Pakistan, Britain, Salman Rushdie And Free Speech

A knighthood given to a prominent and highly controversial author who lives under a death threat….sparking a new threat from a Pakistan bigwig that it could justify suicide bomber attacks… followed by what seems to be a classic CYA denial — while the original intimidating threat still lingers out there.

Welcome to the continuing security-constrained world of author Salmon Rushdie whose receipt of a knighthood award from Britain brought a chilling warning from an official in Pakistan about a possible terrorist attack response if the award was not revoked.

You know, Pakistan — the country on which the United States has pinned much of its hopes and donated so much of its treasure due to its role as an ostensible ally in the war against terrorism because Pakistan is supposed to be battling against terrorism:

Pakistan demanded on Monday that Britain withdraw a knighthood awarded to author Salman Rushdie, as a government minister said the honour gave a justification for suicide attacks by Muslims.

Angry protesters in several cities torched British flags and beat them with their shoes in protest at the accolade for the Indian-born writer of “The Satanic Verses” and chanted “Death to Britain, death to Rushdie.”

Does this mean Rushdie’s book sales will lag in Pakistan?

Rushdie, 59, was forced to go into hiding for a decade after Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 issued a death sentence over his book “The Satanic Verses,” claiming it insulted Islam.

Iran has already accused British leaders of “Islamophobia” after Rushdie — now Sir Salman — was awarded the knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II on Saturday to mark her 81st birthday.

“If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet, then it is justified,” Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq told the national assembly.

The minister, the son of military dictator Zia-ul-Haq who died in a plane crash in 1988, later retracted his statement in parliament and said he meant to say that knighting Rushdie could spark terrorism.

“I was explaining that if the British government awards a knighthood to Salman Rushdie — whose only credibility is that he wrote a blasphemous book — then such action with encourage extremism,” he told AFP.

“If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?” he said.

Yes, you read the above comments correctly:

(1) He suggests that suicide bombers could be justified if they were a tad upset and blew themselves and Rushdie or presumably others up because they were irked.

(2) He denied that’s what he meant.

(3) He cushioned it with a statement that sounds as if it was crafted by American political spinmasters, putting his original statement within a cocoon of deniability.

(4) He then re-states how Pakistan is fighting the war on terror….in the same batch of comments where he esssentially says he could understand if a suicide bomber vented his anger by blowing himself and someone else up because they were annoyed Britain gave the honor to Rushdie.

And make no mistake about his own anger at Britain and desire to turn the Knighthood into an issue that will further inflame passions:

He said Pakistan should sever diplomatic ties with Britain if it did not withdraw the award, adding: “We demand an apology by the British government. Their action has hurt the sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims.

The national assembly earlier unanimously passed a resolution condemning the knighthood given to Rushdie.

“We demand that Britain should refrain from such acts which hurt the sentiments of Muslims and take back the title of Sir given to Rushdie,” parliamentary affairs minister Sher Afgan said.

The resolution added that the award would encourage “contempt” for the Prophet Mohammed.

Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman Tasnim Aslam warned that the British honour would harm efforts to promote understanding between Muslim nations and the West.

“We deplore the decision of the British government to knight him. This, we feel, is insensitive and we would convey our sentiments to the British government,” she added.

In Britain, Times Online’s columnist Daniel Finklestein has started a move to defend his government and its action:

The decision to recommend that Salman Rushdie receive a knighthood was a bold and correct one. In addition to the merit of his literary work, the author is a symbol of free speech.

The counter-attack was bound to come, and it has.

I think it is important that we show that we are not prepared to be cowed by this sort of threat. I have therefore submitted a petition for the Number 10 Downing Street website…

Read his whole post.

There are several issues at play here.

Rushdie has been beset for years since the original threat was placed against him. This newest development puts the Rushdie drama up a notch or two, since the statement by a Pakistani official, coupled with the less inflammatory statement from another Pakistani official, means that Pakistan’s government is at the very least putting itself on record as being willing to sympathetically nod at suicide bombers who may retaliate for the knighthood.

Question: How does the United States government that has placed such a high-profile premium on denouncing terrorism and terrorist tactics respond to this one?

If administration officials imply (as they do) that some Bush administration domestic political critics are in effect fellow travelers or enablers of terrorists, what will Tony Snow et. al say when asked about statements from Pakistan that suggest official sympathy (no matter what the justification from whatever perpsective) for those who strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves and others up?

The issue for the U.S. isn’t Rushdie and the knighthood.

It’s the administration’s stance on terrorism and its reliance on and faith on Pakistan to reject terrorism and terrorism practices because Pakistan supposedly doesn’t condone such things.

The operative word now becomes “supposedly.”