Potemkin village: (noun) "An impressive facade or display that hides an undesirable fact or state; a false front."
The phrase above comes from 18th-century Russia, where Grigory Potemkin, a Russian prince and statesmen under Catherine the Great supposedly (and probably mythically) had elaborate and handsome villages built for the Empress to see on her tours of the provinces, creating a facade of peace and prosperity that hid the real squalor and desperation.
This Saturday, Iraqis will vote on a Potemkin constitution. Like the "elections" in January, when no one knew who or what they were voting for, a major Sunni group has agreed to withhold opposition because they have been promised negotioations later that could lead to major changes. In other words, they are voting for a non-constitution.
This becomes even more bizarre, as the country descends further into a chaotic maelstrom so violent and pervasive that the "government" that might be "constituted" on Saturday would have no hope of controlling it. The "Potemkin village" of constitutionalism and "democracy" is a cheaply constructed facade barely obscuring a violent nightmare of death and destruction.
Some thoughts from Britain's The Independent:
Iraq Has Descended into Anarchy, Says Fisk
By Nigel Morris Home Affairs Correspondent
Most of Iraq is in a state of anarchy, with insurgents controlling parts of Baghdad just half a mile from the so-called Green Zone, an Independent debate was told last night. Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for The Independent, whose new book The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the Middle East has just been published by 4th Estate, painted a picture of deepening chaos and misery in Iraq more than two years after Saddam Hussein was toppled.
He said that the "constant, intensive involvement" in the Middle East by the West was a recurring pattern over centuries and was the reason why "so many Muslims in the Middle East hate us". He added "We can close doors on history. They can't."
Fisk doubted the sincerity of Western leaders' commitment to bringing democracy to Iraq and said a lasting settlement in the country was impossible while foreign troops remained. "In the Middle East, they would like some of our democracy, they would like a couple of boxes off the supermarket shelves of human rights as well. But I think they would also like freedom from us."
Recalling the sight of an immense US convoy rolling into the country's capital, he said: "A superpower has a visceral need to project military power. We can go to Baghdad, so we will go to Baghdad."
He told the debate in London: "The Americans must leave Iraq and they will leave Iraq, but they can't leave Iraq and that is the equation that turns sand to blood. At some point, they will have to talk to the insurgents.
"But I don't know how, because those people who might be negotiators the United Nations, the Red Cross their headquarters have been blown up. The reality now in Iraq is the project is finished. Most of Iraq, except Kurdistan, is in a state of anarchy."
He said that the portrayal of Iraq by Western leaders of efforts to introduce democracy, including Saturday's national vote on the country's proposed constitution was "unreal" to most of its citizens. In Baghdad, children and women were kept at home to prevent them from being kidnapped for money or sold into slavery. They faced a desperate struggle to find the money to keep generators running to provide themselves with electricity. "They aren't sitting in their front rooms discussing the referendum on the constitution."
With insurgents half a mile from Baghdad's Green Zone, Fisk said the danger to reporters from a brutal insurgency that did not respect journalists was increasing. "Every time I go to Baghdad it's worse, every time I ask myself how we can keep going. Because the real question is, is the story worth the risk?"
He attacked television reporters for flinching from depicting the everyday bloodshed on the streets of Iraq. "You can go and see Saving Private Ryan or Kingdom of Heaven people have their heads cut off. When it comes to real heads being cut off, you can't. I think television connives with governments at war." He added: "Newspapers can tell you as closely as they can what these horrors are like."
Asked if the "anger and passion" he felt over the events he witnessed had affected his objectivity, he said: "When you are at the scene of a massacre, you are entitled to feel immense anger and I do."
He rejected suggestions that graphic pictures of the dead in newspapers took away their dignity. He said: "My view is the people who are dead would want us to record what happened to them."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Everytime I see the news footage of various U.S. generals shaking hands with these supposed Iraqi leaders, it just comes off as fake. To think that Iraq, a country surrounded by so many other anti-western/pro-muslim extremism-based (YIKES!) countries could ever unilaterally embrace Democracy is ridiculous. It's like a circle of fat guys farting non-stop while some dumb guy in the middle of the circle chants "I don't smell anything."
I keep coming back to that same old question that Chimpy never wants to address;"How will we know we've actually won the war on terror?" Does that mean as long as their's a lone insurgent in some isolated region of Pakistan, we're still losing? How about in Syria? Iran?
We also were treated to Jughead's crowing this week about several thwarted terrorist attacks. If these individuals were still, at this stage in the game, able to enter the U.S., Canada and U.K., how fucking safe are we really? If we've supposedly disrupted or destroyed all of their training camps by military actions in the Middle East, how is all of this being facilitated? The bus bombings in London, the train bombings in Madrid, etc.....This is safety?! I recall with nostalgia those nifty color-coded terror alerts that seemed to disappear after the 2004 election. Hmmm, yes, honor...integrity...
Post a Comment