Font size: 
What was more revealing in the incident – in which al-Zaidi threw his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush during a press conference in Baghdad – was not the shoe throwing itself but Bush’s response. He dismissed the protest action as a non-event. He even described it as a normal act in a free society. Perhaps he wanted to prove that Iraq is now a democratic nation.
Bush overlooked the radical meaning of the act. He was ignorant of the significance of the throwing of shoes as a symbol of insult in Arab culture. Bush misunderstood the act in the same way that he miscalculated the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why was Bush in Iraq? Did he expect to be welcomed as a liberator in this part of the world? Perhaps Bush was not aware of the deep hatred felt by many Iraqis against him. Perhaps he was misled by his advisers into believing that the U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq has been successful in stabilizing the country.
During the recent presidential election campaign, U.S. defense officials claimed that their policies in Iraq have been producing positive results. They argued that the United States could now refocus its “war on terror” campaign back to Afghanistan. Surprisingly and unfortunately, the American press did not question these statements.
In the past weeks President-elect Barack Obama has been quietly affirming some of the policies of his predecessor by appointing officials who are closely identified with the latter. Perhaps by visiting a “peaceful” Iraq, Bush wanted to show his successor that the current Iraq strategy is working well.
Hopefully, the shoe-throwing incident will remind the American public how the image of the United States has deteriorated under the Bush administration; and more importantly, convince Obama to enact drastic changes in foreign policy.
The act was also positive since it gave a new face to the resistance against the invasion of Iraq. Muntazer al-Zaidi is not the stereotyped anti-American militant. He is a journalist who had earned enough credentials to be admitted to the press conference. His act proved that the middle-class and educated Iraqis are also opposed to the U.S. invasion of their country.
This is not the first time that shoes have acquired a political image. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was reported to have owned a pair of lucky shoes which he wore for 10 years. It was discovered that former Philippine First Lady Imelda Marcos left behind 2,700 pairs of shoes in the presidential palace after her husband was ousted from power in 1986. Recently, the decline of the Philippine shoe industry has been cited as proof of the destructive impact of neoliberal economic policies.
Imelda’s shoes are now exhibited in a museum. Displaying the shoes is one way to make the younger Filipinos remember that the Marcoses practiced a lavish lifestyle while their countrymen suffered in poverty. Possessing several pairs of shoes is now deemed controversial especially if the owner is a public official. Shoe collection has been associated with corruption, abuse of power and extravagance.
Marikina City used to be the shoe capital of the Philippines. A decade ago, the city was producing 15 million pairs of shoes. Employment in the shoe industry reached more than 100,000. Today the city is producing less than 6 million pairs of shoes while people employed by the industry are now less than 50,000.
The decline of the shoe industry is blamed on unfair foreign competition and the neoliberal economic policies of the government. The demise of the shoe industry has been linked to the weakening of other domestic industries, especially the agriculture and manufacturing sectors.
What is the connection between the Baghdad incident, Imelda’s shoes and the Philippine shoe industry? Shoes and other mundane objects we use everyday can be effectively integrated into various political projects. If used properly, they have the power to generate political awareness among the people and even to be transformed into weapons of hate against public figures.
Who would have thought that shoes would be associated with corruption and disastrous economic policies? Who would have thought of using shoes to attack an enemy? The pen may be mightier than the sword but shoes are more powerful especially if thrown at a politician during a press conference. Now it is possible to rethink how ordinary objects can be appropriated as symbols of struggle.
--
(Mong Palatino is an activist and regional editor for Southeast Asia of Global Voices Online. He can be reached at mongpalatino@gmail.com and his Web site is www.mongpalatino.motime.com. ©Copyright Mong Palatino)
