The lede on the story is simple. Hosni lost. He was defeated in the fifth round of voting by a female professional diplomat from Bulgaria, Irina Bokova. The final vote was 31-27.
The rest of the Hosni narrative is not so simple. The seventy something artist and long-time director of Egypt's cultural affairs ministry has resorted to the Muslim-Arab default position. He claims loudly and repeatedly that he was had by a conspiracy ramrodded by the infamous International Jew using the US and assorted unnamed European countries as the stooges. The typical loser sour grapes have taken on a uniquely anti-Semitic flavor.
Quite unsurprisingly, the Egyptian press have picked up the "We've-Been-Had!" theme. That the rest of the Arab-Muslim media will do so is a sucker bet.
Admittedly, Hosni can and has infuriated at least some Muslims primarily Egyptians in the past as when he recently took the politically correct (in the West) view that the headscarf was demeaning of women. But, his overall record as head of the Egyptian cultural affairs department shows that he is no friend of free expression or creativity if it crosses the boundaries set either by Islam or Egyptian state policy.
And, his comments about burning books written by either Jews or Israelis (accounts vary) found in the Alexandria library did not comport themselves with the responsibilities of operating UNESCO. His later explanations that his remarks were taken out of context and his even later apologies were so clearly self-serving as to have zero credibility.
While the Egyptian collective ego has been bruised by this exercise in democracy and the larger ego of overly sensitive Muslims will, in all probability, find itself injured as well, it is fair to ask what connection could exist between a Muslim such as Hosni and the larger context of education and science. (The squishy term "culture" will be left out of consideration.)
To put the proposition bluntly: By all measurements and indices the Muslim world, defined as all countries in which Muslims constitute the majority, has been and is a major non-participant in both education and science. Other than in the narrow field of Islamic law and theology, no institution of higher education can be found in the first or even second rank. Education other than the most narrowly technical or that which focuses on Islamic jurisprudence is not valued in the Muslim world.
Considering that one of the missions UNESCO has assigned itself is the fostering of education and intellectual achievement defined broadly it is hard, if not impossible, to see how Hosni could have brought anything to the table. The same might be said of the lady from Bulgaria, but at least as a diplomat she should be able to get the multilateral bunch at UNESCO singing from the same sheet of music, which is more than could have been expected from the contentious Hosni.
The same dearth of accomplishment can be seen in the Arab-Muslim world with respect to science. Leaving aside the specious blather about the great service to science preformed by Muslims during the Golden Age, the reality is simply that in the past several centuries Muslims have been and are absent in the roster of those who have blazed the trails of science in all its many forms and expressions. There is little reason that the science aspect of UNESCO's self-defined mission(s) would have been advanced with Hosni at the helm.
Once again the same may be written of Ms Bukovka. Bulgaria is a place not listed on the countries of origin for those winning Nobel Prizes in the several sciences. However, at least Bulgaria is not a country where textbooks (as is the case in Pakistan) add the phrase "if Allah wills" when describing scientific phenomena.
Now the Geek comes to the major question--the question not asked in the debate over who should run UNESCO. That question is simply: What utility does the outfit have today?
When established back in the wake of World War II, UNESCO had a job to do. It was created to reestablish and repair the museums, the educational institutions, the scientific laboratories destroyed and damaged by war's great rake of havoc. Arguably, UNESCO had a mission of substance during the wave of decolonization. All too many of the former colonies had no educational infrastructure. Without that base, there could be no indigenous practice of science or technology.
As the years rolled by, the UNESCO mission became ever more self-defined, self-generated. The world passed the UN organ by. In more recent times bilateral agreements between nations' cultural, educational and scientific exchange programs and agreements between universities in the US and elsewhere have undercut the need for UNESCO.
As the mission of UNESCO attenuated, the sounds of cultural relativism and multi-culturalism grew louder. Much of what emanates from the hallowed halls of UNESCO has nothing to do with education--other than complaints that UNESCO should not use books which treat the Holocaust as a historical reality--or science other than demands that the supernatural be given due credit for the "creation" of life and human intelligence.
At times one who peruses the UNESCO outpourings cannot help but wonder, "Why bother?" Maundering about native crafts or even "world heritage" sites are unobjectionable to be sure, but what have they to do with advancing human knowledge or understandings of the natural and human universe? Does the world, the human race, really need this in order to achieve greater educational or scientific competence?
Sure, UNESCO doesn't cost much. And, accidentally it might do some good. But, overall, it is one more manifestation of the unfortunate tendency of institutions to perpetuate themselves, and the more specific predilection of the UN for mission creep--or, to err on the side of accuracy--mission leap.
The best thing would have been the avoidance of the Hosni whining and inevitable Muslim diatribes about "Islamophobia" by simply disbanding the totally supernumerary UNESCO. Its day has come and gone.
That's a fact, Jack
No comments:
Post a Comment