bout de papier, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1995) — Fall 1995 // Automne 1995, pp. 51–52
CRUELTY AND SILENCE: WAR, TYRANNY,
UPRISING, AND THE ARAB WORLD by
Kanan Makiya. W.W. Norton & Company,
New York. 327 pages, $13.99,
Reviewed by Jim Gould
I have read this book three times; twice in the course of preparing this review and once, earlier, when the author was awarded the Gelber prize. Mr. Makiya addresses questions that were troubling for those of us that worked in the Arab world before and during the Gulf War of 1991. The emotions engendered by pictures of Palestinians dancing as the Scuds landed in Israel were nothing compared to the dismay felt by this reviewer and others when friends and acquaintances, (intellectuals, liberals and humanists all) applauded Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait because he was supporting “the cause”. Did they really believe that Saddam was the leader the Arabs had been looking for since Nasser? Does the cause justify the means?
After two sections, the first devoted to personalizing the brutality of the Iraqi regime and the second to outlining the forces that have kept democracy out of Iraqi politics and will continue to do so, the final, third section is the most interesting. It is also the most wide-ranging because Makiya, in trying to explain the Silence expands outward from Iraq into the rest of the Arab world. While continuing to focus on Iraq, he draws for examples upon events and policies found elsewhere in the region. And violence of the Iraqi regime was not Makiya argues that covering up the cruelty just a mistake but a “deep-rooted failure” that must be acknowledged before the Arab people can move on. Violence is widespread in the Arab world. It is also becoming more cruel in its nature. Before the 1967 war the Arab world was no worse than much of the third world in its attitude toward basic human rights. But by the beginning of the Lebanese civil war in 1975 this was changing. The glorification of violence, armed struggle and revolution was growing slowly throughout the region. was increasingly seen as part of the identity of the Arab nation. By the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 90s situations such as that pertaining in Iraq no longer seemed as horrific to the indigenous intellectual community as they did to outsiders. “Ever-increasing denial of ever-growing cruelty has created a completely untenable gap between the way these intellectuals talked and the way their world really is.”
After 1967 the debate about the makeup and meaning of Arab cultural nationalism became the only form of political activity to the detriment of human rights and democracy. The West was alleged to be accountable for the ills besetting the region, all focussed upon the continued existence and expansion of Israel, because the West had caused them by bringing Israel into being. The cruelty that was becoming more evident throughout the region was met with silence on the part of the intellectuals, the very persons who should have been most outspoken in rejecting it. Makiya sees this as the true moral collapse which has allowed leaders like Saddam Hussein to exist and grow in power.
Makiya believes that the situation is not irreversible. But Arab intellectuals must stop seeking to place the blame elsewhere, not just for the State of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians, but for every evil that seems to come upon the Arab nation. This must be followed by a revolution against cruelty and its continued existence. ’Arab-ness’ is not an excuse for silence in the face of evil and should not be seen as such.
Kanan Makiya is not a stranger to controversy. His first book, The Republic of Fear, was a critique of the Iraqi regime, its rise to absolute power and its methods of retaining power once gained. It was published under a pseudonym for fear of retaliation. Cruelty and Silence has been critically reviewed in recognized academic journals. But, many of these reviews have been written by the very persons whom the book highlights, those Arab intellectuals who see every event in the Arab world through the prism of “the Arab cause”. To an outsider their reaction reinforces the arguments of Makiya.
I must acknowledge that the arguments of Makiya are not completely convincing. They are somewhat lost in the verbiage. He repeats himselt on several occasions and explains his reasons for writing the book at least twice. One could also have hoped for a clearer expression of the basic thesis. He demonstrates a lack of expertise in his generalizations on culture and psyche. But since Makiya has attempted to stand against a prevailing view and will be castigated for having done so, he deserves enormous credit for having taken on this daunting challenge. Equally the Gelber Prize Committee deserves credit for having recognized the merit of the book. It is unfortunate that the ideas of the author, while sincerely and articulately put, will almost certainly not be heeded.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1995) — Fall 1995 // Automne 1995, pp. 51–52. Read the rest of this issue →
