Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1476751
radioactive material, authorities will need to act quickly to assess the danger and respond appro- priately. The risk will depend on factors such as how much material is released and how it is spread by wind and weather. The level of radiation would be highest close to the plant and reduce as it spreads, with those exposed potentially experienc- ing health impacts. For those exposed to very high levels of radiation, there is a risk of acute radiation syndrome, which can be fatal in the worst cases. Lower levels of exposure can increase cancer risks later in life. The best course of action is to take shelter in buildings, close all doors, windows and vents, and follow advice from trusted authorities. Russia's strategy Russia's president Vladimir Putin might wish to control the plant for several reasons. Russia could cut power supplies from the plant to Ukraine, but it was operating in a low power mode at the time of the invasion and so this may be of limited impact. Alternatively, Russia might use it as a political bargaining chip or propaganda tool, in order to legitimise claims over occupied territory. Various sources al- so suggest that Russia has sta- tioned troops and equipment at the plant. This allows it to be used as both a fortress and mis- sile launch site, against which Ukraine dare not retaliate. Military conflict around nu- clear sites was outlawed by the 1977 Amendment to the Ge- neva Conventions. However, attempts by the international community to address the Rus- sian occupation of Zaporizhzhia have been largely unsuccessful. The International Atomic En- ergy Agency has repeatedly re- quested access to examine con- ditions and check that nuclear materials remain in place but has yet to gain entry. The UN has recently called for demilitarisation of the site, but Russia claims that this would place the plant at great- er risk due to alleged threats of nuclear terrorism. Placing the plant under the care of a neutral third party for security purposes might be a potential solution. However, there is a risk that even a neutrally held plant could be attacked by dis- guised military forces, in order to support Russian narratives of Ukrainian terrorist groups. Above all, the violence around the plant must stop, and verifi- cation access must be granted to the international community. Military action around the plant must cease as soon as possible to protect people, the environ- ment and infrastructure. maltatoday | SUNDAY • 21 AUGUST 2022 13 OPINION The legacy of the decades- old fatwa on Salman Rushdie Parveen Akhtar Parveen Akhtar is Senior Lecturer: Politics, History and International Relations, Aston University In 1989, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who led the Islamic revolution in Iran ten years earlier, issued a fatwa – a religious edict – calling for the death of author Salman Rushdie. More than three decades later, at a literary event in New York state, a man who was not yet born when the fatwa was decreed is accused of stab- bing the author. The bounty on Rushdie's head never went away, though the Iranian government did temporarily retreat from it in 1998. Still, 33 years have passed since the original tumult. Few would have pre- dicted that the fatwa would find a willing taker in 2022. Yet the political legacy of the edict was signif- icant. To understand that, it's important to see the fatwa in its historical context. Many Muslims viewed Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses as blasphemous, depicting the Prophet of Islam as being without scruples, and using the names of his wives for characters who played prostitutes. Muslims believe that Muham- mad is insan-al-kamil – the complete human be- ing, and the only one who has attained perfection. The original death sentence was not just against Rushdie, but also his publishers who "were aware of [the book's] contents" and still went on to pub- lish it. Islamic law stipulates that a fatwa is valid on- ly under the jurisdiction of a Muslim leader and where Sharia law applies. And Rushdie was nei- ther an Iranian citizen nor in Iran at the time of the ruling. Khomeini's fatwa, however, was not circum- scribed by political boundaries or international relations – it called on all Muslims to kill Rush- die. The fatwa effectively made the whole world Khomeini's personal polity. This was significant because it usurped Saudi Arabia's position as the central focus of the Mus- lim world. Theological differences pervade the Iran-Saudi Arabia relationship. The majority of Muslims in Saudi Arabia are Sunnis while Iran has a Shia majority. And both countries have am- bitions for regional dominance. Iran's relations with Saudi Arabia are also im- portant in understanding the timing of the fatwa. In early 1989, it was apparent that Afghan insur- gents backed by Saudi Arabia and the US were on the brink of victory against Afghanistan's government and the Soviet troops that were sup- porting it. The USSR withdrew from the country on February 15 1989. But the fatwa, issued just a day earlier, took the limelight. Saudi Arabia opposed the edict and attempt- ed to work with other Muslim leaders to stop Khomeini using the episode to set himself up as the chief guardian and defender of Muslims and the Islamic world. However, the fatwa propelled The Satanic Verses and Rushdie's alleged blas- phemy into the international spotlight. Footage even emerged of Muslims burning cop- ies in front of the town hall in the British city of Bradford. For Iran, this was proof that religious leadership could transcend national boundaries, and a political ummah, or Muslim nation, was possible. Ayatollah Khomeini died a few months after issuing the death sentence on Rushdie, but sub- sequent Iranian administrations have reaffirmed the fatwa. A brief reprieve by pro-reform govern- ment of President Mohammad Khatami in 1998 was followed by hardliners upholding the legiti- macy of the fatwa, even increasing the bounty to US$3.3 million (£2.7 million) in 2012. It is not clear what connection Hadi Matar, the 24-year-old man now charged with the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie, might have had to the wishes of a now-dead leader vying for power in the Muslim world. Iran has officially denied links with the alleged attacker, who was born and raised in the US in a Lebanese family. His social media ac- counts allegedly show sympathies with the Iranian state, though it is believed he acted alone. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Nasser Ka- naani said that "no-one has the right to accuse Iran", and that Rushdie and his supporters are to blame for the attack. Today, as in 1989, the fatwa against Rushdie illustrates the deep disconnect between Iran and much of the rest of the world, most recently seen in the country's efforts to build nuclear weapons against the wishes of the international community. Free speech and diaspora Muslims The longest-lasting legacy of the fatwa has been as a symbol of the threat to free speech – consid- ered a fundamental right in the west. At the time, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was clear on this: "It is an essential part of our democratic sys- tem that people who act within the law should be able to express their opinions freely". Several other writers and translators with links to Rush- die have been attacked or killed over the years. But for some in the Muslim world, freedom of speech should not give licence to attack the fun- damentals of faith. It is because of this that the fatwa and its aftermath have also had a lasting impact on migrant identities in the the UK and Europe. After the second world war, large numbers of Muslims settled in urban areas, and debates about the compatibility of Muslims in the west gained traction. While many Muslims did not agree with Khomeini's fatwa or the book burn- ings, the Rushdie affair contributed to turning di- aspora Muslims into a self-conscious group, who knew that others viewed them through the lens of religion. In the 33 years since it was issued, the fatwa has continued to be used as evidence by those who view Islam and the west as being fundamentally distinct civilisations, with an ever-present poten- tial for violent confrontation.