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

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.

Separation: …of Films and Bombs.

Amidst talk of bombs and wars, a small Iranian film sweeps up the highest honors in western cinema.   Its unassuming director goes up on stage, faces Hollywood aristocracy and his voice, soft and humble flows across the airways reaching millions dedicating his golden statue to the good people of his ancient land.

The following day various sites hailed the event as an example of cultural camaraderie ignoring the threats of imminent strikes and annihilation red lines; and you tubes of Iranian families sitting spellbound in front of their satellite TVs, holding their breath to be ushered into the hall of fame by their archenemy, spiraled throughout the internet.  Once again it was clear — people will ignore the rantings of their politicians to come together in celebration of all that their humanity has in common while embracing diversity.

The Iranian PR machine predictably declared the whole thing to be a triumph over Israel – since the “Zionist Nation” was also competing in the same category. Well thank goodness for small nothings. That’s what I love about movies.  It can be all things to all people — and come Kodak day, those who lose can snub the whole thing as a meaningless self-congratulation exercise, while winners graciously fumble for words in front of a blank teleprompter basking in their two minutes of sun in front of Hollywood royalty. As for the peanut gallery, they can thank whomever they want.

I had heard volumes about the movie.  As it picked up awards from Berlin to France, Canada and the Golden Globes, I went to see it.  I found myself in a familiar place.  A place of my childhood. A place where I remembered so well that I felt I knew all the characters in their multiple layers with their emotional subtexts – It is every day Middle East where millions of lives negotiate the burdens of cultural obligations, economic hardships, faith, politics and thousands of years of complex history which has equipped them, above all, with the unique art of nuance – a multilayered capacity to cope, to reinvent, to thrive, even as they try to maintain a sense of integrity and social cohesion.

The story is set against the backdrop of an old man suffering from Alzheimer – like his native country sunken in a sense of oblivion, the old man meanders in the background, disoriented, helpless or asleep while the young Termeh, the future, convulses in the conflict between two poles — one who wants to leave, wishing for change – and another who wants to stay — out of duty, out of choice or simply, out of love because even if his father may no longer recognize him, that he nevertheless knows he is his father, knows this is where he belongs.

Our helpless background hero is entrusted to a devout religious caretaker who is going through her own crisis – financial and personal. A series of encounters pits characters against each other, testing the limits of truth, faith and duty in anticipation of a final verdict – will Termeh choose to go, or will she stay behind – like her country, caught in turmoil, the answer is hard to come by. As the credits crawl by, the audience is no closer to a resolution. The future remains uncertain.

Like any good story, the parallels between fiction and reality are skillfully crafted even getting a pass from the Iranian authorities who failed to put a finger on anything which could be construed as overtly political.   But of course it was.  How could one be from the Middle East and not be touched by politics. Hidden in between the crevasses of the personal stories, a larger story looms in layered subtext.

The triumph of the film was its brilliant ability to portray the multiple layers of conflict and heartbreak without commentary, without judgment – and despite the lies, deceptions – even a murder charge – no villain – just a complex set of personal predicaments juxtaposed on a larger canvas, crafted with details of human interdependence that at the end leaves the audience with a profound sense of compassion for each character.

The couple are estranged not because they reject one other, but for individual choices; the accused intervenes on behalf of his accuser; the prosecutor listens with concern and the devout character is taken beyond the current caricatures in the media to reveal a deep sense of morality, unable to swear on the Koran even if it could bring her personal gain. Throughout the story, a quest for truth runs like a silent witness, reassuring and ever present.

These days, when talk of war and binary choices seeks only to dominate and vilify, rather than approach and understand, the world is presented as a struggle between good and evil, each narrator posing as the custodian of truth – indivisible and uncompromising – as if competing to keep from understanding the other. The success of “separation” could be a nod to the humanity in all of us, which longs to bridge and empathize.

If only we could stop playing the polarizing roles we are so used to.

IRAN: News or Reality TV?

A stern faced broadcaster opens against a backdrop of military drums and bold captions: “ The Sum of All Fears”!    He goes on to speak of President Obama as the “Commander in Chief” – and announces that the  “conflict with Iran is escalating”.

A map of the strait of Hormuz, reminiscent of war room paraphernalia flashes, pointing to the “apparent provocation” by an Iranian vessel, which got so close to an American navy ship that the latter was “forced to fire flares” in response to the “hostile action”.

Then came the MSNBC report, which in an eerie echo of the run up to the Iraq invasion, opened with: “…now that it looks like Iran is actually trying to start a war either with the United States or with Israel…” and went on to ask his guest whether there was still hope for diplomacy even after the attacks against the Israeli diplomats in Georgia, India and Thailand.

All this alarmist talk may be great for TV ratings, and perfect consumption material for an audience who by now fear all things Middle East, but it raises serious questions as to the role of media in a democracy and their responsibility to provide unbiased account of all sides over public airwaves.

In fact, the hostile elements were small smuggling boats, hardly a match for an aircraft carrier, not belonging to the Iranian government, its military or even the revolutionary guards and acting on their own. It would be like bracing for war with the Somali government in response to the Somali pirates – although wait – did we do that?  – Furthermore, the details of the bomb blasts are still unclear despite the almost buffoonish episode in Bangkok which left an Iranian legless, so let’s not buckle up for war just yet.  Perhaps they were behind the blasts, why pick India, or Thailand as staging grounds and risk losing friendly allies in a shrinking network of trading partners. More puzzling — if they did mean to teach Israel a lesson for the assassination of their nuclear scientists, why not take credit?  i.e. what is the point of taking revenge if the “revengee” does not know where the blow comes from?  It would be like the loan shark letting the banana peel take the wrap for the broken leg.

Yet, the Iranians have flatly denied all three attacks in contrast to the Israelis who have remained silent on whether they were behind the assassinations of the Iranian scientists, much like their policy on whether or not they own nuclear arsenal.  Or whether they arm, fund and train the MEK, a terrorist organization, to conduct attacks in Iran – points which merely get a passing mention in the press, and have been drowned by the hysteria over Iran’s nuclear program — no real investigation, no indignation and most certainly no bold headlines demanding U.N. action.

It is not surprising that Israel should push for war in spite of its own best interest.  It is also not surprising that the likes of Lieberman and Graham should wish to rule out diplomacy and insist on a red line, sooner, rather than later, even as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirms there is no evidence that Iran has decided to make a bomb.    The US and Israel both have an interest in placating hard line elements in their administrations and of course, what could be better than war-talk to distract from real issues like jobs, economy, and illegal settlements in an election year.

The single-visioned focus on the nuclear issue has already sidelined the human rights tragedy and snowballed into “crippling” sanctions, tightening the noose on ordinary people.  Over 70 million innocent Iranians – men, women and children increasingly find it difficult to get access to basics, with staggering effects on health care, nutrition, education and basic livelihoods, rippling through years to come.   We only have to look to Iraq to see the devastating toll years of sanctions took as it impoverished and displaced hundreds of thousands even before Bush unleashed his war on “terror”.  It is ironic that the West should be repeating the same scenario and tightening the screws on millions of civilians in Iran, all the while rising up in protection of the same in Syria – as though civilians have ever been anything but tools of manipulation for politicians anywhere in the world.

One thing is certain.   The days of the chivalrous state warfare are long gone and countries now work in parallel with covert operations, targeted assassinations, unmanned drones, proxies and contraband arm deals through third parties to accomplish their objectives.   They leave the justifications to the media, then brutally repress dissent or deftly horse trade on the Security Council to block opposition.  Iran is no exception, but let’s ask the right questions and hang blame at the door of the appropriate aggressor.

We live in a realistic world – and power seeks to consolidate, whichever its face and whatever its cost.  It’s the media we count on to give us the facts and hold each party to scrutiny.

Press!  Do your job!  This is news — not reality TV.

Autumn in Africa

Last night in Dar es Salaam — the electricity is out again. If I have to pick just one advantage to having a power outage, it is that the megaphone at the corner mosque is also out and the tone deaf mullah who has been wailing the praises of Allah in some unidentifiable key all month long and at all hours of day and night, can not interrupt the program on the TV which comes back on as the generator kicks in.

The 66th U.N. General Assembly is in session as the political congeniality pageant of 193 Heads of State make their ways up the podium taking turns to out brilliant each other. Some do it through substance, some through controversy, a few even via comic relief. On that third note, those of us who remember Mr. Ghaddafi’s incoherent ramblings last year, muttering and throwing his notes about up there, surely miss him. That just means Ahmadinejad had to perform for two this year which he obliged by delivering an abundance of largely recycled material from previous reruns, taking the snoozing half empty hall from the beginnings of humanity through slavery, colonialism and the Arab Spring; blaming the U.S. for everything since the time of hunter gatherers to today’s debt crisis, finally culminating with the brilliant conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Did no one tell this man that the people of the country hosting him just marked the 10th anniversary of this event with a thousand tears a few miles down the road? He did make some valid points however, among which was a show of support for Statehood for the Palestinian delegation, whose members were probably cringing by the time he was done. Do us a favor – don’t help!

To be fair, last year has been so saturated with disasters, both divine and man-made, that it is tempting to dish out blame, especially in light of the ongoing global economic crisis and the Middle East unrest – both of which beg to implicate the U.S. and the West. But it isn’t until Mr. Ouattara, the newly elected president of Cote D’Ivoire, takes the stand that one is reminded that away from the focus of the media, Africa is having one of its most challenging years with 27 countries going through some form of elections in 2011. Liberia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, DRC….the list goes on. If you think of U.S. politics as Reality TV, starring fluff-brained Tea Party activists, penis texting politicians and shameless special interest lobbyists; African politics can play more like a Hollywood action blockbuster — the slightest election mishap risking a spiral into mass murder, serial rape and humanitarian disasters.

Mr. Ouattara himself succeeded the presidency only after a military intervention by the U.N. and French special forces; the Kenyans have three senior officials on trial at the Hague as we speak, as for the Congo — Elections are still two months away and one of the aspiring opposition candidates is already sitting at the International Criminal Court – has been for the past two years – for crimes against humanity.

So forget Ahmadi. He is a has-been. The only reason he is still in the news is because he looks funny and his name occupies the same sentence as the words “nuclear” and “Islamic”. The real powers are the infinitely less colorful Ayatollah and his extended Mafia network. But they are nowhere as entertaining I agree.

I wonder instead how Africa will emerge after its series of elections this year. The power shortages are not an anomaly in Tanzania and East Africa. Climate change, rising cost of living, and endemic corruption are systematically eroding livelihoods, and the election season is presenting infinite chances to divert badly needed state resources to campaigning and politics instead.

As my plane descends into Kinshasa, I see the capital city of 8 million largely swallowed in darkness except for a few clusters of light here and there – an incredible sight given it lies along a river capable of supplying electricity to the whole continent.

President Kabila is out of the country giving his own speech at the General Assembly, touting his accomplishments and hoping repeated broadcast of his appearance in the mother of all institutions would boost him in the polls back home. There have already been violent clashes with the opposition and campaigning has barely begun. Meanwhile, the logistical preparations of the election is seriously behind schedule and if it lapses the current government loses legitimacy in a matter of days potentially opening a free for all.

It may be premature to hope for an African Spring for fear that the cultural weather patterns may not yet allow for it. But if you find yourself overwhelmed with the mess in the Northern Hemisphere, tune South this Autumn and keep your fingers crossed that Africa will survive the growing pains and at the very least it will emerge no worse off than it did a year ago. Considering the present odds, that would be an accomplishment in itself.

Meeting Sam: Journey to the Source of the Nile

I am back in Jinja – the source of the Nile.  From here it snakes up Uganda through the Sudan, joins up with the Blue Nile crossing Egypt and finally pours into the Mediterranean. This is also where Idi Amin threw in the corpses when he went on a rampage against the Indians in the 1970’s.   They say that’s why there are so many Marabous; surreal! — Enormous storks with scavenging beaks, long shriveled necks and balding heads just lounging atop the trees, feasting around garbage dumps, sweeping down from rooftops with their giant black wings extended like some omen and multiplying in plain sight.   It is as if elephants suddenly began to fly along 5^th Avenue and no one batted an eye.   

“What was that word you said?” Sam leans over from the passenger seat.

 “Dali-esque.” I reply. “I can’t believe these creatures in the middle of the streets. It is like I am in a Dali painting.”  

 He bursts out laughing.  Sam Tushabe is my friend — an easy mannered, round shaped Ugandan with a perfect set of teeth eager to march out every time he smiles, and who is happy to break into a hearty laugh at the slightest encouragement. He puts one hand on his chest, throws back his head and belts out an infectious laugh that comes in installments – as if the more he thinks about it, the funnier it gets.  Recently, he has taken up wearing a hat.  It suits him. He cocks it just so, head inclined, large African toes sticking out of his sandals – he peers out quietly, multitasking on his two phones and networking with the hundreds of supporters and friends he has met along the way. Thank goodness for them 3G apples!       

Moses is Sam’s driver — skinny guy with a fringe beard and a cap. He says his mother chose the name because it was an important one.  Not like the one his father wanted — ‘Steven’. 
“Steven?! No. You look much more like a Moses to me.”  I assure him.  
”I know!” he beams, glancing quickly at the back seat as he rumbles over a pothole. “People tell me that all the time.”  He says it the same way my Persian friends do when someone compares them to ‘Italians’. 

He turns into a dirt road alive with the morning bustle interrupting the cackle of a large rooster who runs across for dear life as Moses parts the way.   Fruit vendors, rickety wooden shacks selling first world disposables and second hand consumables line the narrow street. Assorted kids, some half naked others in faded mismatch, run behind the car and wave furiously as we pull into a small compound. A flock of small children in bright yellow suddenly spills out.   They all want to shake hands and take a picture, each pushing the other with their school satchels to be in front. They almost knock me over. They are irresistible and I oblige as best as I can.   Inside — a room full of women – 20 or so — each with a sowing machine sitting in rows, like a class room.  They bolt up instantly as we walk in and begin clapping in rhythm.   The teacher looks a bit like Cesaria Evora, only thinner. She sits at a slightly larger desk stacked with samples – shirts, shorts etc…   

 This is one of Sam’s projects – an empowerment center for single women.  So many single women heading households full of orphans; so many orphans on their own heading household – orphans of parents, victims of AIDS.   

Sam Tushabe

I first met Sam in a Masters program at the American University in Washington DC.  He posted his graduation picture online – cap, gown – the works; clasping his diploma in front of the School of International Service. Knowing his story now makes it all the more remarkable for all the stars that had to be aligned to make the improbable possible.  

We are touring his projects in a minivan bearing his logo – it is a map of Africa with the letters: AOET – It stands for Action for Empowerment.  I know. The “O” doesn’t quite figure but the energy of the circle does!  

 Sam’s father disappeared long before, like so many fathers in Africa. His mother carried water for pennies and sold fire wood sitting on the side of the road.

“We had nothing — nothing!”  He shakes his head. She died of AIDS when Sam was only 13.     

“The last year of her life all I did was turn her in bed — and then turn her again. She was in so much pain.” He said all the friends from his generation are also gone, as well as his sister.   This is devastation on the scale of the Genocide that took place next door in Rwanda, except that HIV/AIDS took their lives slowly, painfully and over many years sucking every family resource on its way.    At the height of the crisis Uganda had almost 40% infection rate before Museveni mobilized a national campaign. Over two million orphans were left behind; many of them also infected with AIDS. 

“Making coffins was profitable business here.”  Says Sam.  

I count: eleven graves in the back yard at one house.  Here lays the brother; the father; the mother; daughters one by one – leaving behind only a ragged grandmother with one surviving daughter and eight barefoot children  — many of them HIV positive.  

“Oh Moses!”  I beg our Moses as I stand in respect, “We need a miracle here?” 

Namokose Suleina lives with seven children, only two of them biological.  Her husband died of AIDS and she gradually inherited child after child as their parents perished.  AOET provides them with schooling, food, supplies and free health care. She is a graduate of the women’s center and has been given a sowing machine as a start up kit and a contract to make school uniforms for AOET. That is how he completes the circle — the “O” in the AOET.   She wants Sam to run for President.  

Sitting under the tree and surrounded by her extended family she goes on and on about Sam’s organization.  I don’t understand Luganda – but her smiling face, arms that keep coming together in an embrace and the word AOET…AOET need little translation.     

One of the children — Joel went to America with Sam.   He left a cripple and came back walking.   They could not believe it.  Shakira is the youngest – perhaps nine or ten and both of her parents died of AIDS. She sings and dances for us.   

When his mother passed, Sam resorted to the only thing he knew – carrying water and selling firewood.  He saved his pennies in a box. His mother had made him promise on her death bed he would go to school.

“But how was I going to go to school at 13, if I had not been able to go when she was alive?”  Still — he kept on saving until he had enough.  

“It took two and a half hours to get to school each way.  I walked part of the way – then ran part of the way.”  He was so much older they called him grandpa! He didn’t care. He got top marks and soon he was ready for high school.

“But this one was a boarding school. Every child had to bring his own mattress and there was no way I could afford one.”  He begged the school master to admit him anyway. He slept on the floor. Sam studied during the day, cleaned classrooms after school and learnt other skills to pay his way.  He says in life you have to work for everything.  

“Even by African standards my mother did the lowest job, but I never saw her beg. It was just not an option.”    

As Sam pushed ahead, the universe opened doors and his stars slowly aligned. He got a job in a local NGO, then applied and was admitted to the University of Kampala.  

Then something incredible happened.  One night in Nairobi he saw a six year old girl on the streets, rummaging through garbage.

“First I thought she was crazy.  Or disturbed.   But when I looked closer I noticed there was nothing wrong with her.  She was just hungry and lonely. I started to cry.  I thought — a six year old alone going through the trash – no child should be living like that.” That night something shifted in Sam.  

Three weeks later he met an old woman who had taken in eight children whose parents had died of AIDS.  She had just come across a ninth abandoned child and was desperate to give it away because she did not have the means.  That day Sam sponsored his first child and in the next few years he took on more children.  By 1999 he was taking care of 20 orphans on his own, supporting them through odd jobs and painting souvenirs at tourist points.  He had found his life’s calling.

 

In 1999 AOET was born and by 2001 Sam had 140 children under his wings – the first 60 funded entirely by his paintings.    

“I would stand at the source of the Nile where Speke stood and paint the landscape.   Tourists loved it. I painted through the night.”

Today he operates in Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Botswana and Zambia. He has built health clinics, schools, women’s vocational training and empowerment centers.  His clinics are stocked when government facilities are empty and his primary school ranks 10^th among 500 in his district.  He provides school lunch – often a child’s only meal in a day; and shuttle transportation so no child has to go through what he did. He has over a thousand children and hundreds of women in his programs and the whole town knows him. He is the real deal – I call him “Uncle Sam”, I agree with Namokose. He should run for office.      

“No.  I do more good this way.” He says after he stops laughing. 

Unlike so many in the aid “business” with large overheads or bloated bureaucracies, Sam’s projects are all substance.  He draws a meager salary, drives an old car and expects ‘heart’ from his team.  No air conditioned land cruisers or fancy offices for this bunch.  I wondered about a strange contraption standing in the school yard next to an unfinished wing. 

”Oh, that is a brick making device.  We discovered we could save 40% on the construction cost if we could make the bricks ourselves.”

He spends endless days and nights driving across many lands, telling his story to whoever will listen so that he can do more for his children.

“I want to do big things for my country.” He says.   “The biggest tragedy is not to be able to dream. That is what is wrong with my continent. We have forgotten how to dream.” 

One more thing: he has divested himself of a veto, his organization is decentralized and managed by consensus – how is that for breaking stereotypes in Africa. 

I ask the women I have met to close their eyes and tell me how they see the future.   Invariably they speak of a hopeful future for their children but fear the rising food prices. 

I ask the children he has sponsored what they wish to be when they grow up and it does not surprise me to hear that so many want to be nurses or doctors.  They all speak English. Mary wants to be a surgeon; Emmanuel an accountant; Vincent a bank manager, his brother a water engineer – a reflection of the realities on the ground – disease; poverty and lack of infrastructure.

 Abel wants to be a pilot. “I want to drive the President.”   I assume he means Museveni.

“I hate to break the news,” I tease him, “but he probably already has a pilot who ‘drives’ him, but you never know.  He may fire the other guy and take you on.” 

Akello also wants to be a doctor. She writes her name for me with her left hand: Akello Mercy. She is beautiful – perhaps twelve or thirteen – a perfect juicy face with shaved head, raised cheeks and a smile that would bring out the sun.

“She’s left handed;” Moses whispers the obvious in my ear.   

“Did you know President Obama is also left handed?” I ask; then realize she doesn’t need Obama for inspiration. Sam is setting the example here.

Later I thought about Sam’s comment. Perhaps this is the reason one forgets to dream.  It is the loss of hope. Hope – that elusive commodity that fuels all things alive. 

They say when Pandora opened the box, she let out all the woes of the world – hope is the one thing that remained intact so that man could go on living.  

…and this is Sam’s gift to his children – the gift of hope.

 

see original post on www.conflicttalk.com

“… in the mood for philosophy?” the Devil asked.

Barely six months into 2011 and I can hardly stand the excitement.  The Arab Spring; the crumbling of the peace process; elections across Africa followed by…well…. massacres across Africa then followed by unprecedented international interventions – not to mention the hunt down of the number one “Wanted” man in the world much to the dismay of warmongers who will now have to brand and market super monster 2.0 to keep their jobs in a multi billion dollar industry.

Some have quietly retreated to that beautiful Saudi oasis, otherwise known as the Club Med for dictators, while others have held on, teeth clenched and knuckles white, chanting Al Queida …Al Queida …Al Queida, so as to scare their western “partners” into throwing more money and reinforcements to protect them against their…uh… own people.

As a startling twist in story line, the US has abandoned a few long time allies to stand with the demands of the street while refusing to speak up in other cases leaving some to scratch their heads hoping for a surprise ending and others to cry: “hypocrite!”

More confusing — past revolutionaries have turned tyrants against their own people while supporting the cause of the oppressed and the downtrodden abroad blurring the lines between the good guys and the bad guys.

Is the world going through enlightenment pains, shifting old paradigms as it strikes a balance between self-centric interests and the need for global justice, or is this all just a cynical recalibration by the same players to preserve their interests by other means.

I find myself also on the sidelines scratching my head, searching for an answer amidst the madness. Where I wish to take a clear stance, I see instead equivocation as the only truism emerging from the chaos where good and evil seem to morph into one another as companion actors in the same theater defying clear judgment and confusing efforts to pin down a culprit.

Here is the question I see emerging from the chaos:  What is good and what is evil? In a Hobbesian world of existential threats and realistic responses how does the globalized new order craft its righteous narratives tempering human rights, strategic interests and international law to respond to future challenges that continuously test national, legal and moral boundaries.

Can an act in itself be defined as good or evil?  To kill or not to kill for example.  Is the killing of civilians in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan as a result of drones as heinous a crime as flying any other lethal oversized object into say… the World Trade Center, annihilating almost 3,000 innocent lives? Or is it rather the rationale behind the act that determines its nature: i.e. shining the light of democracy into the furthest corners of the world –  by force if necessary; versus instilling divine tenants of right and wrong upon the same –  also by force.

Is this a debate surrounding the merits of one rationale versus the other, irrespective of the means to the end and if so, how does one temper the cause of democracy versus the word of God, both mortal interpretations of human constructs, both collective responses to increasingly complex social challenges of their time, neither one having delivered a just world to its disciples.

In spite of the alleged flatness of the world as perceived by neo-liberalists, free market positivists and other know it alls sitting in the West; is it not arguable that while Western paradigms of democracy have lifted many out of poverty, they have also increased disparity, leading many more into dead end situations of slave labor and exploitation, exposing them to new forms of colonialism – effectively co-opting democracy as a tool of consolidation of power for the powerful in a world of finite resources.

Or is it the intention behind the rationale that determines the ultimate essence of an action. Do the proponents of “just wars” advance their armies under the banner of democracy knowing that they have ulterior political and economic motives?  And do the Jihadists send their children to meet the welcoming virgin maidens in heaven knowing they are being used as pawns in their virtual empires?  In other words — does power subconsciously internalize its intentions as just and good or can it hold within itself the cognitive dissonance that its actions run contrary to its words – that its designs may be less than noble, serving only its own survival.   In which case, passing judgment would be a piece of cake – Chocolate at that!

To draw on recent controversies: Did the neo-cons invade Iraq under the pretext of a lie to secure the oil fields for domestic political gain or did they seize upon an opportunity to rid the world of a brutal dictator and secure a strategic region for the global good?

Do the likes of Mubarak and Saleh cling to power for the obvious benefits of one man rule, or do they truly believe in the imminent threat of state fragmentation resulting from ethnic struggles and Islamic fundamentalism? Or my personal favorite — Is Netanyahu haunted by the primordial trauma of Jewish persecution when he infuses every speech with references to the holocaust, or is he purposely manipulating Western guilt in order to maintain his fragile coalition with the hardliners in the Knesset?

Here’s more: Did Laurent Gbagbo refuse to relinquish power because he truly saw himself as the last line of defense between Ivorian sovereignty and French neo-colonial aspirations, or is the prospect of stepping down as the number one man of the world’s largest cocoa exporter in favor of a professorial position in the freezing cold at Boston University just not an option. Seriously — Boston?

At the risk of receiving hate mail from my Persian compatriots: Does the Islamic Republic view itself hero to the forgotten ranks; to the poor and the destitute in Africa; and to the oppressed in the occupied territories — in the process willing to exact a small sacrifice in the interest of Islamic solidarity from their “spoilt” bourgeoisie?

In other words, do internationally recognized evil doers see themselves as such?  Parallel narratives in their own worlds sing a very different tune to that of CNN, TIME and CNBC. The lack of support of the African Union for the NATO engagement against Gaddafi and the indignant chatter on African social networking sites means that at least a large swath of his own continent views him as a pan Africanist — a nationalist hero!

If the Gaddafis, Bashirs and the Mugabes of the world view themselves as patriots standing against outside aggression, how then are they different from the Rumsfelds, Bushes and of late – the Obamas of this world.  Does it matter that the former wage wars against their own people and the latter against citizens of others, both claiming righteous intentions? Does it matter that hundreds of thousands died of famine to keep Mugabe in Power, versus hundreds of thousands who died of disease and malnutrition as a result of sanctions — to dislodge Saddam? Or that the people of Tripoli will die so that Benghazi will survive?

Does evil know it exists? And for justice to be served — should punishment come as a consequence of intent?  I wondered about the original culprit.

God created the Devil and he was his favorite angel. God created Man and asked his favorite angel to bow before him.

“I am of fire and Man is of clay,” said the Angel of Light, refusing to bow. “I claim allegiance only to you.”

Signed:  Yours Truly Not Religious at all.

De-Nial: a River in Egypt

“Israel would never pull back to its 1967 borders.” There you have it — straight from the horse’s mouth. After decades of two step tango around multi version road maps drafted by peace players of all walks – quartets, duets, dissonant coalitions and tone deaf power brokers — what has always been evident to the rest of us is now out in the open in the official chambers of power. Israel has no intention of giving anything back. So there!

“Peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle East reality,” Says Netanyahu. Its good to know that if you are going to be robbed by a professional thief, at least he is an amateur poet at heart.

As years of pent up pressure erupts across the Middle East, it is becoming clear to most that business as usual is unsustainable — that you can oppress some of the people some of the time, but you can’t choke off their oxygen all of the time – at least not without a good deal of blowback. Call it jihad; call it activism, call it freedom fighting or terrorism. It is all part and parcel of a gradual spiraling of rational dissent left ignored that heats up and smolders into anger to finally erupt like a volcano, to consume itself and others. In other words it is called gravity. Not AIPAC, no right wing coalition, no veto wielding power on the Security Council, not even all the armies in the world can change that.

The policy makers in Washington are slowly coming to realize this fact and delicately attempting to re-engineer their traditional stance which has been consistent in its irritating superlatives with regard to support for Israel – no matter how badly it behaves — while marginalizing the most basic of Palestinian demands.

Just as over four million Palestinians languish under occupation, Mr. Obama feels the need to stress the “extraordinary bonds” between the US and Israel and to reassure Mr. Netanyahu of the “paramount” importance of Israel’s security while he must publicly demand an explanation from the Palestinian Authority for its decision to reconcile with Hamas — the democratically elected representatives of Gaza. Incidentally, as to who rains more terror upon the other – Israel or Hamas, we can reconvene on the next post.

Clearly however, the political machinery in Washington plays to a different tune – starkly out of step with the transformations unfolding in the rest of the world. Therefore Netanyahu can afford to be blunt in his rebuke of Obama’s speech which lays out U.S. policy with the 1967 borders as the baseline.

The Israelis are always blunt. It is a bluntness sanctioned by political realities that holds the president and the Congress of the United States accountable to the powerful AIPAC in consideration of 2-year and 4-year campaign cycles rather than to the American people or to responsible policy making for longer term considerations such as the Middle East peace process or the aversion of devastating human and economic costs of never ending wars in support of “strategic interests”.

The 1967 lines are “indefensible” he says. And why are they so? — because the Israelis have taken every possible opportunity to expand on what has clearly been ruled by International Court of Justice and voted every year by the General Assembly as part of the occupied territories. Every Palestinian objection whether peaceful, or violent – collaborative or combative – resistant or acquiescent has been taken as a window of opportunity to create facts on the ground, then grab more land to defend those facts on the ground.

Moses was not kidding when he said his were the chosen people – although I am not sure getting a pass on violating international law was exactly what he had in mind.

“Indefensible” will be the new buzzword, framing the discussion on Israel and Palestine from now on. It is just that vague and nuanced term that can be used to evoke guilt and to derail meaningful concessions while more land is grabbed. Vague enough and loaded enough for those with political aspirations not to dare to debunk it.

The nexus of the “special relationship” between the US and Israel is looking more like a junkie and an addict as one by one the family assets are sold off to support the habit. The difference being, the junkie is himself an addict – addicted to the short-term payoffs of US domestic considerations as Obama seeks re-election in 2012 and Democrats and Republicans vie for number one spot as to who loves Israel more.

Pathetic! — Especially in view of the on-going upheavals in the Middle East which should, if nothing else, act as a refresher course in geography that “Denial” is decidedly not a river in Egypt.

Good Guys and Bad Guys

Well. 2011 certainly started with a bang. I don’t know whether it is the winding down of the Mayan calendar, or the alignment of the astral bodies which has triggered the cascade of what some call events rivaling the fall of the soviet empire.

I have been permanently tethered to Al Jezeera. Not just because unlike its American counterparts, it offers actual news and in depth analysis – but because it does so from the front seat it occupies in the Middle East — a vantage point that has elevated its relevance as a news outlet almost overnight.

The Middle East, along its Arab fault line, has come unraveled in the most unpredictable manner, throwing off balance traditional entrenched interests, career revolutionaries, skeptics and analysts — and most of all those who have been lecturing democracy – seemingly because they never thought it might actually happen. The events have provided new narrative for a region which has been written off as forever seeped in retrograde notions of social contracts daring the more righteous among the international community to rise up to the occasion to match their eloquent speeches with action. They have also shown that revolutions need not necessarily be bloody, but that the longer power resists the lower the likelihood of peaceful transformation. There is a lesson in there for the Iranians. Pity they don’t speak Arabic.

At times there has been flair and intrigue, informing and educating with a dose of entertainment, even a bit of comedy – a perfect mix for live TV. You tubes of “Ga-Daffy” — as in the Duck — starring in Looney Tunes cartoon clips circled the internet delivering the ramblings of an incoherent leader calling his “beoble” rats and blaming Al Quaeda for the unrest. After all, invoking this name has had magical powers of protection against national insurgencies since the U.S. national trauma, mixed in with a dose of orchestrated patriotism created the bottomless fund for “terror” after 9/11.

“Is quaeda ….. is quaeda …. is quaeda…” he repeated again and again to Christian Amanpour, meaning — go and send reinforcements.

As the Libyans stomped on their green flags and shredded their beloved leader’s green manifesto, opposition movement took up the same color in Tehran to protest against their own once revolutionary government which came to power some thirty years ago under the auspices of standing up against tyranny. In a formidable move of double talk and hypocrisy bordering on multiple personality disorder, the Iranian regime was quick to crush their protestors with savage beatings while lauding the uprisings in the Arab world, even taking credit for having inspired them. Incidentally – in case anyone is interested, the Persian word for “Chutzpah” is “Porroo!” The Iranian champion of the underdog and self proclaimed voice of conscience – not to mention vision of masculine virility and style — expressed shock at the Libyan leaders crackdown and went on record to say “..it is unimaginable that someone is killing his citizens.” Unimaginable – Indeed!

It seems the lines between the good guys and the bad guys are getting increasingly blurred. After an initial prevarication, Obama and Clinton urged Mubarak – a long time ally and lynchpin of the Israeli “peace” process to step down. They have also spearheaded sanctions against Gadaffi, even voting to refer the deranged leader to the International Criminal Court in spite of not being signatories, while Chavez, Ortega and Fidel, traditional defenders of the downtrodden are urging restraint and standing with their ally based on the brilliant doctrine that my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

Like a bewildered deer caught in the headlights of global transformation, I eagerly anticipate the next installment of the social avalanche which has been unleashed, and for once, instead of opting for oppositional angles implicating Western intrigue, I am inclined to indulge in a wave of human optimism that is seeking to redefine previous narratives of power versus people. So, until the dust settles and I can see a bit more clearly, I opt to believe that some good things have come to pass, no matter what the dictates of real-politik.

I opt to believe that a more nuanced narrative of good and evil has emerged, that yesterday’s revolutionaries can be today’s tyrants once vested in power; and imperialist hegemons – yes even veto wielding ones sustaining double standards can once in a while come out in support of justice elsewhere and when they do, that could becomes impetus for further change. And that is a good thing.

I opt to believe that if Power can prolong injustice by co-opting traditional resources like the media and the Army, that the people can push back through the emerging powers of new technology and the consistent determination of the Street to remind their rulers who they are to serve. And that is a good thing.

I opt to believe that it is now clear that Moslems and Arabs are no different than other people on earth. They have the same aspirations and contrary to the rhetoric delivered by dictators and their sponsors, they are capable of peaceful pursuit of justice; that they hunger for liberty and equal rights and that violence becomes possible only when all other channels fail. And that is a good thing.

I also opt to believe that all of this is possible without looking towards the West for a sign of approval. Yes – the eyes of the traditional media are still fixed on what the White House has to say, but to those demonstrating in the streets of Cairo, Libya and Tunis it is the voice of from within that mattered – a sure sign that imperial determinism may have found its match. And that is a good thing.

At the end, I may eat my words. Perhaps behind the jubilating scenes of Tahrir square there is a plot to launch Mubarak 2.0 in collusion with the US trained Egyptian Army. Perhaps as we speak, Nato members are hunched over a sprawling map of the Libyan oil fields drawing lines with the same ruler that the Europeans used to carve up Africa in 1884. Perhaps the Shi’a in Bahrain will be bought off by Saudi money in lieu of political concessions to temper Iranian influence in the region and all of this may provide the pretext for a prolonged US presence in Iraq.

It is clear that the American ideals of democracy have traditionally run contrary to its strategic interests but perhaps it is becoming more apparent that pursuit of universal democratic gains necessitates forfeiture of individual interests, and that national security narratives must make space for human rights and justice — definitely a good thing.

By the way — After years of singular focus on Iran’s nuclear issue, to the detriment of support for human rights, announcement was made yesterday that the United States and Sweden are at long last working with the international community to establish an independent human rights monitor on Iran at the UN Human Rights Council.

Now that – my friends – is a very good thing

Egypt and The Israel Factor

Contributing Writer: Ahmed Salam
The attitude of Egypt’s future regime towards Israel has been a dominant theme on both ends of the commentary spectrum. The Arab masses (as articulated by both Islamic and progressive parties) expect swift action towards the annulment of treaties with Israel or, at the least, severing diplomatic and economic relationships. The Israeli government and ruling elite monitored the situation in evident apprehension weary of what’s to come especially if it was The Brotherhood. The United States government had the same fears (implied most of the time) joined by media pundits such as Walters and Friedman (who, after appearing apprehensive in DAVOS and urging Israel to sign with the Palestinians before the tide turns, opted in the end to embrace the democracy movement at Tahrir and postpone his fear). The Brotherhood spent the 18 days assuring the world of its democratic intent while (deliberately, and for reasons to be highlighted later) skirting the issue of the future relationship with Israel.
Best to look at this issue from the perspective of the newly reborn Egypt. The future government of Egypt is faced with a daunting task: Developing an efficient, self-sustaining, corruption-free economy capable of inviting foreign investment while untangling one of the world’s largest bureaucracies [meaning layoffs and unmasking the masked unemployment]. All of this entails multi-fronted battles and painful measures all being conducted under the gaze of 80 million, now-empowered, most likely impatient, watchful pair of eyes. This is an uphill battle that will deliver all future Egyptian politicians unto the temptation of waiving the “Down-with-Israel” campaign banner. The same banner that was waived by the military dictatorships that got the Arabs here in the first place.
Both (past dictatorships and future democrats) are full of the knowledge that no military solution to the issues with Israel is feasible. The Brotherhood is a stark example. Why would a spokesman dance around the issue of the treaty with Israel knowing full well how handcuffed Egypt’s hand is when it comes to annulment? Surely he was already thinking of future voters. Lacking a clear program of reform or, more accurately, the political will and courage to implement them, all politicians will change the “Israel is the enemy” slogan.
This is all not to say that Egypt will not take a stand against Israeli actions. It is natural for some of the democratic values that have come to the surface in Egypt to clash with Israeli actions. Egypt might also use its weight to tilt the balance of negotiations one way or the other. The overriding imperative will remain, hopefully, on putting Egypt’s house in order.
Written by: Ahmed Salam– Ahmed is a technology consultant; a global citizen who has worked and lived in the Americas and the Middle East.

From Tunis to Egypt: Democracy in Subtitles

A simple fruit vendor sets himself ablaze in the sleepy hinterlands of Tunis as he finally snaps under the weight of the injustice of his life — and overnight nothing is as it was before. Martyr turned national hero, his scorched body triggers a deep pool of imbedded resentments from Algeria to Jordan and Yemen; and finally hundreds of thousands explode on the streets of Alexandria and Cairo, demanding change, screaming for justice and telling their unelected leaders to go home. Enough!

Captions across the international press are calling it the Tunisian “virus” – like a disease that is slowly taking contagion, putting long corrupt regimes on notice.

Algeria promptly took measures to step up grain imports on the theory that revolutionaries are less inclined to revolutionize on a full stomach; and Libya’s Ghaddafi, himself a 42 year veteran of a corrupt rule has denounced foreign plots and Wikileaks for being behind the intrigues.

Within days the 23-year patronage rule of President Ben Ali of Tunis came to an end as he and his entourage packed their Vuitton bags and boarded a plane for Saudi Arabia. What is it about this desert kingdom that makes it such a popular destination for dictators on the run?

After unprecedented curfew defying demonstrations across Egypt, Mr. Mubarak came out to face his people, promising a new cabinet. The old one he says was defective — a fantastic position in view of the fact that he is the one making all the decisions.

The winds of democracy have started to blow across a region whose demographic profile is textbook for such movements – young, unemployed, repressed and reviling their leaders. No wonder Allah is so popular in that part of the world — which brings us to the delicate balance of all things Middle East: The U.S. – Democracy – Islam and the Peace Process.

The Obama administration is admittedly in an awkward position, negotiating the balance between support for their anchor leader in the region and … well — the people of the region. The choices are to either abandon an ally and risk being thrown to the Islamic wolves; or walk the talk of Democracy, even if for no other reason than to prove to whoever is still listening that Iraq and Afghanistan were selfless adventures in nation building. They would be lucky if El Baradei is allowed political space before things get too out of hand. More likely, in a region where El Baradei and the U.N. is interpreted as U.S. influence, that prospect may be a delusion entertained by the same people clueless enough to think leaders like Mubarak could be viable allies in fostering peace.

Mubarak like others before him is making all the predictable arguments about the proverbial “fine line” between chaos and freedom – clichés used by every strong man from the Shah of Iran and Pinochet to the present day Saleh of Yemen and the Saudi family to justify repression. More important, he is the appointed regional crusader on the war on terror. Leaders of his generation are cartoon cutouts from the cold war era, simply having replaced the word “Communist Threat” by “Islamic Fundamentalist Threat” and pocketing military and development aid to suppress domestic dissent under its guise.

Meanwhile – two very large elephants look on from the wings. Iran’s position is no doubt as awkward as that of the United States. On one hand the Iranians rejoice at the thought of toppling one of the “moderate” Arabs who supports Israel, who has a strong alliance with the U.S. and who despises their “Islamic” brand. Framing the uprising as such, they hope that the crumbling of the Egyptian regime could open up a floodgate for the Muslim Brotherhood allowing Iran to forge stronger ties across such movements in the region.

On the other hand however, the Iranians shudder at the angry street images that are reminiscent of their own Green uprising in the summer of 2009 and fear the inspiration and renewed momentum that it could bring to a dormant but very real movement.

Time is running out as the protestors get increasingly angry, some asking the U.S. to take a more defined position against Mubarak whose only wining card is to stress his special role as the great stabilizer and “fixer” in the Israel-Palestine conflict. But upon taking a closer look at the power dynamics which have emerged, and as amply clear by the release of the Palestinian Papers, the peace process has long been defunct – duly reduced to a perpetual episodic reality show whose only aim is to sustain the livelihoods of the actors involved through billions in U.S. aid, and to sell a few items during the commercial breaks.

The sole reason for existence of players like the Palestinian Authority and Mubarak is precisely to perpetuate the illusion of a “process” in an orchestrated melodrama where the final act leaves the audience hanging for the next installment. To understand this point is to realize that once the play is resolved, the function of the likes of Mubarak and the PA will be over and the actors will have to go home.

The most interesting and revealing comment yet comes from Israel who is forever boasting of the strength of its own democracy, asserting that it is the only such state in the region. Remarkably, the Israeli Minister interviewed on condition of anonymity expressed his confidence that the Egyptian leader would prevail and said that “the Jewish state has faith in the security apparatus of its most formidable Arab neighbor to suppress the street demonstrations.” He further added, “I’m not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through democratic process”.

Reading the subtitles on the concerns of all those involved, it makes one wonder — who is really not yet ready for democracy in the region.