Iqbal Latif- Paris
Eggs are economical, nonlethal and messy enough to spoil the day of any budding politician or businessman. High-profile people that have been egged as a form of protest include Ex-British Deputy Premier Prescott, Steve Ballmer, Arnold Schwarzenegger and David Blaine. When a politician is egged or creamed in the west, it is considered a ritual of disgruntled and peeved fringe minority that seeks attention through extraordinary means. In this world of mass communication, hurling such insults on icons of politics or business is common and ensures ample publicity for the cause. Reactions cannot be ascertained, but John Prescott punched someone who covered him with an egg, however, Bill Gates when deluged with cream went about his business.
On 2 February 2009, Premier Wen Jiabao traveled to the University of Cambridge to give the Rede Lecture at West Road Concert Hall. The lecture was entitled: “See China in the Light of Her Development”. Pro-Tibet and Pro-China protesters gathered outside the lecture hall but were kept a good distance from the entrance by police. Earlier on a demonstrator threw an egg when the Chinese premier arrived for an engagement in London. The egg was nearly unnoticeable but the real thing happened later.
Following Bush’s shoe incident in Iraq, a new phenomenon of ‘Shoeing’ has gained reasonable recognition as an acceptable part of intense censure.
The huge proliferation of strong statements that went on cyber space soon after the two shoeing incidents in recent past ensures that shoeing is the new way forward and the ‘in’ thing amongst the protest groups, leaders should be aware. The protester was sitting in the crowd and threw the shoe after standing and shouting: “How can you listen to this unchallenged? How can this university prostitute itself with this dictator here? How can you listen to the lies he’s telling without saying anything?” In the Bush incident, al-Zaidi yelled “This is a farewell kiss, you dog,” he yelled in Arabic as he threw his shoes. “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.”
How would such strong representations of another’s point of view be possible without the ultimate insult of shoe throwing? Media wants sensationalism and shoe-throwing provided them with one. The cultural aspects of a shoe as a tool of affront within Middle Eastern societies have found acceptance in the west in no time. The cultural cross currents as a result of these incidents cannot remain inconspicuous. It would be nice if Taliban, Hamas and Hezb would study the art of chucking shoes instead of suicide bombing. It is far more politically acceptable.
The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Alison Richard, commented on the incident: “I deeply regret that a single member of the audience this afternoon failed to show the respect for our speaker that is customary at Cambridge. This university is a place for considered argument and debate, not for shoe-throwing.”
Shoeing, as an insult, is relatively new on the global scene and is outpacing egging almost certainly. Since the al-Zaidi incident, copycat incidents in Europe and North America have been reported. Inspired by al-Zaidi’s actions, the anti-war group Code Pink pelted shoes at an effigy of U.S. President George W. Bush outside the White House on December 17, 2008. China’s PM has become the second victim of shoe-throwing after an Iraqi journalist hurled both of his shoes at the former US President George W. Bush during a press conference in Baghdad in December.
Onlookers said a shoe (A TRAINER) was thrown from the audience and landed several yards away from the Chinese leader. Mr Wen described the incident as “despicable”. The shoe missed the leader by a large margin and he was unhurt. The incident was similar to one involving former President George W. Bush during his last visit to Iraq. Mr. Bush after the incident had reacted slightly differently and joked: “If you want the facts, it’s a size 10 shoe that he threw.” Bush had said “I didn’t have much time to reflect on anything, I was ducking and dodging.” “I’m not angry with the system. I believe that a free society is emerging, and a free society is necessary for our own security and peace,” he added.
In free Britain, Mr. Wen did not have the luxury of the statement that a free society is rising; Bush’s reaction in Iraq definitely holds some water. The shoe-throwing incident demonstrated freedom of expression in Iraq. Imagine under Saddam a foreign leader being subject to such humiliation. The fact that al-Zaidi felt free enough to throw his shoe shows that this war has been a success. Had he done that to Saddam Hussein, he would have been shot on sight. Opponents treated the incident differently: “Not even the people this war was supposed to help view it as a success. Bush is still a pariah in Iraq.”
Shoeing is not something new. A shoe, as a ‘tool of political expression,’ gained unsavory reputation and led to huge political ramifications in the Cold War; it did cost Nikita Khrushchev his job. The Nikita Khrushchev shoe-banging incident happened during the 902nd Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly held in New York on 12 October 1960, when the furious leader of the Soviet Union minced his shoe on his delegate-desk. The politburo back home considered the shoe-banging incident as over the top and indecent representation of the Russian nation, he was quietly relieved soon after. Wisdom of the oldies in the Politburo was that a leader is not expected to bang shoes on the rostrum.
The manufacturer of the trainers were not as lucky, as the Turkish company that made the shoes thrown at Bush, Ramazan Baydan, has experienced a surge in sales. Orders for 300,000 pairs were received in just one week. In this world of mass communication, the shoe landed a little distant from the Premier and he did not have to duck twice like Bush. The elements of Texan acrobatics and ducking that attracted mass attention to the Bush episode were absent in the case of Chinese Premier. Anyway, the Chinese on a Richter scale of 10 do not light the kind of bias that Mr. Bush did. In this polarized world Muntadhar al-Zaidi, 29, has been hailed as a hero in the Arab world, where throwing one’s shoe is considered a severe insult. Showing somebody the sole of a shoe is also considered an insult: Thus, as former U.S. presidential candidate Bill Richardson inadvertently exposed his sole during an interview with Saddam Hussein. Saddam left the room.
The world press has seen many a twist to the events of the ‘airborne shoe.’ A correspondent of Washington Times reported that ‘Getting a shoe thrown at him is the best thing that’s happened to Bush in a while.’ One correspondent lamented that ‘Like father like son. Just as President Bush’s father will forever be remembered for throwing up on the Prime Minister of Japan at a state dinner in Tokyo, so will this weekend’s video of our beloved President follow him for the rest of his life?
Shoe-pelting as an instrument of political dissent may be far more acceptable in the west, but it would be bygones of a relationship if any Middle Eastern member or royalty is treated with such a feat by the dissenters in exile. ‘Joota marna ‘even in the sub-continent is the nastiest of insults.
The tolerance to take this kind of insult in the Middle Eastern world or the sub-continent is zero. Imagine the President of Iran suffering such a bruising experience in Iraq or President Assad in front of such a dissent in Hama or Lebanon, it would be curtains for the country. There will be diplomatic consequences and breakdowns. The incident will be considered as an insult to the pride of the nations. History plays a role in this part of the world, if this shoeing becomes a ‘skill’ then in the not-so-distant future all journalists will have to attend press conferences in ‘shoeless attires.’ The press office in the White House would look at ‘laceless shoes’ quite nervously. No other President in this part of the world would joke about the size, rather he will make sure the offender’s head is blown out.
’East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.’ The Ballad of East and West (Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936) is a key to understand when one needs to study the cultural divides. Various actions and objects are quite differently viewed. Cultural habits within the East and West are at variance; a ‘kiss’ between consensual grown-ups can be construed and interpreted in a different way in the west, but in the East, it is common between ‘guy friends,’ a sign of great respect and friendship. The custodian of the two holy mosques would not dare entice Bush with this show of affection.
iqbal.latif@gmail.com