You are here: Home / Archives for Conflict
Cheap Cigarettes

Existential Threats and Trayvon Martin: The bumper sticker politics of fear.

April 14, 2012 By Firouzeh Afsharnia 4 Comments

The first season of the Trayvon Martin reality show is finally over. George Zimmerman is behind bars 45 days after the shooting of an unarmed African American teen-ager which snowballed into a national soul searching crisis as to whether Americans are closet racists.

Activists, celebrities and ordinary citizens stepped up to express their outrage and demand justice. Tweets from Justine Beiber and Spike Lee along with thousands of irate phone calls flooded the airwaves; and civil rights politicians like Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson came out to denounce the act as an egregious example of racial hate crime.  The Rainbow Push coalition held hands, singing “We Shall Overcome” and the “Million Hoodie March” rallied in cities across America.   In a short period of time, over 2 million signatures petitioned for the arrest of George Zimmerman who continued to invoke self-defense under the “Stand-Your-Ground” law, which expands the rights of citizens to use deadly force in any public space if they feel threatened – albeit by a small framed, unarmed, skittles chewing minor like Trayvon.

The law which has been promoted by the National Rifle Association and Republican politicians have now been passed in 25 States and since its enactment in 2005, “justifiable” murders have increased several fold – 36 in Florida, up from 12 just 5 years ago.  Had the other 24 been literally getting away with murder before the law, or are we getting jumpier as a nation?

Mayor Bloomberg says it is clear that the law has undermined the integrity of the justice system, made the country less safe, and that it is promoting a culture of impunity.  Others call it “kill at will” or “shoot first”.   The national debate is curiously timely considering the broader global context.

In the past ten years, since the attacks on the twin towers, the U.S. has been increasingly basing its foreign policy narrative on the concept of preventive and pre-emptive attacks.  Dick Cheney even went so far as to make a case for action with as little as one percent probability of a threat clearly ruling out leaving his house in case of encounter with a discarded banana peel – a fear many of us wish he had heeded. Over the course of the past decade what started as a deadly attack by a handful of non-state loosely aligned actors in New York City, has lead to the invasion of several countries, the death of hundreds of thousand, and the displacement of millions in the Middle East and beyond as America consistently “stood its ground”.

George Bush rightly stressed his war on terror was not anti-muslim; no more than the Trayvon Martin case is anti black.  Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and the proxy wars we wage in the horn of Africa and beyond are not about hate as much as they are about fear — fear that continues to get packaged and sold for political and economic gain by an increasingly violent America which uses violence as its principal currency as sure as it does its greenback.  We use violence as currency for entertainment, casually feeding it to our children in ever more brutal video games and demanding more of it in our movies — more than our European counterparts who seem to prefer sex – thanks to their Mediterranean DNA; and we use it as the prime currency to define ourselves as individuals whether at home, in our neighborhoods; or on the world stage by “standing our ground”, resolute and uncompromising no matter how asymmetric, intransigent and one sided our demands.

We nurture violence through the exploitation of fear by the right wing with links to a multi billion dollar arms industry which brings jobs to constituents who fund their Washington representatives to preserve their livelihoods; by the political machinery where each side postures as the more patriotic by being hardest on crime – hardest on terrorism; and mostly we nurture fear and violence by a disconnected public who gladly consumes the messages of a lazy and complicit media who mostly amplifies the conventional narrative of power without trying to reframe the conversation.

The Iraqi WMD wild goose chase quickly became “support our troops”; a multi billion dollar military expansion across the globe was sold as “peace through strength”; and the “war on terror” became the catch all phrase for the pursuit of all things evil by our heroic forces whose patriotism bars them from asking why.

The result is a polarized world with a clear “us” versus “them” narrative framed by fear, resolved through force. As the Trayvon Martin story plays itself on an endless loop on national channels, another round of “negotiations” to stop Iran from enriching uranium is taking place so that we may get over the election hump before bombing yet another country. Who knew election season could be so hazardous to your health.

As others more astute than myself have observed, and Mark Twain’s powerful reminder we choose to ignore, the rhetoric rhymes alarmingly with the argument for the Iraqi invasion – the mushroom cloud was it?  It is ironic how asymmetric “strength” can in fact lead to conflict rather than peace.  Even more ironic that the citizens of the strongest, most powerful country should be so ruled by fear that they should seek to eradicate even the smallest, most minute possibility of harm to the point that they would be scared out of their wits by a hoodie, or see a country with no evidence of a weapons program an existential threat to themselves and their ally who, between them, own over 8,000 nuclear warheads.

Barack Obama has successfully fended off an Israeli attack for the moment even as he embarks on non-starter negotiations, demanding the unreasonable even as he ratchets up “crippling sanctions” against 70 million Iranians.  Israel for its part is preparing for a strike by securing bases in Azerbaijan and unleashing AIPAC on the U.S. congress.

Following the tsunami of outrage against the injustice in the Trayvon Martin case, Mr. Obama finally broke his silence and offered this measured response:  “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.”

Mr. president, in this election season as you walk the fine line between your Nobel Peace Prize and your second term, consider seeing beyond color – beyond borders, to see every child, every where, as your own.

Filed Under: Can We Talk?!!, Elections, Iran, Israel, Middle East and Beyond Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Karibu Elections 2011

October 4, 2011 By Firouzeh Afsharnia 1 Comment
Lumumbashi_0002

“Good efternoon Madam, Mossieu; jumbo karibu and BON – JOUR!” The platinum blond, pudgy air hostess of the Soviet era Antonov charter welcomed aboard the assorted mix of ID dangling aid workers and peacekeepers as we walked up the rear cargo ramp, hauling our duffels and back packs.

“Good efternoon ladies and gentlemen; jumbo karibu. — and BON! JOUR!”. She clasped her hands enthusiastically, and with that last bit, dipped a dainty courtesy squeezing tighter in her polyester uniform.

This was my flight to Lumumbashi — 1,500 kms and two time zones later to South Eastern Congo, which means three stops, one plane change and two potential possibilities to get bumped off by someone more worthy on the U.N. roster list.

The U.N. flight from Kinshasa was Canadian owned and operated, starring a hip young male airhost with a slick hairdo and a stud in his ear. The Russian Antonov on the other hand, was to take us the rest of the way in the middle of the Congolese rainforest down close to the Zambian border after a delay of two hours on account of the weather.

“Jumbo Karibu …. No not there…..please to go all the way down…” She momentarily loses her hospitality grin and motions me unceremoniously down the narrow aisle. I look down the cramped walkway and low overhead where the rest of the passengers had been stuffed and instead point behind to several rows of open seats – one of them even with nice legroom.

“That — for VIP!” She snaps, somewhat to the delight of two Russian officers sitting comfortably in the roomy back and continues to usher me down the musty carpet where the co-pilot had now emerged to pack in the rest of the people and the luggage.

“I already looked down there. There is no room. I have a huge bag — see?” I hold up my oversized bag stuffed with the usual – camera, mosquito net, emergency light, first aid kit, rope, etc.

“He said no room?” Apparently referring to the co-pilot. “Don’t pay any attention to him. I tell you, there is room.” She points to a single empty seat next to an oversized man in camouflage and beret, holding his duffel on his lap.

”No. I think I will sit over there.” I reply feeling instantly claustrophic. I turn decisively and walk back toward the cargo rear where the two officers are sitting; in the process revealing the bold print on the back of my vest: International Observer.

“I think over here.” I sit down, shove my bag under the seat and fasten my seatbelt.

“Yes. Ok.” She says, suddenly very agreeable “No problem Madam”

Then she leans down and whispers quietly “How about over there?” She points to the super VIP row with the nice leg room.

“Jumbo karibu fasten seat belt have a pleasant flight.” She recites on auto pilot, then pauses for a moment. “I come back with some nice coffee for you.” She winks at me and walks off.

I stretch out my legs, stow my bag away and lean against the window. The rain begins to pour.

It has been five years since the last elections in Congo. The major opposition party which had boycotted in 2006 is back in full force and they have many followers where I am going. I stared hypnotically at the double wheels as the plane picks up speed, splashing the rain furiously and then takes off.

“Madam, Mossieu, Good efternoon. Jumbo Karibu and Bon Jour. Please fasten seat belt and yourself read the card with safety features in seat pocket. Our flight to Lumumbashi is one hour and half. Jumbo Karibu — Bon Voyage and Safari Njema.”

Filed Under: Story Talk Tagged With: , , , ,

Nine Years Later…

September 14, 2010 By Firouzeh Afsharnia Leave a Comment

A sigh of relief as the sun finally sets on this anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in New York.

Nine years ago as the smoldering images of the twin towers played over and over, we watched the world come together in grief and horror — from the streets of Tehran and Cairo to the white picket fenced middle class neighborhoods of American suburbia; men, women and children stood as one, lighting candles, holding vigils and mourning the victims. Some of us wondered if after decades of global conflicts, this could be the moment of transformation, the one catalyst that would make everyone stop and reflect what part they each played to make it possible.

Nine years later, as the steady crescendo of nonsensical rhetoric built up against the construction of a “Victory Mosque” and culminated in the organizing of the first “International Burn the Koran Day” by a Pastor of the DOVE World Outreach Center of all people, this year’s events were more reminiscent of a Carnival of the absurd featuring the likes of John Bolton, Sara Palin, Glenn Beck and other right wing crazies one of whom parachuted in from Holland at the last minute ostensibly to extol the virtues of Dutch tolerance by evoking the medieval language of the crusades pitting Good versus Evil, East versus West, Islam versus Christianity and Patriots versus … Liberals?

“No Mosque Here…” He chanted, still jetlagged from his trans-Atlantic flight.
“No Mosque Here…” The crowd repeated like sheep.

“We are opposed to the establishment of the Sharia law … replacing our constitution,” a matter of fact protestor earnestly explained as an Israeli flag flapped in the background.

“If they want a mosque here we should have a catholic church in Saudi Arabia,” was the logical conclusion of one who obviously knew nothing of the history of colonialism and the role that missionaries and churches played as the pioneers of western occupation all over the developing world.

“Go back to Mecca!”… “Kill them all!”

The entertainment value was simply superb – reality TV at its best. But I think we can safely conclude the catalytic moment of nine years ago has been squandered on a very different sort of transformation.

As protests turned violent in Afghanistan and Islamic centers were attacked in California, Texas and Tennessee, it became abundantly clear that no single group in fact had a monopoly on stupidity – each side one-upping the other, even as they invoked the name of God –- who, if he exists — must at this point be truly disheartened at how lowly he is regarded by his flock, who see him so powerless as to think he needs morons like them to protect his honor.

To be fair, masses will be masses; whether they rage in Persian, Pashtun or English, they can be deftly maneuvered against their best interests by leaders who — for reasons of political gain, misguided national interests, or more likely due to the prime time nexus of politics and media — create the context which creates divisions to make violence possible.

And so, for all the reasons above which collectively spell OIL and ELECTIONS, our elite — opportunists and politicians masquerading as journalists and patriots — found it more expedient not to take the 9/11 event as a soul searching exercise. Instead, they opted for a path of denial, fear mongering and self-aggrandizement; discounting any scrutiny, branding and packaging an existential war waged on a phantom empire that translated into a $75 billion a year massive intelligence counterterrorism escalation. With a name like the Patriot Act, dissent was conveniently institutionalized as un-patriotic. Bush and entourage could not have been clearer when they said, “You are either with us or against us.” How is that for fostering global understanding and cultural bridge building?

“Go back to Mecca!!”… “No Mosque on Ground Zero!!”… “New York will never become a new Mecca!” shouted the would-be mourners and protestors — an ironic stance, in light of the heavy U.S. military presence in Moslem lands and elsewhere. There are now over 1,000 military bases across 130 countries with a defense budget of $700 billion, placing the U.S. as the number one intrusive presence that would try the patriotic sentiments of any self-respecting sovereign citizen.

“This is not gonna be a religious Mosque. It’s gonna be for terrorists to learn how to do wrong to this country,” said an aging veteran with a visible look of pain, wearing a cap that said “Forever Proud”.

The question is: if a simple community center can be construed as a den of insurgency, what then are the hundreds of full blown U.S. military bases with thousands of troops behind surveillance cameras in barbed wire compounds in Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan; as seen through the eyes of their citizens.

Mr. Obama and his predecessor have been reaffirming that “America is not at war with Islam”. Maybe. But perceptions are everything — the causes for resentment many.

The following morning as the fallout from Koran-gate continued around the world, the news broke that three Palestinian farmers were shot dead by an Israeli tank in Gaza. Among the three were an old man of 91 and his teenage son. The Israeli forces said they were responding to “terrorist” threats. “Terrorist” — that post 9/11 “Communist” under whose cover scores are settled, land is usurped, rights are abused and injustices perpetuated, a process by which is created — real terrorists.

As I listened to the news, I wished for the same “unequivocal condemnation of a disgraceful act” that Hillary Clinton voiced for the Pastor’s actions, without that quick follow up that reasserts Israel’s inalienable rights to security and pledges unconditional support for the enduring “special relationship” of the US and Israel. Who knows. Maybe that would prove more effective than our multi billion dollar anti-terror campaigns. Maybe there is still time to make next year’s tenth anniversary a very different one.

And as far as the mosque goes — build it I say. And make sure to call it a Mosque. Don’t build it two blocks away, build it at the top of the World Trade Center once it is complete. Considering the crazy reaction to the burning of a few Korans, this could be the best insurance policy yet to protect against any further attacks.

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Can We Talk?!!, Middle East and Beyond Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Of Rapes and Reports: With friends like this….

August 30, 2010 By Firouzeh Afsharnia Leave a Comment

Last week was eventful for avid Congo watchers like myself. First – a story about the violent rape of almost 200 women in Walikale, a contentious territory where Congolese battalions and ex-genocidaire FDLR compete over control of local tin and gold mines. What was curious about this episode was that the gang rapes took place over a four-day period a scant 20 miles away from a U.N. base, which only learnt about the incidents ten days after they happened.

Also interesting was that the day the rapes began, U.N. alerted the humanitarian groups operating in the area to the presence of armed rebels in the precise location where the attacks took place implying they should have known and secured the area. So this further confuses me. Were they scared and stayed away? Or did they simply not care? This would not be the first time. When General Nkunda marched into Kisangani in 2002 and massacred over a hundred and sixty people; and then again in 2004 when Bukavu was practically handed over, hundreds of peacekeepers were present but remained in their barracks. There are other examples.

Predictably, the familiar expressions of “outrage” and “concern” filled the airwaves followed by the usual demands that “all parties in the conflict immediately cease all forms of sexual violence and human rights abuses against the population in the Democratic Republic of Congo;” – not that anybody ever cares or listens to these declarations. If there is any reception, the rebels are more likely listening to the lively sounds of Soukous on Radio Okapi to set the proper mood as they go about their daily pillages. This must be especially frustrating considering the U.N. recently redubbed its Mission a “stabilization” force, implying that the worse was over.

And then – the explosive U.N. mapping report was made public detailing gross human rights violations between 1993 and 2003 in eastern DRC. The report focuses on a ten-year period that includes an alphabet soup of violations against many different groups – Katangans against Kasaiians; indigenous versus immigrants; soldiers against citizens — but what has been singled out are allegations of gross human rights violations perpetrated by the Rwandan Army against the Hutu population in the Congo in 1996-1997. And it uses the G-word. It goes like this: “ …the systematic massacres of Hutus on Congolese territories which could be constituted as acts of genocide….only if proven before a court.” It’s non-committal – but just enough to be trouble.

Kigali is incensed to say the least, in light of the fact that nobody bothered to interview or get their side of the story, and have threatened to pull their troops from various peacekeeping forces like the Sudan. Hutu groups still in exile since the genocide and not able to return – for good reason I may add – are ecstatic! Finally, they say, the real victims are identified and the Tutsi hoax is revealed!

Notwithstanding the rightful pursuit of justice, and the need to avenge every man, woman and child who has been murdered in this greatest of all African wars, I wonder if the wider impact of this report on the ongoing efforts to bring peace and stability to the unfortunate people living in the region who happen to be still alive was considered.

That the RPA murdered thousands as they marched on, consolidated their power, then raided and closed the camps is no secret. The story was not given oxygen in international media in an effort to present a clear picture of good versus evil, to mobilize international aid and assuage the guilt of bystanders who failed to act in the fateful 100 days of the Rwandan Genocide and now needed to make amends. But the use of the word genocide to describe the ongoing aftermath of the hostilities in Congo, when according to its own admission, the report is “not based on the same standards of evidence as needed in an international court;…..lacking sufficient admissibility,” questions its wisdom and wonders if all the elements needed to contextualize such a conclusion has been taken into account.

The report refers to AFDL/APR/FAB, which includes a myriad of Ugandan, Rwandan and Burundian forces. Yet the Rwandan Army stands out as the main perpetrator. Furthermore, an allegation of genocide necessitates proof of a command structure with the intent to destroy in whole or in part an ethnic group – namely the Hutu population in the Congo. Was there in fact a master plan backed by the RPA to annihilate the Hutus in the Congo in 1996-1997? If so, how do we account for the peaceful resettlement of hundreds of thousands more with the help and facilitation of the RPA as attested by UNHCR and relief organizations at the time. Indeed if identification of Hutus and their extermination was part of the retaliation plan, why the subsequent push to eliminate all ethnic classifications from identity cards?

The Rwandan genocide happened under the watch of the resident U.N. Mission who failed to act due to incompetence, negligence and political expediencies of its member states.

As over a million fled the violence across the border, international relief agencies under the umbrella of the U.N. failed to act to prevent the replication of Hutu Power in Zairian camps blindly following mandates that treated refugees and criminals alike.

As Hutu Power slowly resurrected in the refugee camps under the loving care of the U.N. and international NGOs, they regrouped and mobilized into a new military force – the FDLR, who continued to terrorize and massacre the local population, frequently targeting Tutsis.

By 1996, FDLR and the Hutu government in exile were conducting routine raids across the border, mining roads, attacking genocide survivors, murdering witnesses and those willing to be repatriated all the while presenting themselves as the real victims and denouncing the 1994 Genocide as a Tutsi lie. Kigali’s repeated pleas to dismantle the camps fell on deaf ears. The relief mandate continued blindly for all the displaced, including murderers fleeing persecution for crimes of genocide.

“Dismantle the camps, or we will” — It was in part due to yet another in a series of failures of the international community that the Rwandan forces finally invaded.

After sixteen years and billions of dollars spent, FDLR continues to be a menace in the region, arming and replicating, forming alliances with local warlords, militia and Congolese soldiers; making a living by killing and displacing civilians in order to maintain control of lucrative mining territories all the while presenting themselves as the victims of a Tutsi conspiracy and demanding to negotiate with Kigali.

At a time the U.N. is fixing to leave the Congo, this report comes to them as god sent, inadvertently providing much needed leverage to present the FDLR as the protectors of the displaced Hutus and as viable negotiating partners to Kigali – imagine — war criminals newly legitimized as victims by an official report of a respected international organization.

Going back to the recent rapes, the U.N. spokesman mentioned they were not informed; they did not know. It appears that the U.N. patrols twice passed through the main village where the mass rapes took place and still no one told them anything. Congo’s top U.N. official, Mr. Meece said he “could not explain the villagers’ silence” perhaps it was cultural shame, perhaps a fear of reprisal.

I think that after so many years of let downs by local and international authorities, perhaps they thought, what’s the point.

Filed Under: Africa, Can We Talk?!!, Congo, Rwanda, United_Nations Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,