Little fiddly things

I've some loose ends that want tying up, without anything so focused as a particular argument or observation.

First, about those pesky pirates that everyone is so up in arms about, and yet simultaneously enthralled by because, after all, who didn't enjoy Pirates of the Caribbean? Somehow the romantic, comical cartoon vision of pirates doesn't quite fit with the terrifying lawlessness and grinding poverty afflicting the tragic non-nation of Somalia, the world's number 1 basket case country. And yet no journalist seems to be able to avoid the temptation of juxtaposing the two in some way.
For me, easily the most enlightening and useful piece on the whole matter, is the testimonial of a young pirate as relayed to the BBC: Why I became a pirate

This seems to be the real tragedy. We're astounded at the numbers of those braving the dangerous seas in ridiculous boats en route to Europe, from Africa. The reaction of the Southern European countries seems to be to either watch them drown or just send them back home again. The journey is perilous and often fatal, and those on the other side could scarcely be less welcoming. Given the choice, any choice, what would you do?

Next, a quick plug for the Big Think - a website I've just discovered that is at once fantastic and frightening (because it seems to eliminate the need for newspapers entirely - now you can also get your dose of opinion/editorials as well as straighforward news online). I especially enjoy watching David Rieff being all disgruntled and armchair-intellectualy on a downer about Obama.

Last weekend I was at the Far East Film Festival in Udine, something I initally resisted on the grounds that "I don't like martial arts". But I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Although on the surface the whole thing appeared quite pretentious, in a way that the African Film festival wasn't (I imagine because the far-east has a more extensive and distinctive tradition of film-making, which many of the people there seemed to be intimidatingly familiar with). But the films themselves were really enjoyable (not so much harrowing ordeals as in Milan, mainly because these were "popular" films, with hearthrob actors and mega-budgets). We saw a rather OTT Hong Kong action thriller and 4 japanese films, which were full of wonderful quirky moments and characters, indicating the Japanese appreciate and understand far better the eccentricities of their own people than we do (like the penchant of japanese girls for "cute" things and the almost excessive politeness of the older generation especially) and manage to use that aspect to comic effect excellently. Instant Swamp (left) deserves a special mention, because I seldom laugh out loud at films, especially at visual jokes, I'm generally much more tickled by word-play and delivery, but this film had moments of genuinely hilarious brilliance. I also learnt the valuable fact that there are some incredibly, achingly beautiful Far-eastern men being most considerately cast by the film-makers out there, such as Mizushima Hiro (below). And I didn't come home empty-handed either, but with 3 japanese horror films as a consolation for missing "Horror day". Mmhmm.

Last thing, I read an article in a certain former broadsheet newspaper last week, essentially criticising the latest media campaign by the charity Women's Aid, which shows Kiera Knightley being beaten up by her boyfriend. Yeah ok, maybe a campaign showing Brad Pitt doing the beating would have been an original twist, but picking on them seems a bit rich, all the same. For me, this one does the job, as in - I'd already read about its precise contents before seeing it and it still managed to give me a good shake. Below it you can catch up on the debate about whether or not, as some devil's advocates claim, Violence against women is a social invention, a phenomenon that has been constructed and detracts attention from the real problem of violence in general. Maybe. I'll have to go away and think about that one.

Getting off on the right foot

It's happening...

I suppose I would've seemed a killjoy back in november if I'd suggested that maybe we should hold off the party until after Obama has succeeded in making the world a better place, rather than pre-emptively. But of course it was never going to be so simple.

You've probably seen this touching little video by now. Ostensibly to mark the occasion of Nawruz, Iranian new year, Obama sends a special message to the peoples of the Middle-east & with a special mention in there for "the leaders of Iran" who should pay particularly close attention, if they know what's good for them.

In the short segment he explains how Iranians (or just their leaders? I'm not too sure) "have a choice" - they have a right to take their rightful place in the international world order, but with that right comes real responsibility (rings a bell... Oh I know, it's a line from Spiderman).

I can only imagine that this video must have left its target audience intensely bemused. I certainly was. I mean, what exactly are they supposed to do now? Is this really how international politics works?

No, of course it's not. What Obama is saying and the way he is saying it might seem to be a break with continuity as far as the face of American foreign policy goes, but other, arguably more substantial aspects of it, don't seem to be changing too rapidly at all.
It doesn't seem as if the US is about to radically rethink its disproportionate support (both political & military) for the State of Israel, making it a clear and persistent security threat in the region which the people of Iran and all its neighbours have an obvious reason to be very concerned about. A lesser known American-sponsored threat to the country are the People's Mujahedin, a militant islamic organisation which aims to overthrow the Iranian government, explains Mohsen Rezai in his editorial (of which I've only a paper copy, forgive lack of reference).
Then there's the economic sanctions, which Obama decided not to lift. This might just have some bearing on the everyday lives of Iranians as well, given how it in no small way contributes to stunting the development of the country & its economy. In fact he's even contemplating tightening them. (So hardly surprising to learn that Ali Khamenei should react by asking "what change?", more on his response over here.)

But Obama didn't mention any of this in his little video greeting card. Instead of confronting the conditions which breed terrorism, he contents himself with asking them nicely to stop it. If this method doesn't work, when America finally loses patience, those Iranians won't be able to say they were not warned!

In Turkey, as all across Europe, over the past few days Obama has been welcomed with open arms, greeted with cheers and euphoria. He may be black, a democrat, and below the age of 60 but he is above all the President of the United States. There seems to be a generalised case of amnesia on this. I've just started reading "Dreams from my Father", the earlier of his autobiographies. I'm willing to believe he's a thoroughly nice person with some really commendable ideas. But Obama is not american politics. He will not and cannot change the nature of how power works in the world, and that's the fundamental problem. No matter how noble his intentions he is subject to the formidable range of pressures & influences of those in the world who have power and capital, but don't need to worry about votes or opinion polls.

So why do people seem to think he can or will? The way Obama is being received across the world makes me so uneasy because it's as if he is infallible, and he seems to have procured American policy a new legitimacy which it has done nothing yet to deserve, as far as I can see.

And it's not just naive, it's dangeous, as I wrote earlier in the month. Obama may have a heart of gold but like all politicians he should be constantly under the hammer and above all not given the benefit of the doubt. If anything, those of us who belong the Tony Benn anti-war school of thought should see him as more dangerous than his predecessor rather than less. Because George Bush could never have gotten away with starting another war after Iraq. But Obama CAN. He certainly has never had the courage to categorically rule out a military intervention, as Roger Cohen points out.

If in five years the world is a safer, fairer and more peaceful place, I will be the first one at the party, eating my words with relish and toasting to change.