Incitement

A story about a women’s shelter in Afghanistan should be an opportunity to showcase what can really drive progress. It could be a chance to commend those handling the day-to-day operations. It might be an

opening to demonstrate what role Islam plays in women’s lives who, although they have been victims of a brutal misogynist tradition, have not abandoned their faith. It can be a chance to show that, despite our preconceptions, within every women’s group are religious Afghan men.

Instead, NBC Nightly News ignored all these opportunities and simply reverted to western stereo types and fears.

Anchor Brian Williams introduced the “In Depth” story:

“[I]n Afghanistan today, 300 women came together in

a protest march, something just about unheard of there. They were demanding the repeal of a new law imposing harsh restrictions on women’s rights.

But then the marchers were set upon by about 1,000 men, yelling insults, terrible insults, and threats.”

(Sadly, MSNBC.com had an AP internet story the same day about the Afghan men who joined the pro-women march – but this wasn’t worthy of being included in the TV broadcast. After all, Afghan men protesting side-by-side with Afghan women don’t fit our Western narrative of a Muslim male out to oppress women and decapitate the infidel.)

“Though things got better there briefly, women’s rights are again under fire in Afghanistan by Muslim extremists, but some women are fighting back at great personal risk.

The story you are about to see is a tough one, and fair warning, what follows is not suitable if you have little ones in the room.

But we agreed with our chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, that the story needed to be told…”

Thus, in the introduction, NBC has framed the story against a backdrop of Western fear and hatred of Islam. (And if you are a “little one,” the seed has been planted: all you saw was a burqa and heard was that it had something to do with “Afghanistan,” “women,” and “Muslim extremists” before you were promptly sent to your room.)

Engel’s story itself detailed the horrors – the beatings, the forced prostitution, the abandonment of children. He makes one woman hyperventilate after asking about her sons she left with her homicidal husband (he says he “regretted” asking, but kept the shot in the final cut – he couldn’t have regretted it too much).

He even finds one “modern” spokeswoman (with a western accent) from the Women for Afghan Women center who addresses the camera without so much as a headscarf, reinforcing the idea that women’s rights are all about the veil.

Thus, NBC’s “In Depth” was far from deep – it had only two truly Afghan voices, both edited to support the premise that Afghan men are evil and abuse women (unspoken, yet insinuated, is that Islam is the reason).

And of course, there was the obligatory blurb from an Afghan ex-pat that grew up in the U.S. telling us “how it really is in Afghanistan,” because we don’t really believe those people until we hear it from one of our own. That’s how Orientalism works, isn’t it?

Am I to believe that none of these women – when asked “How do you cope?” – ever mentioned their faith? None of them once uttered “I trust in Allah to take care of me?” Even American Idol has gratuitous sound bytes of the winner proclaiming they “just put their trust in God.” But apparently these Afghan women are so secular that they put their trust in…what…? Democracy?

And where are the men? Are we to believe there were NO men at this center? No guards? No lawyers? No assistants? None? Nada? Zip?

I call bullshit.

I’ve spent time with Afghans working for women’s rights. They aren’t secular feminists ready to join the Western tirade against all things Islam. On the contrary, it is precisely their religion that motivates them.

Every women’s center, NGO, and educational group that I visited in Kabul and surrounding provinces relied on men. I asked these men the same question: Why do you risk your life for women’s rights?

All of them immediately gave me the same answer:

Islam demands it.

These Afghans that see Islam as the foundation of social justice aren’t an aberration. I heard it from young teachers, office administrators, lawyers, sharia scholars, and even a mufti. I listened to the same message from students, security guards, and drivers.

Which is why it is impossible for someone to do a story about women’s rights in Afghanistan and not hear the same thing.

Matthew Fisher of Canwest News Services heard them:

The nearly unanimous view on the campus — arguably the most progressive institution in Afghanistan — was that the West should not involve itself in the country’s cultural and religious affairs.

“This is not a good law. Women should be allowed to do what they want,” said Hamida Hasani, 18, a [female] architecture student at Kabul University…“But we do not want total freedom. We wanted it to be limited and to be within Islam.”

…“[Westerners] don’t know anything about us and our problems,” [Hasani] said. “If they faced what we have faced with hunger and war, they’d realize what is most important to fight for here. Before they come here they should . . . experience our difficulties.”

…“There is change in Afghanistan today,” Riosi [an 18-year-old female student of literature] said. “There is respect for us if we are educated or if we work.

“But westerners want to change Afghanistan for their benefit, not for ours. They have a bad view of our culture. Some of our women imitate their clothes and their ways. Our freedom must come within Islam.”

While loyal readers of the Vancouver Sun can actually be proud that their small media outlet has the ethics to print truth, the media conglomerates of the U.S. continue their propaganda battle.

For NBC to run a story about women’s rights and not have one person referring to their faith as a guiding force for good, or omit any men who defend women’s rights because of their religion, can only be deliberate.

To tell the viewing audience about 300 women protesters without acknowledging that some Afghan men were in their midst is a calculated choice.

To publish an internet article “Key to women’s rights in Afghanistan: men” and not once mention Islam or religion is premeditated.

NBC’s story wasn’t intended to promote more shelters, encourage donations from wealthy viewers, and certainly not to show what role Afghan men, much less religion, could play in Afghanistan’s future. It appears the only purpose was to incite more hatred of Muslims.

Which brings me back to NBC’s claim:

“This is a story that needed to be told…”

What, exactly, is that “story?” Because the only story that NBC ran was propaganda aimed at stirring up anger, hatred, and violence toward “others” that think, live, and believe differently than ourselves. Is that what “needed to be told?” Was the country running low on Islamophobia?

NBC’s “story” about Afghan women served no useful purpose other than to darken the lenses that Americans use to see the “other.”

Misguided and false perceptions of Muslims have persisted for centuries. In a globalized world, where information is exchanged freely and we interact with people from opposite sides of the world, can we afford to continue to be so ignorant?

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

********************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

Pirates, Fishermen, and Mercenaries

I thought the U.S. military was funded by American taxpayers for the purpose of protecting our population (yes, rescuing an American hostage from pirates falls under “protection”).

But there is a difference between rescuing a kidnapped American citizen and providing routine sea patrols outside of U.S. jurisdiction – something that sounds more like corporate security at taxpayer expense. Yet a cacophony of voices is calling for the military to begin enforcing its rule over the one million square miles of open sea near Eastern Africa to ward off piracy.

It’s no surprise that commercial shipping companies want free military aid. The civilians that run the U.S. Department of Defense have made it quite clear that our superior military force is only to be used when corporate profits are threatened. The Iraq invasion sent a message to the world that the U.S. military acts at the behest of giant conglomerates like Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, and Exxon Mobil.

So now everyone wants in on the free security services. Commercial shipping companies – who spend most of their time outside of U.S. jurisdiction – now believe they are entitled to military protection.

If ever there was a job for Blackwater and the private mercenary armies that our perpetual state of war have encouraged, this is it. The cost of protecting commercial shipping should be born by the companies doing the shipping – not by U.S. taxpayers.

Hiring mercenaries like Blackwater would do four things:

1. It would create occupational openings for mercenary firms and draw them away from theaters of war like Iraq and Afghanistan. Providing a job alternative for these private armies would fade the image America currently projects abroad with tattooed, gun-happy, testosterone-filled private contractors fighting wars in sovereign nations.
2. It would relieve the U.S. military from the “responsibility” of protecting the one-million square miles of open sea that commercial shipping companies fear (and would thus avoid cost to American taxpayers). An already-stretched U.S. military cannot afford to be spread even thinner.
3. Consider the rules of open sea: for all practical purposes, there are none. Throughout history, pirates have not enjoyed any rights or privileges. They live without rules and, thus, die without rules. Fight fire with fire – mercenaries are the perfect answer to modern-day piracy.
4. It would be nearly impossible for trigger-happy Blackwater contractors to shoot unarmed civilians in one million square miles of open sea.

Problem solved.

Or at least the security problem would be solved. The root of the piracy issue still needs to be addressed, though few people other than Katie Stuhldreher seem interested.

Stuhldreher notes that when Somalia collapsed in the early 1990s, the rich fishing coastline was left with no state control. Foreign commercial fishing operations moved in and pushed out the locals. The first “pirates” were actually local Somali fisherman seeking “compensation” from foreign fishing companies that were profiting at the expense of Somalia.

Stuhldreher goes on:

“The success of these early raids in the mid-1990s persuaded many young men to hang up their nets in favor of AK-47s. Making the coastal areas lucrative for local fishermen again could encourage pirates to return to legitimate livelihoods.”

(Or at least encourage would-be pirates to consider another line of work…)

Stuhldreher’s solution? Fishery protection – either through the African Union, the United Nations, or a coalition of states.

Yet it’s important to separate “fishery protection” from “counter-piracy.” While commercial shipping companies would be responsible for their own private security (via firms like Blackwater), an international body would be responsible for monitoring fishing rights off the Somali coast, allowing locals to return to a profitable business.

There’s no doubt that a rescue operation, like the one that occurred over Easter weekend, requires highly-trained U.S. Navy Seals or Special Forces. But with heavily armed, muscle-bound mercenary guards on commercial vessels, the pirate’s chances of successfully boarding a ship in the first place would be next to impossible. Hostage situations would become far less frequent, local Somali fishermen could return to their livelihoods, and best of all – private mercenaries would have a safe place to operate without ruining America’s reputation abroad.

Any move by the U.S. military to assume the role of corporate security guard in the world’s oceans is a backward step for President Obama and our military.

It’s time for America to move away from the corporate warfare that assures industry profits are placed before human lives. It’s time for the U.S. to start addressing the root of problems instead of playing firefighter. It’s time for new, innovative ideas that create a better world instead of trying to return to an idealized past that has been whitewashed by a fuzzy memory.

How America moves forward on the piracy issue – a centuries-old problem – will determine whether we are moving into a new future, or retaining the failed policies of the past.

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

The Heavily-Armed Elephant in the Room

After the shooting rampage in Binghamton that left 13 people dead, the city’s police chief – the man charged with protecting the citizenry – said in a moment of stupidity:

“If some crazy lunatic decides to pick up a gun and go someplace and start shooting people, I really don’t have the answer how…[to] prevent anything like that.”

Really? Because the answer seems pretty self-evident to me:

Stop letting people just “pick up a gun” like they’re picking up milk and eggs from the supermarket.

The Binghamton massacre was just the latest (and, as of this writing, no longer the most recent) in a spate of firearm homicides. Over the last month in the U.S., 53 people have been killed in mass shootings (that doesn’t include the firearm homicides with only one victim).

There were the four Oakland Police officers who were gunned down by a convicted felon.

There was the Indian techie in Santa Clara that slaughtered his family, his relatives, and then turned the gun on himself. Good thing he was able to purchase two semi-automatic handguns to “protect” his family two weeks before the murders (in a neighborhood that had recently disbanded the Neighborhood Watch because there was no crime…).

There were the three Pittsburgh police officers that were ambushed by a gun-nut who thought Obama was going to take his AK-47 (which had previously been illegal until former President Bush decided that automatic machine guns were guaranteed by a 235-year-old constitutional amendment and let the assault weapon ban lapse).

There was a man outside of Tacoma, Washington, that shot his family of five because his wife was allegedly going to leave him… the list goes on.

Gun violence has become such a part of American life that I think we forget just how absurd the idea of arming citizens really is. Nor do we realize the effect this has on our collective psyche.

A couple of weeks ago, I was inside a DVD-rental store in my neighborhood of Mumbai. As I gazed through the lack-luster selection of titles, a heated argument broke out between a service clerk and a customer. The customer was shouting irately, berating the clerk for God-knows-what (it was all in angry Hindi).

My first instinct was to move away – part of my subconscious was even considering where to duck if he pulled a gun.

And then I realized that my reaction was a product of growing up in America where gun violence is commonplace. We Americans are so used to shootings that when a fight breaks out, our first instinct is to protect ourselves because “who knows who’s carrying a gun.” None of the Indians in the store were worried; in fact, they got closer to watch the argument. Why?

Because you can’t just “pick up a gun” in Mumbai.

Allowing Americans to “pick up a gun” has created a dangerous society – one more dangerous than many of the locations in the world that our own government tells us to avoid with their color-coded terror warnings.

Metropolitan Mumbai has about 20 million people, comprised of all kinds of races and religions. In 2007, Mumbai experienced 228 homicides.

The San Francisco Bay Area, which includes more than a dozen large cities, has about 7 million people. There were 358 murders in the Bay Area in 2007.

That means that Mumbai had approximately one murder for every 100,000 people in 2007. The SF Bay Area had one homicide for every 20,000. Five times higher.

What is the cause? Are Americans simply more violent? More aggressive? Are we, by nature, more murderous than other people of the world? Doubtful.

The simplest explanation is also the most likely: America is dangerous because we have flooded our country with guns – not only at Big 5 Sporting Goods, but in our movies, TV shows, and popular culture. Watch an American action movie and keep an eye out – we revere guns so much that they get a solo close-up in movies so that we can admire them without things like actors getting in the way.

While the U.S. government warns Americans that terrorism is a threat to their way of life, they have effectively distracted us from the real threat. Sadly, we have accepted these mass shootings as a “way of life.” Columbine, Virginia Tech, Binghamton, and so many countless others that we have already forgotten.

When we are so good at destroying ourselves, why would any terrorist even bother trying to attack us?

Then again, maybe the terrorists have already figured this out. After the Binghamton attack, Pakistani Taliban leader Baituallah Mehsud publicly claimed he had ordered the shooting in retribution for US drone attacks. It’s not a good sign when Taliban terrorists are eager to claim responsibility for our own actions.

We are killing ourselves, and we’re only able to inflict such mass casualties because of guns.

It’s not like we are seeing a rash of mass stabbings (yet there are plenty of knives available). There aren’t any epidemics of mass strangulations (everyone has hands). Americans aren’t walking into their places of work and covertly mass poisoning co-workers (yet dozens of cheap household chemicals are available). But with guns, death has never been more efficient - or acceptable.

And yet our leaders look us in the eye and say “If some crazy lunatic decides to pick up a gun and go someplace and start shooting people, I really don’t have the answer how…[to] prevent anything like that.”

Binghamton’s police chief knows the answer. But in America's culture of guns and violence, it’s just not politically acceptable to say it.

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all