and human strength for proper conduct towards our bodies and those of others, and this capacity to suffer with those who are suffering, to remain present in situations of trial. It seems to me that this is the proper response, and the Church does this, thereby offering an enormous and important contribution. We thank all who do so. (Emphasis added.)

 

Did the Pope talk about condoms or what is meant by prophylactics? Does he weaken his first condemnation of condoms or is he rather worsening the message by referring now to ‘prophylactics’? Difficult to tell, indeed. The script on the web page of the Holy See of his infamous lecture in Regensburg in September 2006 now contains also numerous rectifying footnotes diluting the rude and insulting first remarks on Islam and its Prophet which has led to outrageous reactions in the Muslim world and the death of at least one nun in Somalia.

 

It is a pity that the 81-year-old Pope, a professor of Catholic Theology with an immense reputation, has proved again and again that he had not effectively changed since the times of Joseph Ratzinger: a merciless exponent of the former Roman Inquisition. As a matter of fact his pontificate has been a series of scandalous speeches, remarks and deeds; a rather recent and especially incomprehensible example being his pardon (later withdrawn upon international pressure) of Holocaust denier Richard Williamson.

 

The Lancet’s condemnation today will not lead to a change in the Vatican’s policies. Life is shed with and without an organization which might vanish in due time anyway.

 

 

See also on this blog

 

Out of Control.  Pope Benedict’s scandalous pardon of Holocaust denier Richard Williamson.

 

 

 

Good Timing?

President Barack Obama’s video message to the Iranian people has surprised everybody in the West as well. It was launched on Nowruz, as New Year greetings. So far, reactions in Tehran were not really enthusiastic though, rather precautious instead. Was it the right time and tone? At least, it showed some of the President’s naivety or that of his close advisors. A country which is soaked by so-called ta’arouf [1], will consider kindlinesses on the occasion of the nation’s most important, albeit profoundly secular, holiday as such, not more than ta’arouf [2].

 

The Iranians are fully aware, for instance, that deeds do not necessarily follow the words at the moment. Obama has confirmed last week that trade sanctions will be imposed on Iran for another year. His motivation for extending the sanctions, which have been imposed by former President Clinton in 1995 and which would have expired later this year if not renewed, was a continued “unusual and extraordinary threat to the U.S. national security” despite lack of evidence that Iran has illicitly diverted its current nuclear program which is officially declared as solely peaceful [3].

 

While the Obama administration was preparing the video message, it was aired that in late February, an Iranian drone aircraft had been shot down about 10 km beyond the Iraqi border by an American fighter jet. According to Iraqi officials, its entrance was most probably “a mistake”. But what are ferrets for? Timely launching the news about the incident to the public is the interesting issue here. It is usually not mentioned, however, that the U.S. has been flying surveillance drones over Iran at least since 2004 to seek evidence for an illicit nuclear weapons program and “detect weaknesses in air defenses, according to U.S. officials” as the Washington Post (WP) wrote in February 2005 [4]. According to the WP, “[t]he surveillance has been conducted as the Bush administration sharpens its anti-Iran rhetoric and the U.S. intelligence community searches for information to support President Bush’s assertion that Tehran is trying to build nuclear weapons.” It is conceivable that the results of these surveillance flight have been incorporated in the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which concluded that, “with high confidence”, Iran has halted its in fact existing nuclear weapons program in 2003.

 

Yesterday’s accident in the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s lifeline when it comes to oil supply, might illustrate the still acute threat the U.S. is imposing on Iran. The strait is only 54 km wide [5]. A nuclear-powered U.S. submarine collided with a Navy warship, a so-called amphibious assault ship.

 

Iran is considering Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s invitation to the upcoming international Afghanistan conference under UN auspices later this month in The Hague, but has not finally decided to participate. As to the U.S. State Department, Clinton has no plans to meet separately with an Iranian delegation there.

 

The new Obama Administration’s pace of change in attitude towards Iran with its rather mixed messages might in fact be highly demanding for Iran’s theocracy with its complicated structures within the administration. The country is preparing for presidential elections as well. The incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has so far not declared whether he will run another time. The previous ‘reform’ president Mohammad Khatami [6] has just withdrawn. The country is torn in an economical downturn for the entire duration of Ahmadinejad’s presidency, with exploding inflation rates, high rates of unemployment, and increasing depression and hopelessness especially among the youngsters, which make up the vast majority of the population.

 

It may in fact be that Obama’s timing might even prevent positive implications of the good news he tries to convey to the people of Iran.

                                        

                         

 

 

Notes

 

[1] A form of exaggerated politeness, almost self-humiliation, a sort of white lies in order to get things done in the way one wants them to proceed. As a brief example, when you are offered tea in a carpet shop in the bazaar, you better decline three times before you accept the offer. Everything else would be considered rather impolite.

 

[2] Another quite typical example for ta’arouf was, of course, the so far unanswered letter, the Iranian President has sent to Barack Obama immediately after he had won the November 4 election. Being fully aware of its ta’arouf, the letter had been heavily criticized by Iran’s majlis, or parliament. Writer Hooman Majd had tried, in his recent book The Ayatollah Begs to Differ, to explain some of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s more bizarre performances in the West as ta’arouf. You may read more about his book here.

 

[3] The current concern about Iran’s nuclear program is largely due to its refusal to ratify the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. It is interesting and even surprising that former U.S. President George W. Bush had, in one of his last actions, signed an Additional Protocol on December 30, 2008. It was largely considered a symbolic gesture, though.

 

[4] The drones were even visible from the ground and considered by many people as UFOs.

 

[5] Five Iranian speedboats were said to have approached U.S. Navy warships in January 2008. What really happened is still unclear. Iran’s Pasdaran, or Revolutionary Guards, say a video aired by the U.S. Navy had been fabricated. President Bush described the incident as “provocative” and that it was a “dangerous situation” which should not have happened.

 

[6] One should not forget that, at least according to the NIE, Iran had a nuclear weapons program under President Khatami “with high confidence”. Khatami’s administration also further established Iran’s sponsorship of international terrorism. Consequently, former U.S. President Bush put Iran on the infamous ‘axis of evil’, together with North Korea and Iraq.