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

Distortions Of Progress

All too frequently, the media sensationalizes non-stories as they attempt to whip up anti-Islamic fervor in the name of ratings. FOX News ran a story headline Sunday: “Islamic Law’s Influence in America a Growing Concern.”

What exactly is the concern? Apparently, some taxi drivers in the U.S. decided not to carry passengers with alcohol, a university installed taps for Muslim worshippers to wash their feet before prayer, and a company decided to give their employees a holiday on Eid.

Yeah – real issues to worry about – I don’t know what our free country is coming too when taxi drivers can choose their passengers, a public school helps guarantee freedom of worship, and a corporation acknowledges all religions. That certainly isn’t why our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights.

This perception of Islam has distorted what the American public views as progress. The media has over-simplified our goals, presenting the idea of a Muslim woman who removes her veil as “progress.” That’s not progress. That’s just a different culture.

I was once propositioned by a woman under a powder-blue burqa on the streets of Kabul. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the veil that was keeping her in a state of prostitution.

Progress would be if that woman had access to affordable medical care. Progress would be if her children had access to free schools. Progress would be if both she and her husband could earn a living wage. Progress would be if their villages weren’t in danger of being bombed by U.S. drones or held hostage by Taliban insurgents.

Progress would be growth. Progress would be peace. Progress would be a future. Who gives a shit about a veil?

President Obama’s “new” Afghan/Pakistan strategy has the same simplistic view and lacks any fresh ideas as to how we can combat the roots of extremism. Instead, his “new” strategy is simply super-sizing the mistakes of the past 8 years and attempting to reframe the issue with new euphemisms.

The so-called “war on terror” (now renamed, in true Orwellian fashion, the “Overseas Contingency Operation”) continues to view civilian deaths – collateral damage – as acceptable. We continue to fund Pakistan’s military despite knowing that elements of Pakistan’s intelligence forces are supporting Taliban insurgents.

Meanwhile, America keeps trying to convince Afghans, Pakistanis, and other Muslims in developing countries (or occupied territories) that we are just trying to help; yet we refuse to let them help themselves. Islam is always seen as part of the problem – not part of the solution. For nearly a decade, we have attempted to justify our own failures and distract those working for global development by pointing a finger at Islamic piety.

And this is where we have doomed ourselves to failure.

There are so many partners that could help with real progress, but too many of them have been labeled as “too Islamic” and thus a potential enemy. Islam is (like all major religions) built on charity, and there are institutions within many Muslim societies that can act as a partner if given the chance. Unfortunately, our fear has kept us from trusting anything that looks, talks, smells, or even hints at being “Islamic.”

The Indian state of Gujarat is an example of what Islamic organizations can provide if given the opportunity. The city of Ahmedabad was torn apart in 2002 by ethnic and religious riots. (I won’t get into who started it, because like so many other conflicts, it really doesn’t matter. What matters is that a small event escalated and thousands of people were affected.)

After the riots, some of the Muslim population in Ahmedabad was left without homes. Islamic charities stepped in to help. Even orthodox political institutions, like Jamaat-i-Islami, the Pakistani Islamic party with links to militant groups, came to the rescue of the displaced community. They helped reconstruct old homes, set up new schools, and built new communal housing for resettlement. The underlying fear in the Indian government was that the Islamic influence would filter down and create a more conservative, rigid community.

Seven years on, Jawaharlal Nehru University anthropologist Dipankar Gupta writes that fears about rising Islamic fundamentalism have proved to be unfounded. The Islamic institutions have not tried to implement their brand of fundamental religion, but have simply worked to better the lives of Gujarati Muslims.

“Did the [Islamists]…place conditions of a religious nature before they let people into these [resettlement] colonies? None, as far as the residents could recall…[N]obody was tested for orthodoxy before they were allowed in…

The truth is that neither Jamaat-i-Islami nor [other Islamic institutions are] keen on advocating fundamentalist lifestyles. They have no interest in sponsoring madrassas that teach only Arabic and the Quran. Instead they have set up schools that provide secular education…These schools are not a ruse for Islamic organizations, or clerics, to pump religious fervor into Muslim kids.

On the contrary, these Muslim institutions are clear that they want the boys and girls in their care to learn secular sciences and skills and heave themselves out of parental poverty. The curricula in these schools are so designed that they conform to the requirements of the state education board. There would be some religious instructions in these institutions, but they would be on the side, and a minor matter…

The accent is on turning out successful Muslims who can negotiate confidently in a secular world…

Where then is that fundamentalism that is supposedly breeding in the smoldering slums of Ahmedabad? In fact, if anything, it is just the reverse…”

The Obama administration has similar ready-made partners for reconstruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan. America (or NATO) cannot do it alone – and nor should they. Afghans and Pakistanis – and the religious values that are a part of them – need to be integrated into the very institutions that are seeking to help. We need to heed a lesson from the reconstruction of Ahmedabad and stop being afraid of utilizing Islam in development.

But gaining support for such an idea first requires something from the media. We need a media that focuses on true progress instead of culture. We need the anti-Islamic fear-mongering to stop.

We need a media that presents Islam for what it is and what it should be – part of the solution.

Now that would be a truly new strategy for the “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

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

Poppies and Pomegranates

There is yet another obscure way our government is trying to fight the so-called “war on terror” (besides actually stopping it).

Pomegranates.

Apparently these delicious (but ridiculously hard-to-peel) fruits are the key to fighting terror in Afghanistan and thwarting the Taliban. Unable to keep local Afghan farmers from growing the lucrative opium poppies, the U.S. government is now trying to convince them to switch to the [slow-growing and less lucrative] pomegranate crop to export to world markets.

Following U.S. Government logic, this would deprive the Taliban of their illicit drug trade – and without funds the insurgency would disappear (because, you know, the only reason they are terrorists is because they have illegal drug money…I mean, it’s not like there is a religiously extreme, petro-dictatorship like Saudi Arabia out there with a history of supporting the Taliban that could step in and keep the money flowing…).

As a matter of agricultural development policy, I fully support Afghans growing pomegranates and making a buck. It is a critical component of an integrated strategy for success and reconstruction.

But it can’t be in isolation. As long as we’re dropping bombs from 30,000 feet and are willing to accept “collateral damage” that Afghan and Pakistani villagers are not, buying every last pomegranate in Kandahar won’t matter.

First we must put aside the obvious economics behind supply and demand, principles of free trade, and international competition that would drive pomegranate prices down should a massive influx on world markets take place. There is also the fact that the trees only produce one crop a year (poppies produce two).


But more importantly, pomegranate trees take 4-5 years to mature before you can harvest anything. That’s a long-term investment in the future. What about America’s half-assed, infrastructure-lacking, non-reconstruction fund-having, short-sighted, ex-pat alcohol-drinking aid worker, undersized military force and their window-dressing, Euro-centrist, photo-op development projects would make Afghans think we have any intention on supporting something long-term?

The only reason we’re still stuck in a war in central Asia 7 years on is because Bush and his neo-con “do it on the cheap” CEOs-turned-War Cabinet ignored the Afghanistan problem, hoping it would just go away.

But what really pisses me off is that NBC News is regurgitating another Pentagon stunt about “how to fight terror” in isolation – a stunt whose sole purpose is to misdirect the American public’s attention from a comprehensive plan that can really win the war.

Let’s review the many ways our government has told us we can fight terrorism:

Go shopping

Surrender privacy rights

Shred the U.S. Constitution

Throw out habeas corpus

Rewrite the Geneva Conventions

Torture

Promote democracy and then actively sabotage it when you don’t like the result (see: Hamas)

Fund military despots around the world (see: Egypt, Pakistan, et. al.)

Veto United Nations Security Council Resolutions calling for Israel to respect human rights and international law

Rendition

Take off our shoes and go thirsty when traveling on a plane

Deploy a mercenary army with no accountability

Invade countries that didn’t attack us

Continue to placate the one that did (see: Saudi Arabia)

Lower the price of oil by “drilling now”

Refer to the enemy as “homicide bombers” but our own bombs as “smart”

Issue travel warnings to reduce cultural interaction

Color-code fear

Entrapment (see: Hamid Hayat, the Lodi “terrorist”)

Blame Al Jazeera and/or free speech for showing photos of people we killed

Build walls (in Israel or on the Mexican border)

Spend a trillion dollars on an unnecessary war instead of domestic development

Send more troops

Blame religion

Drop bombs on villages from remote-controlled airplanes

And now…Buy pomegranates

It seems we have tried just about everything – except the most obvious:

Stop killing non-white, impoverished Muslims.

With President Obama reshaping the US strategy in Afghanistan, I expected new ideas. Instead, he seems to be hoping that doubling-down on Bush’s failed tactics will suddenly and miraculously succeed. In his first three days in office, Obama decided to continue the policy of dropping bombs on Afghan and Pakistani villages from unmanned drones – a policy that has led to hundreds of civilian deaths and recruited thousands more for the Taliban’s cause. Obama has actually increased the frequency and number of drone attacks over the last month.

The media last week reported on Obama’s plan to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan as risky, noting for the historical written record that Obama was now making it “his war.” It’s hard to see how, after only one month, a guy can be responsible for a war after his predecessor fucked it up for 7 years…but I guess that must be the “liberal media” up to their usual tricks.

We’ve seen this tactic used against insurgencies before. Nixon didn’t start the Vietnam War – he just inherited it. But he was the one who decided that expanding the carpet bombing of civilians into Laos and Cambodia would win hearts and minds. Now Nixon is the man remembered for losing a war at the cost of thousands of American and millions of Southeast Asian lives.

The new American president needs more than pomegranates to win hearts and minds, much less a war. If Obama’s answer to the problem in Afghanistan is to drop more bombs and to try to crush an insurgency with military strength, it will be his legacy of failure. Not his war, perhaps, but definitely his shame.

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

Thanks for supporting AWOP TeamZine with a quick review when you click on our "Thumb This Up" button below.

Peace Y'all