A World of Progress TeamZine » International

Appeasement is a universal trait when it comes to leaders

Wil Robinson — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:01:50 +0000

I believe the word is “appeasement.”

Obama, after first making an allegedly “bold” stand on the Israeli settlement issue a few months ago (even though his “bold stand” was the same as every other president that came before him…) has caved. Given in. Cried ‘Uncle.’ Bent over.

Appeased.

Except when the U.S. government whimpers and admits defeat to the militant, colonialist, right-wing Israeli party – we don’t call that appeasement.

Hillary Clinton calls it Netanyahu making “an unprecedented step toward peace.”

Someone please remind me again why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

[...in Nairobi, a newspaper billboard knows Obama's policies differ from his character...see the headline on the left...]

East Africa isn’t fooled – they are used to leaders that surrender sovereignty and resources to other countries. Both Kenyans and Ugandans love their guy Obama, but they know there’s a difference between being proud of someone and agreeing with him.

It’s like the rock band from your high school that finally made it out of the local dives and onto the national stage with a record deal. You may be proud and brag about sharing a pizza with them “before they were famous.”

But that doesn’t mean you like their music.

Time and again, world leaders prove they like different music than most of us. They show that they have their own values that usually don’t coincide with ours. It matters little who the president/prime minister/legislator/dictator/Dear Leader is. It always boils down to the fact that elite leaders have more in common with other wealthy, elite leaders than they do with their own people. That means that heads-of-state are naturally willing to cede things to their fellow “elites” that most of us would never give up so easily.

In mid-October, the African Union held a special summit of the continent’s leaders to address refugees and displaced people. Presidents, ministers, ambassadors, and their high-ranking military bodyguards/lapdogs gathered at a luxurious resort on the shores of Lake Victoria in Uganda.

“]”]

On the last day, the pomp and circumstance surrounding the signing ceremony couldn’t hide some obvious facts – which one BBC reporter noted during the press conference. The journalist wanted to know why “all week we haven’t seen one refugee here at the conference.”

Good question.

Refugees across Africa, forced out of places like the Congo from decade-long conflicts, are isolated in guarded compounds. They have no source of formal income, are forbidden to leave the camp without government permission, and have no transportation. So I guess the refugees who might have wanted their voice heard at the summit weren’t really given a choice of attending.

And their “leaders” are discussing their future as if the government had nothing to do with the displacement in the first place.

How many people have fled Zimbabwe’s hyper-inflation, floundering economy, and human rights abuses directed against the political opposition?

Yet Robert Mugabe participates in the conference with, apparently, no sense of guilt.

Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, has been head-of-state for 23 years. When Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) collapsed in 1997, it was partly because Uganda (among other countries) sent in troops to overthrow Mobutu. Over the last 13 years, Museveni, his brother, and his nephew have used their militias to amass private wealth from the abundant resources of the DR Congo.

Yet Museveni acts as a generous host of the summit, as if he has nothing to do with the thousands of Congolese that have fled the killing, abuses, and rape perpetrated by some of these same militias.

Given many of these leaders’ histories of abuse, corruption, exploitation, and roles in conflicts that create refugees, why even bother showing up to such a conference?

Appeasement.

The international community doesn’t like doing business with despots, at least not out in the open. “Free trade” with the U.S. and Europe requires that leaders maintain a certain façade of respectability and humanity, at least for the corporate boardrooms to see.

So quite a few African leaders pretend to care, make statements that they will never act on, and claim to be upholding human rights – if only because they are afraid the U.S. might stop sending the weapons and “foreign aid” if they did otherwise.

They forget the people they are supposed to represent and they cave. They relent. They appease.

But Westerners only use the word “appeasement” for specific circumstances.

When a black African president caves into the demands of the West – whether to governments or to multi-national corporations – we don’t call that “appeasement.” We call it “opening up their country to foreign investment.”

When an American president abandons principles and essentially tells Israel that they can do what they want and we won’t stop the flow of weapons and money – we don’t call that “appeasement.” We call it “showing loyalty to an ally.”

But when an American president thinks about negotiating with Iran (read: brown & Muslim) over nuclear technology – well, that’s “appeasement.”

Because we can’t have an American president (even if he is “brown” himself) stooping to some Islamic Ayatollah.

Having leaders that are disconnected from reality, who don’t accurately represent their own people’s interests, and who are willing to give in to other nations if it means clinging to power themselves is a universal trait – democracy or not.

Until we stop electing presidents like it’s a popularity contest, we will continually be stuck with ineffective leaders that are more worried about their daily poll numbers instead of the world our children will inherit.

When we judge our politicians, we need to start actually listening to the music they play. Because once the rock band from high school breaks up, all that’s left are the records.

And they better be good.

Appeasement is a universal trait when it comes to leaders originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on November 10, 20092009-11-11T04:01:50ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

No related posts.

Causes of Rwandan Genocide still not addressed

Wil Robinson — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:25:28 +0000

It’s noticeable as soon as you cross the border from Uganda.

A palpable anxiety, hanging in the air over the country: a sense of apprehension. Rwanda feels like it’s trying to enjoy a brief respite from violence, knowing that a similar future is inevitable. The genocide of 1994 may be in the past, but the causes have not been addressed.

If Rwanda continues down the path it’s on now – despite the infrastructure development in Kigali, Rick Warren’s attempts to create a “purpose-driven nation,” and all the good intentions and foreign aid of international organizations – it won’t be long before genocide surfaces again.

And I get the feeling that deep down, many Rwandans sense it.

There were several factors that led to the 1994 genocide, but land pressures were probably the primary cause. A country of 8 million that relied on agriculture, in a land smaller than the state of Maryland, simply couldn’t continue to support population growth. Nearly every square inch of Rwanda’s steep hillsides is deforested and used for growing crops.

Add the authoritarian government of Habyarimana, the Hutu president that had held power since the early 1970s. Since independence, the Tutsi – a minority but a favorite of the colonial powers – had been seeking to restore their power. In the early 1990s, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by Paul Kagame, was trying to destabilize the government from bases in Uganda.

But the fuse that set the whole thing off was the media. “Hutu Power Radio,” as it was known, fueled ethnic hatred as an outlet for the economic and land frustrations in the country. It’s an age-old recipe for controlling an angry public: channel the anger away from authority figures and toward the minority “other.” When the shipments of Chinese-made machetes started arriving across the country, the solution became obvious.

[...at Murambi Genocide Memorial in southern Rwanda, the clothes of victims found in a mass grave have been collected and still remain, 15 years on...]

Unfortunately, despite the reconstruction efforts of the international community, the major causes of the genocide – insufficient land area, an authoritarian government and the abuse of media – all still exist in Rwanda.

Other than two national parks, the entire country is deforested and farmed. The only trees left are non-native eucalyptus, a fast-growing tree that provides firewood.

Paul Kagame has been the effective leader of Rwanda since 1994, first directing a figurehead transitional government. He was installed as president in 2000, and finally elected in 2003. He is expected to run for president again in 2010. That makes at least 16 years and counting…

Throw in the Rwanda military’s penchant for interfering with its neighbor, the Democratic Republic of Congo (at the behest of Kagame and his RPF party). Tutsi militias, backed by Rwanda, have been on a 15-year, human-rights-abusing warpath of revenge against Hutus in the Congo (many genocidaires fled to the Congo and are a primary factor in Congo’s conflict). Of course, there is also Rwanda’s long-held claims that large swaths of Eastern Congo are actually part of Rwanda (that would solve the lack of land, wouldn’t it?).

But don’t forget a complicit media. The Rwanda Dispatch, a glossy monthly “news” magazine sold on the streets of Kigali, had an article praising the new media laws in Rwanda. Why do they think that “both journalists…and media consumers…will be celebrating?”

“[A new law requires] minimum capital for prospective investors…Some people have been setting up media firms, especially newspapers, without figuring out sustainability of resources for administrative and other costs…

[T]he result has often been publications registered as weeklies, but actually coming out after three months…

[The lack of start-up capital] had a lot to do with the abundant freedom exercised by all, including those having less than a million francs ($20,000 USD) as initial investment, to set up so-called newspapers.

[This law] will no doubt deal a blow to the lazy, irresponsible, malicious and amateurish press.”

Really? Saying you’ll publish once a week and then (heaven forbid!) only publishing once a month is a serious problem? (I’ll ignore the fact that the Dispatch apparently doesn’t have enough capital themselves to renew their website domain…)

As a sign of their responsible and professional journalism, the next story in the magazine is a 2-page hagiography on Paul Kagame. It’s so over-the-top NOT journalism, it’s embarrassing to read:

“…Paul Kagame – the man who has come to personify hope, vision and reconciliation world over…but of whose transformational prowess and ideas are beyond [his] territorial boundaries.

In this unfolding appeal, I wish to give my attention to the man the world has come to admire most because of his superlative performances…The man is Paul Kagame….”

It goes on from there – but you get the idea (I wonder how much Congolese civilians admire Kagame, given his support for pro-Rwandan militias operating in the Congo). The rest of the magazine is filled with pro-RPF, pro-Rwandan government, pro-Kagame propaganda. The daily newspaper, The New Times, isn’t much better.

[...more than 50,000 Tutsi were slaughtered inside the Murambi school in southern Rwanda during the genocide. The rooms still house the dead - men, women, children, and babies - preserved in lime and all with tell-tale signs of murder: heads with machete marks still visible; legs cut clean through, limbs mangled by clubs and garden hoes...]

Rwanda, still trying to recover from mass murder, where their friends and neighbors were among the perpetrators, faces the same three problems almost two decades later:

Pushed to the brink by unsustainable land use and over-population, they have done little to address the problem.
After suffering under one authoritarian government, they have replaced it with another.
A media that followed the government line to the point that they incited mass murder has used that lesson to justify a crackdown on media that doesn’t follow the new government line.

In reality, the genocide never really ended – it just transplanted itself into the DRC, causing a 15-year conflict. The international community and media seem content to ignore the Congo and the 4 million dead, conveniently misidentifying it as a “civil war” (which is also what the world said in 1994 about Rwanda) and placating themselves with slogans like “never again.”

Meanwhile, international aid workers have developed a fetish for anything Rwanda, driving up the cost of living in Kigali far beyond what average Rwandans can afford. The Tutsi have been labeled as victims and given a free pass in world politics by an international community that feels guilty for letting one million people be murdered. The Hutu have wrongly been generalized, stereotyped and demonized as tribal, blood-thirsty and hateful, and are used as evidence that ethnicity – not economics – was the cause of the genocide.

The new generation of Rwandans has no memory of 1994, but the causes are still there – no land, authoritarian and unresponsive government, and a censored and controlled media. How long before the young are manipulated into perpetrating the same crimes?

The clock is ticking.

Causes of Rwandan Genocide still not addressed originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on November 4, 20092009-11-04T05:25:28ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

Context, not weapons, will help devise a new global strategy (and a better democracy)

The Art of Buying an Afghan Carpet

Wil Robinson — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:00:49 +0000

I’m off to East Africa for most of October, so in light of Obama’s effort to reevaluate Afghanistan, I thought I’d repost some older stuff from my visit there in the winter of 2007.

Our nation, as a whole (particularly policy-makers), seems unable to acknowledge that Afghanistan is actually populated by real people (if you go by NBC Nightly News and Richard Engel, you’d be excused for thinking it’s only women in burqas and knife-wielding Taliban men…).

But Afghanistan is much more – and until we see it as that, our “new strategy” will continue to be simply an effort to pump more arms, weapons, and firepower into a nation torn apart by three decades of war.

See you at the end of October with some (hopefully) interesting posts about Africa…

November 2007

One of the drivers, ‘Durrani,’ told me he could take me to a place with the best prices on Afghan carpets. But his offer came with a condition: I was not to tell anyone where or from whom I got the rug. Apparently this region of Kabul is a ‘no-go’ area for foreigners.

Buying a rug in Afghanistan is not, apparently, an easy thing. Small, one-meter long rugs sell for as much as $500 or $600 USD at the ‘touristy’ markets (if you can call them that – the ‘tourists’ are basically international aid workers and the NATO forces patrolling the country that gather in a high-security compound once a week). My friend Durrani said he could get them for $250, so I was interested, though that was still more than I was willing to pay. A local woman working with the United Nations said $200 was a good price.

But more than anything, I was anxious to get out on the streets, away from the high-barbed wired walls and armed guards that sometimes have the opposite desired effect and make me feel like more of a target.

I had hired a stringer/interpreter, Hasib, and after a morning interview we hopped in one of the local yellow taxis to meet Durrani in the Old City section of Kabul.

Being in a local taxi is quite inconspicuous as opposed to driving in the big white Toyota Landcruisers with “UN” plastered on the sides. I was able to look out the window without being stared at in return.

We make our way through several crowded roundabouts manned by one traffic cop making a concerted, yet futile, attempt to direct the flow of cars, trucks, and the occasional donkey-drawn cart. We drive past the infamous Ghazi Stadium, where during the previous regime crowds gathered for the only form of entertainment condoned by the Taliban: public executions via gunfire, stoning, and worse. The stadium is once again home to various sporting events, and the nearby open grounds host the popular buzkashi matches, a traditional Afghan version of polo on horseback that substitutes a headless goat for a ball.

As we melt into the Old City, the number of United Nations and international vehicles dwindle. The roads are instead filled with local cars, many with two or three women in the infamous powder-blue burqas crammed into the back seat. By the time we arrive at the city center and the “subway,” there wasn’t a non-Afghan vehicle to be seen, much less a non-Afghan pedestrian. (I assume the ’subway’ is just a passageway that dives underneath the Kabul River – and I use the word “river” liberally.)

And then Hasib tells the driver to stop – we’re getting out. Durrani is standing on the side of the road waiting.

After a week of being escorted from high-security government buildings to Kalashnikov-guarded international compounds to my barbed-wire enclosed guest house, I couldn’t have imagined a more liberating experience.

We walk casually down the street, weaving through the inches of space between car bumpers as we crossed the six ‘lanes’ of traffic. Everyone seems to have something for sale, either from small shop fronts or out of hand-pulled carts with rickety wooden wheels.

Neon-purple winter jackets, yellow bananas, blue wool socks, snow-white bunches of cauliflower, spools of brightly colored rope, oranges, accordion displays of mobile phone cards, green apples, red onions, silver metallic buckets and shiny tin cans of who-knows-what. In a country where the brown dust and mud on television shaped my impressions before arriving, all I see is color. The mud-brick homes, the streets, and even the hazy sky may be brown, but among the daily bustle there are myriad shades of life.

The diversity doesn’t stop with the goods for sale, but extends to the people themselves. Western media manages to provide images of turban-topped, long-bearded and dark-skinned Afghans, but the reality is much different. There may be those stereotypical Afghans, but there were also hundreds on the street that resemble Chinese, Eastern European, Italian, Indian, German and even French. And the eyes – numerous variations of brown, deep greens and frosted blues – not to mention the occasional blond-haired Afghan. Through the people, I can read the history of the land all the way back to when Alexander the Great passed through the Hindu Kush. Afghanistan has become a meeting place for all people of Asia.

Finally we reach the carpet shop. It’s a small shop with, of course, nice red-patterned carpets on the floor, and rolled and folded rugs stacked around the perimeter. We remove our shoes and step inside, going around with introductions which entails a sincere shaking of hands (both hands together coupled with an A salaam alaikum followed by the kissing of both cheeks).

Our host, an Afghan of the Uzbeki ethnic group hailing from the Mazr i-Sharif region northwest of Kabul, motions for us to sit. We casually look at a few of the carpets surrounding us. I point to a stack of typical meter-long rug and ask how much.

Durrani asks the shop owner something in Dari.

“These ones are $250. This is the best price for you.”

I act vaguely interested, and keep looking around. I really can only afford $100. I wonder how I’m going to get out of this politely. Maybe he has some doormats.

The shop owner, Yaqub, moves to the side for his son who brings in the vinyl mat that will serve as a table.

“We’ll have lunch, yes?” Durrani asks me.

“Of course.” Shit. There’s no way I’m getting out of here without buying a carpet now.

Another son brings in a huge plate piled high with rice and goat meat and sets it down on the vinyl cloth. A couple more men come in and the eight of us sit down on the floor to eat. They use their right hand to scoop the rice in their fingers, slurping it from their hands. No one else spills even a grain of rice – there’s a small trash heap gathering beneath my mouth. Eating with your hands – especially rice – is not easy.

Yaqub says something.

Durrani translates: “This is your first time eating with your hands?”

“Can you tell?”

All the men giggle. One of them steps out and brings back a spoon.

“You can use the spoon, it’s okay,” Durrani says.

“No, it’s all right. I’ll learn.”

After a few more spills they insist. “You should use the spoon.”

I give in. “Okay.”

We eat oranges and apples with hot sweet tea after the rice. After the meal, the crowd dissipates, one of the sons taking away the vinyl cloth and leaving only Yaqub and his cousin, Naim, with Durrani, Hasib, and myself.

The conversation picks up.

“I met Yaqub 17 years ago, in the war against the Soviets,” Durrani says. “You can ask him questions if you want.”

We talk about making carpets, Yaqub’s family, the Taliban, his hometown. I learn it takes three people 20 days to make one typical carpet. My tea glass is refilled several times. We’ve been eating, drinking and talking now for almost two hours. Finally we get back to business.

“So which carpet do you like?” Durrani asks.

After four cups of tea, I can’t even concentrate which one is better than another, much less how to avoid paying $240 for a carpet when I only have, at most, $150.

“Let me use the bathroom, then we’ll look at carpets.”

Yaqub leads me to the roof, where the “bathroom” is. (I can go into horrific detail about Afghan bathrooms – this was one of the nicer ones, despite missing a ceiling and water; being on the roof, I believe it uses gravity – you get the picture.)

From the rooftop, I have a great view of the Old City. Scattered across the landscape was the rubble of mud-brick homes, long destroyed by the feuding warlords following the Soviet withdrawal – warlords that are still fighting to retain power in the future Afghan state. On the opposite side of the building, sitting atop a hill overlooking the buzkashi grounds, is the blue-tiled dome of Mohammad Nadir Shah’s tomb, the 1920s king of Afghanistan.

Back down in the carpet shop, Yaqub and his cousin begin laying out several carpets from the $250 pile, one on top of another. Durrani translates, telling me each pattern comes from a different region of Afghanistan.

“Where is this one from?”

“Kandahar.”

“What about this one?” The rug had depictions of deer, eagles and trees.

“Herat. This one is more than 50 years old.”

“How come you still have it?”

“It has pictures of animals. This was against Afghan law during the Taliban, still people don’t want to buy it.”

I flip through the rugs, knowing I have put off the inevitable for too long. I’m stuck – this is Durrani’s friend – and he’s just given me lunch and treated me like family. I can’t leave and not buy something without completely losing the respect of everyone present.

I point to the 50-year-old rug with deer on it. “How much is this one?”

Durrani confers with his friend. “$100.”

Must be because it’s 50 years old and was, at one time, illegal. What do I care? It’s not illegal now. But I can’t make it obvious I’ve picked out the cheapest one right off the bat.

I point to the one from Kandahar. “How much is this one?”

“$100.”

I point to a couple of others. All $100. Two hours and a goat-meat lunch ago, the same carpets from this stack were $250.

I pick out a nice one from Kunduz, with deep reds, blues and earthy browns in a tribal design. “I’ll take this one.”

The deal is cemented with two more cups of tea, some hard rock candy from Mazr i-Sharif, and one more trip to the rooftop “bathroom.”

The Art of Buying an Afghan Carpet originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 27, 20092009-10-28T02:00:49ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

The Panjsher Valley

Wil Robinson — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:01:37 +0000

I’m off to East Africa for most of October, so in light of Obama’s effort to reevaluate Afghanistan, I thought I’d repost some older stuff from my visit there in the winter of 2007.

Our nation, as a whole (particularly policy-makers), seems unable to acknowledge that Afghanistan is actually populated by real people (if you go by NBC Nightly News and Richard Engel, you’d be excused for thinking it’s only women in burqas and knife-wielding Taliban men…).

But Afghanistan is much more – and until we see it as that, our “new strategy” will continue to be simply an effort to pump more arms, weapons, and firepower into a nation torn apart by three decades of war.

See you at the end of October with some (hopefully) interesting posts about Africa…

November 2007

My driver, Durrani, parked the white Land Cruiser next to a roadside market.

Corrugated metal and mud brick shelters line the road, showing their wares for sale to the customers descending down from the mountain villages. Cattle, donkeys and goats on the road far outnumber the cars. Unlucky goats hang upside down with their severed heads perched on the ground beneath the bodies, rotten wooden crates display red onions, and bunches of grapes are piled on a makeshift platform. Every stall has prominent posters of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the “Lion of Panjsher,” hero to all ethnic Tajiks, and probably the majority of Afghans.

There are men everywhere, of every age. A line of three old men, their long white beards reflecting the bright winter Afghan sun, sit in chairs, watching the daily events unfold. Long wrapped turbans sit atop their heads; other men wear the traditional pakol. Their clothes are long and baggy: it’s difficult to tell if they are wearing a salwar kameez or just long robes. Young boys work right alongside their fathers, watching and learning the family trade of butcher, baker or grocer.

There are but a few women scattered, but their faces are buried beneath the light blue screen of their burqas, only their hands and feet visible. They are never alone; if there is not two or three walking together, than they are accompanied by their young children.

I haven’t been out of the car yet, other than inside the United Nations compound or at the tightly guarded and barricaded guesthouse: I only arrived in Kabul the night before. But here in rural Afghanistan, Durrani and Fahd jump out, eager to grab breakfast after a long, winding drive along the valley through the desolate mountains of the Hindu Kush. The only trees are lined along the river bottom, interspersed with gutted and burnt Russian tanks.

“Massoud pushed the Russians into this river. In the springtime, it is very high,” Durrani tells me. “The Russians are afraid of this river.” He says the word afraid like he himself fears its power.

Durrani points to the gathering of stalls and shops. “We will go here to a poor restaurant for kebabs.”

Fahd mumbles something in Dari; he feels more comfortable with his native tongue than his own broken English.

“He says ‘It’s okay,’” Durrani assures me. “You look Afghan, I look from California. No one can tell. You had this beard in America or you grow it just for Afghanistan?”

“Just for Afghanistan.”

“Good idea. But we like Americans, cause they want to help Afghanistan.”

I feel a little reassured, but highly doubt I blend in as much as Durrani says I do.

According to the mainstream American media, as a white middle-class American from a Christian home, I shouldn’t be here unless I’m toting an M-16 and military fatigues. Despite the fact that not one single terrorist act has been perpetrated by an Afghan outside of their national borders, the drone of anti-Muslim sentiment since the events of Sept. 11 have attempted to convince me and every other American otherwise. This is supposed to be where Westerners are beheaded simply for being an “infidel.” According to conventional wisdom in Christian America, this is the land where reason and logic are laid to waste by the mad ravings of a false prophet and the Qu’ran.

But this is Panjsher. This is where the Russians lost the war, their rusted tanks lining the river and hills, monuments to the spirit and determination of the Panjsher people. This was the last remnant of Afghanistan that never fell to the oppression of the Taliban, where the mullahs that imposed their conservative religious ideology were thwarted in the narrow mountain passes, finally using Al Qaeda to do their dirty work in the September 9, 2001, suicide bombing-assassination of Massoud. This is not the south, where in places like Kandahar and Hilmand the insurgency is growing and the very real threat of the Taliban’s return is frightening even the locals.

Yet despite the absence of the Taliban, this remains one of the most conservative areas in Afghanistan. They have their own mullahs who rule what is moral and what is haram, or forbidden. No women walk in public without covering herself in the burqa.

An old man with a bushy beard that matches his grey pakol is roasting skewers of meat in front of a dilapidated mud brick building. Durrani approaches him with the common greeting: Asalaam alaikum. The old man smiles and returns the reply; I repeat after Durrani and get a similar response and smile.

We enter the mud house through a small door. The high mountains of the Hindu Kush rise up from the side of the road, so the house has been built into the hillside. The entrance has been dug out, the rest of the room leveled about three feet higher. The dirt platform is covered with a carpet.

I drop my shoes on the dirt dugout and step up onto the carpet. We sit in a small circle as a young boy brings over a roll of weathered cloth, unfurling it in the middle of us on the ground: it will serve as the table.

Despite the cool mountain weather, flies abound. There is no door and a small window, letting in the light. Inside, the plain white-washed walls have the obligatory posters of Massoud.

The old bearded man brings over three glass mugs, throwing a fistful of kernel-sized sugar into each cup. One of his sons brings the teapot and pours us each a cup. Another son brings us three long, diamond shaped pieces of flatbread pulled from a wooden box I just watched him throw the last customer’s leftover bread into.

Outside three powder-blue burqas pass by on the street. The smooth yet guttural Dari language flows between neighbors, friends, family, tribe. Young men come in and out of the room; each one greets us with a simple Salaam, which we all return. They bring plastic bags of goods: one has used winter coats, just in time before the first snows arrive. The man’s sons each claim a coat, trying them on and complimenting each other. The youngest receives the last one, three sizes too big; I wonder what the old man’s daughters will get.

Another son brings over a handful of metal kebabs, each with two pieces of meat and one piece of fat.

“This is very good cow,” Durrani says, then laughs and asks “You have restaurants like this in New York?”

The laughter eases my nerves. “New York has Afghan food, but not exactly like this.”

Durrani and Fahd both laugh. We tear off the flatbread and pinch the small pieces of beef, pulling them off the skewers. There are long green peppers served as well, and a small plate of powdered spice. They sprinkle the spice over their kebabs.

Fahd says something to Durrani that makes him laugh.

“Do you know what he said?” Durrani asks, then answers without waiting for a reply: “He says if you eat a kebab, you will make sexy time with your wife tonight two times.” They both chuckle.

I stifle a laugh, mostly because I thought the Borat character from the movie was just a stereotype; I never thought I would actually hear the words “make sexy time” used seriously.

I’m desperate to connect with these men, as I will be spending the day with them and entrusting my life to them. “Really?” I reply smiling. I reach over and motion that I’m taking all of the skewers. “I’ll take them all.”

Both men laugh heartily. Good start, I think.

As I tear the flatbread I stare at the kebabs and the tea. Where do they store this meat? When was the cow killed? What part of the cow is it? Did they boil this water? How sick am I going to get from eating this?

How can I say no?

Durrani and Fahd dig in, neither talking, eerily quiet.

Screw it, I decide. I’m not going to be rude. I’ve got some medicine in the car up the road. Hopefully I can get to it before I get too sick. I dig in.

The meat is seasoned perfectly, spicy and strong. The tea is hot and very sweet. I gorge myself on six or seven kebabs.

After we finish eating, Fahd leans back against the mud wall, pouring himself another cup of tea to mix with the lump of sugar still at the bottom of his mug. I do the same.

Durrani lights a cigarette. Then the talking begins.

“What you think about Bush?” Durrani asks.

I crinkle my nose. It’s too early for politics. I’m not sure what I should say. “Eh,” I say absently. “I don’t like him.”

Durrani laughs. “Why not? He is very brave man! Fahd laughs at that without any translation. I know his English is better than he lets on.

Durrani continues: “You know he came to Afghanistan for two hours! He landed in helicopter at Baghram and stay for two hours, then leave!” They both laugh again.

My nerves are relaxing more. I stare outside the window as another pair of blue burqas wanders by. I feel strangely safe, despite my surroundings. There have been no uncomfortable stares, no unfriendly looks.

Durrani goes on: “Just like you with Bush, we don’t like Karzai. Bush is fucking Karzai or Karzai is fucking Bush: we don’t know which one!” They roar with laughter.

As we walk back outside, just thirty minutes later, I feel infinitely more comfortable. We again walk past the old men with the long white beards and cloth-wrapped turbans sitting down.

I greet them and nod my head: “Asalaam alaikum.”

They nod and answer back: “Wa-alaikum asalaam.”

Durrani turns to me. “See these men? They are very brave men. They fought in the war against the Russians. They are very brave. They will fight you face to face.”

I have no doubts.

We head back to the white Land Cruiser.

“Get in,” Durrani says. “We’ll go up the road. We can buy some grapes and go to the river and eat them. Very good grapes up here.”

Durrani leans a little closer and says quietly: “And sometimes, we take these grapes and make wine.”

He laughs and gets in the car.

The Panjsher Valley originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 20, 20092009-10-20T04:01:37ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

The Show Must Go On

Wil Robinson — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:01:29 +0000

I’m off to East Africa for most of October, so in light of Obama’s effort to reevaluate Afghanistan, I thought I’d repost some older stuff from my visit there in the winter of 2007.

Our nation, as a whole (particularly policy-makers), seems unable to acknowledge that Afghanistan is actually populated by real people (if you go by NBC Nightly News and Richard Engel, you’d be excused for thinking it’s only women in burqas and knife-wielding Taliban men…).

But Afghanistan is much more – and until we see it as that, our “new strategy” will continue to be simply an effort to pump more arms, weapons, and firepower into a nation torn apart by three decades of war.

See you at the end of October with some (hopefully) interesting posts about Africa…

December 2007

Just after seven o’clock on a Wednesday morning in early December 2007, the ugliness of the Taliban insurgency struck again in the heart of Afghanistan’s capital city. A suicide bomber rammed his explosive-laden car into a mini-bus full of people commuting from their Kabul neighborhood of Chilsitoon, killing 13. As with most terrorist acts, the intended targets were not the only victims. Many of the passengers were members of the Afghan army; many more were civilians.

This was no ordinary morning. Falling in the middle of the international 16-Day Campaign to Eliminate Violence Against Women, the Afghan Women’s Resource Center (AWRC) in Chilsitoon had scheduled a ceremony and invited local male dignitaries to attend. The goal was to raise awareness of women’s issues and garner support from local law enforcement, as well as provide an educational opportunity about domestic violence, HIV/AIDS prevention and women’s rights.

Just a few blocks from the ceremony location, less than two hours before the commencement, the suicide bomber had already taken the stage. The blast was so close to the event organizer’s home that her windows and mirrors were shattered. The senior police officers, men all slated to attend and show their support for women, instead were busy collecting pieces of debris, trying to assist the wounded, and organize a dignified system for families to recover their departed.

Yet it is clear Afghans understand that succumbing to fear is never an answer to terrorism. The employees at the AWRC knew that such a celebration is exactly the type of social cohesion that the Taliban insurgency wants to stop; canceling was not an option.

Despite the morning attack, the women and their children still gather in the tiny mud-brick compound for the ceremony. They sit in the open air, huddled underneath brightly colored blankets and shawls that radiate under the winter sun. Though the event and AWRC’s goal is gender equality, a few blue burqas are still scattered in the crowd. Some of the men working for the AWRC busily set up the stage on the porch of a small house, counting off sound checks into the microphone and testing the video projector. Another man carefully positions vases of pink and red synthetic flowers on either side of the podium, and posters declaring “We can end violence against women” are strung up around the yard.

The crowd of about a hundred is solemn at first, but soon chatter and laughter fills the air, as mothers visit and gossip and children fidget in their seats or play together next to a grapevine-covered well. At one point an older woman, perhaps still engrained with the repression she has suffered at the hands of men, stands up and reprimands the women for “talking too loudly,” despite the fact that the ceremony had yet to begin. The crowd ignores her.

The front row seats are empty; the event won’t start until the men arrive: men who are late dealing with a war that appears to be intensifying almost six years after the fall of the Taliban. Hours pass before they filter in from the street, the forlorn look of a difficult morning on their face.

Minutes later the long faces disappear, replaced by smiles and laughter of their own. The ceremony includes uplifting speeches by both men and women, poetry readings, and to the delight of everyone in the crowd, short skits with a humorous touch, performed by high school girls highlighting issues of domestic violence, HIV/AIDS prevention and the importance of girls’ formal education.

“The skits reflected some negative points that are still happening in Afghanistan today. The girls performed very well to demonstrate how we can eliminate violence against women,” says the attorney general of Chilsitoon, Mezor Shah Ehsan, after lunch that followed the ceremony.

A gentle man with a warm smile, he is adamant that cooperation is necessary, and that neither men nor women can develop in isolation. He dismisses the morning bombing as a failed attempt to break the will of the people. “Seven years ago women did not have permission to go outside; they had to stay at home. Today we are very glad that women are working in organizations, government and parliament,” Ehsan beams.

Providing the chance to earn a living is a major element of any group assisting women’s development. The AWRC, a group founded for refugees living in Peshawar in 1989, not only pays women wages for making clothes, but also has projects teaching women how to process fruits and vegetables that can be sold in the market. They conduct computer training, literacy classes and even an accelerated course for women to obtain the formal education they were denied during the Taliban regime. They have centers in dozens of districts, usually staffed by females, though men make up 15 percent of their employees.

Looking for long-term solutions, the AWRC agriculture program is just beginning extensive projects in Parwan and Kapisa provinces north of Kabul, managed by Ahmed Fardoon. “The aim of our projects is to get men and women together,” he says from a cozy-yet-smoky woodstove heated office he shares with three trainers, one of them a woman. “If you go to some rural provinces, most women are working in agriculture“ irrigation, harvesting, etc. We want to support them in the processing of fruits, jams, vegetables and pickles.” The agricultural program encompasses everything from growing techniques to processing to plant disease and pest eradication.

Another example of cooperation between the sexes is a current agriculture project in Laghman province, northeast of Kabul. The coordinators selected a site inside a fort, leasing land for farming from a male landlord. Although the AWRC pays rent for the space (”Who would rent land for free?” asks AWRC Finance Manager Maryam Rahmani), the mere ability to lease land specifically for women’s economic development is a sign of progress.

The landlord also leases space for the project to keep tractors and equipment. Local support around the farm in Laghman is encouraging, and the AWRC, as in other communities where it works, will establish a women’s committee, a men’s committee, and a children’s committee.

The committees create an environment where every opinion and solution can be shared. The AWRC believes inclusion is the key to avoiding disharmony.

Jalaludin Shans is one of those men who is making a difference. He was educated at the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo in the tenants of Sharia law. Contrary to Western images of Islam being oppressive, Shans says Sharia law can actually help women develop if implemented correctly. He believes that a new interpretation of Sharia law is needed – the interpretation he learned in Egypt’s universities – and he has returned to his home in Kabul to spread new ideas of a liberal Islam that can help women obtain their rights and freedoms.

More than six years after the Taliban were driven from power, Afghanistan plods forward in the face of suicide car bombers, kidnappings, and assassinations. It is a country beset by war; it has been almost 30 years since they have known real peace. The oppressive traditions and rules that kept women in a state of inhumane servitude during the Taliban are slowly being lifted. There are both milestones and setbacks, but Afghan women and their male partners in development understand that fear is defeat.

The Show Must Go On originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 13, 20092009-10-13T08:01:29ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

Afghans, Lawyers, and the Wealth of Knowledge

Wil Robinson — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:00:41 +0000

Suicide bombings in Afghanistan, a few years ago sparse and confined to the southern area of Kandahar and Hilmand provinces, are now occurring in Kabul at regular intervals. The fear of chaos returning is in the back of everyone’s mind, and Afghans working in reconstruction know the solution is a lasting economic impact felt by a wider section of the population.

An international tendency to focus on the quick-impact and short-term projects neglects the more difficult problem of how to achieve sustainable growth. In a country that is largely uneducated and illiterate, knowledge is the power that can fuel Afghanistan’s rebirth.

But frustration is growing among many Afghans at the myopic view of international organizations and their western-imposed style of “aid.”

Azizi, a defense lawyer who wants to be identified by only one name, co-founded the law firm Da Qanoon Ghushtonky, a Pashto phrase meaning “desirous of law.” As deputy director (he works under the female co-founder and director, Karimi), most of Azizi’s time is spent training lawyers and judges. He focuses on establishing an equal legal footing for both men and women by instilling a value system that guarantees women’s rights.

Previously with Medica Mondiale, an international organization helping women and children affected by war, Azizi resigned after deciding that the group was capable of running on their own without external interference. Da Qanoon Ghushtonky receives funding from the government of Denmark – something Azizi acknowledges his country still needs – but not the unwanted interference. He says it’s important that Afghans learn to lead.

“There is still a need for international colleagues to be in Afghanistan, but they should give the authority to Afghans. Instead, they don’t allow Afghans to be completely involved. The internationals provide the plan and then Afghans implement it – that’s a problem,” says Azizi, a quiet man with a comfortable personality. “Once the internationals are gone, how can we do the work ourselves? We know the culture, the law – we should have the authority.”

The working relationship with Denmark is going well (political cartoons not withstanding). Da Qanoon gets complete freedom and encouragement, but the Danish benefactors don’t bog the system down with paperwork and externally imposed guidelines.

The recent printing of hundreds of legal awareness campaign posters and booklets was one example. The funding for the printing costs was, of course, provided by Denmark. But Azizi and Karimi felt that if Danish involvement was visible, it might sabotage the desired impact.

“If the people see the [Danish] logo,” Karimi says, “they may not trust it because it’s from foreigners.” The Danes agreed and refrained from printing their logo on the material.

Something as small as a logo may seem insignificant, but it’s an attempt at a truly sovereign Afghan government and civil society: the lynchpin that can hold the state together. A three-decade span of wars has incapacitated much of the country’s human as well as economic resources, and real independence extends to the ability to demonstrate it publicly.

When considering candidates for positions at Da Qanoon Ghushtonky, Karimi and Azizi will take an under-qualified woman over an over-qualified man, hoping to bridge the gap between the sexes by training a team of female activists.

Azizi recently facilitated a national training conference for male and female attorneys and judges. Most women were merely passive observers at the beginning of the conference. But as Azizi explained the rights of women, they began to speak up. By the end of the training, the women were so involved in the discussion that the men couldn’t interrupt if they wanted to.

Gender training didn’t stop there. At the completion of the seminar, there was a final ceremony and dinner. Azizi stopped the waitresses before they brought out the food and instructed them to defy tradition and serve the women first. The women lawyers enjoyed being on the other end of discrimination for once, and the men learned a lesson as well.

“It is very small things, but as I have experienced, those small things together can make a change,” Azizi says with a shy smile.

Da Qanoon’s director, Karimi, observes the hijab, covering her body with long, loose clothing and a shawl over her hair. Yet her independence still shines through. She sits in her cold, concrete office in Kabul with her bare feet sticking out from underneath her long, grey gown. She says she constantly hears praise from the many young lawyers who are grateful for the training Azizi provides.

“Azizi’s knowledge is indispensable,” Karimi says.

In a country where the international community tries to throw a few dollars at every problem and hopes that painting a building will substitute for economic development, knowledge is worth more than gold.

And Da Qanoon Ghushtonky is spreading the wealth.

But frustration is growing among many Afghans at the myopic view of international organizations and their western-imposed style of “aid.”

“If the people see the [Danish] logo,” Karimi says, “they may not trust it because it’s from foreigners.” The Danes agreed and refrained from printing their logo on the material.

“It is very small things, but as I have experienced, those small things together can make a change,” Azizi says with a shy smile.

“Azizi’s knowledge is indispensable,” Karimi says.

And Da Qanoon Ghushtonky is spreading the wealth.

December 2007

Afghans, Lawyers, and the Wealth of Knowledge originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on October 6, 20092009-10-07T01:00:41ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

Using the Tools Available

Wil Robinson — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:02:32 +0000

I’m off to East Africa for most of October, so in light of Obama’s effort to reevaluate Afghanistan, I thought I’d repost some older stuff from my visit there in the winter of 2007.

Our nation, as a whole (particularly policy-makers), seems unable to acknowledge that Afghanistan is actually populated by real people (if you go by NBC Nightly News and Richard Engel, you’d be excused for thinking it’s only women in burqas and knife-wielding Taliban men…).

But Afghanistan is much more – and until we see it as that, our “new strategy” will continue to be simply an effort to pump more arms, weapons, and firepower into a nation torn apart by three decades of war.

See you at the end of October with some (hopefully) interesting posts about Africa…

December 2007

Disconnects between reality and our imagination abound everywhere. Often what we see, hope for, or work towards is skewed by our own stereotypes, idealism, or worldview. From the West, it is easy to bloviate about secular democracy, strong central government, and a separation of religion and state in a post-war nation like Afghanistan. But for Afghans, the view is much different.

[Rusted artillery mounts sit atop a ridge of the Hindu Kush foothills that divides Kabul.]

As the international community seeks to aid in Afghanistan’s development, there is disagreement over what shape and form their society should take. Many in the West have lumped Islam and terrorism together, and even the brightest minds don’t seem to understand the crucial – yet positive – role that religion can play in the country’s reconstruction.

The mainstream media reflects this image. “Positive” stories about Afghanistan (or any Muslim country) focus on how the people are eschewing their religion in favor of a secular state. The media wants stories about women rebelling and throwing off their veils, or men that agree to Western definitions of what constitutes a terrorist and are willing to kill for it.

Positive stories never involve Islam as part of the solution: it’s simply not part of the Western narrative.

But since the 2001 invasion, the Taliban insurgency has been fueled by Western-style policies that have, consciously or not, eroded Islam’s role in society. In a country like Afghanistan, education occurs through the mosque, and Islam cannot be alienated and cast aside as “part of the problem.” Real solutions will use religion as a tool, not an obstacle.

Three Afghans working in Kabul – a ministry official, a parliamentary adviser, and a United Nations development aide – all envision Islam being used differently in post-conflict reconstruction.

Yet they all agree on one thing: Islam will play a big role.

Mohammed Alem Amini, a policy adviser at the Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MOWA), discovered the crucial role of religion by trial and error. MOWA arranged a meeting with mullahs in a rural province to discuss women’s issues, and according to Amini who admits with a wry smile, “the meeting was not good.” They attempted to talk about minimum marriage age for girls and allowing women to choose their own husbands, but were rebuffed by the conservative mullahs.

“We realized we should find a mullah that agrees with us before the meeting, and that he should approach the other mullahs first,” Amini says with the benefit of hindsight. “It’s important to find a mullah that studied outside of Afghanistan – like Egypt or Iran or Pakistan. They are better than those that only studied in their own village. If we could find those mullahs, we could be successful.”

Sabir Barya, recently appointed the head of parliamentary affairs at the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), knows that religion cannot be cast aside. He seeks to separate Islam from tradition.

“The first way to develop is to defeat extremism: and that starts with attitudes toward women,” Barya relays like it’s common sense, a jovial man with a receding hairline and a thick moustache.

Educating the public about a true definition of Islam can help to sever the two. He has suggested two steps that will formally separate religion and tradition: he wants to eliminate the tuyana, or dowry paid for a daughter in marriage, and believes the decision of whether a man can have more than one wife should be subject to a court’s authority (something that would require approval of both the first wife and the potential new wife). The ideas weren’t approved when the Afghan Constitution was being written, but that hasn’t stopped him from whispering in the ears of politicians.

Barya believes a slow and steady process will eventually overtake conservative traditions. “Women should show that they don’t totally disagree with all of the old traditions. She should approach each one, step by step. It is not useful for a woman to ignore all of the traditions and just say ‘I’m free!’ This is not acceptable for society.”

Friba Nasiry isn’t so patient. She spent the period under Taliban rule working as a physiotherapist with the International Committee of the Red Crescent, and is now a program associate with the Afghanistan United Nations Development Program for Women (UNIFEM). She spends time in the field going door-to-door and speaking with women in rural Afghan villages, implementing literacy programs and helping to create economic opportunities, such as beekeeping operations.

[Nasiry and other UN workers visit women in rural villages in northern Afghanistan.]

She doesn’t deny that laws can have an effect, but preaching equal rights isn’t enough for Nasiry; she wants men to put their ideas into practice in their own lives.

“What about his wife and daughters?” she asks, referring to Barya. “Does he let his own wife work? Do they send their own daughters to school?” The answer is not always “yes,” though most men protest that the security situation doesn’t permit such freedom.

Nasiry believes leading by example should start with Afghan President Hamid Karzai; his wife, a medically-trained doctor, could be a publicly visible figure – a good example of the newfound freedom Afghan women can expect to enjoy now that they are free from the Taliban. But Karzai’s wife is neither seen nor heard.

“Karzai is always waving the flag of democracy, but where is his wife?” Nasiry asks rhetorically. If the president’s wife is not allowed to leave the house, how can other women expect their own husbands or fathers to change?

With religion as the driving force in Afghan society, Nasiry sees real cultural change beginning and ending with the mullahs. She is encouraged by a particular mullah in Kapisa province who is publicly encouraging people to allow their daughters to attend school.

“The mullahs can play a very big and very positive role” in changing outdated traditions, Nasiry says.

Western policy-makers have envisioned an Afghan democracy based on secularism and individual rights, and tried their best to administer this system from the top down. But their perceived ignorance or dismissal of Islam’s role as a building block for Afghanistan’s political and social structure has been to the detriment of Afghan society.

Islam is a part of life, and a truly free and just society cannot be established without the guiding hand of religion. Insisting that Islam is part of the problem only reinforces the fanatical definition that the Taliban preaches.

When the West should be helping to shape the future, instead they seem to be trying to write Islam out of the history books.

Using the Tools Available originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on September 29, 20092009-09-30T02:02:32ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

Again, Carter says what no one else will: The Truth

Wil Robinson — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:09:00 +0000

Thank God for Jimmy Carter.

But I still have to wonder why it’s Carter’s job to report facts – wasn’t that supposed to be the job of journalists?

After the “9/12” protests last week, the news media tried to convince us that this represented a legitimate argument again Obama’s policies. We were told these were “real” fears Americans had: of socialism (cause those Scandinavian countries have it so bad…), universal healthcare (which Obama never has suggested), fascism (seriously, these people comparing Obama to Hitler need to just read the definition of fascism in the dictionary…), and big government (uh…creating jobs for Americans is “big government” but starting two wars and pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into private weapons and security corporations isn’t?).

But what the media never pointed out – and which, apparently, Carter had to do for them – was that these “protests” were driven by race.

Seriously – no reporter ever cared to note that the 50-70,000 people in front of the White House were white? Given that we have our first black president, isn’t that fact kind of, um, relevant?

Yet until Carter brought up race, these facts were ignored. These nutcases were presented as people with legitimate policy concerns (and one woman’s claim that “Muslims are taking over this country” was actually edited out of subsequent NBC Nightly News broadcasts…).

But now that Carter has exposed their underlying motives, the right wing is claiming someone played the race card.

Yes, Carter played the race card.

BECAUSE IT’S TRUE.

Hiding behind the race card isn’t always a good defense – especially when you actually are racist.

Carter – at his old age – continues to amaze me. He was truly a president ahead of his time. He’s chastised by the conservatives, but those are usually the same right-wing nut jobs that blame Obama for the economic recession (not the guy who was charge for the last 8 years): the same conservatives that think dropping bombs on non-white, non-Christian people is always a good solution. Carter’s critics are the same people who play the “anti-Semite card” because they think Israel should be allowed to ghettoize Muslim Palestinians; they are the same screwballs that think evolution and carbon-induced climate change are conspiracies. Hardly a crowd with credibility.

Looking back, it’s quite clear that Carter saw the writing on the wall.

On February 2, 1977, the president appeared on television wearing a cardigan (indoors! What kind of heathen does that?):

“We must face the fact that the energy shortage is permanent. There is no way we can solve it quickly…

All of us must learn to waste less energy. Simply by keeping our thermostats, for instance, at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night…”

And in April 1977, Carter again demonstrated his ability to foresee real problems:

“…[The energy crisis is] unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century…

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages…But our energy problem is worse…because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act…”

In July 1979, Carter identified the curse of the 80s that remains with us even today – but also offered a solution:

“…[Too] many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning…

There are two paths to choose. One is a path…that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure…

To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history to develop America’s own alternative sources of fuel…”

I wasn’t old enough to vote (or read much beyond Dick and Jane) in 1980, and can’t pretend to understand the national mood at that time. Perhaps I would have also felt, as many Americans did, that Carter was taking us down the wrong path. Maybe Ronald Regan would have looked appealing. But consider how far ahead of the game we might be now if we had heeded Carter’s call for a massive push toward alternative energy.

Thirty years later and with the benefit of hindsight, it’s become quite apparent that Carter was a man ahead of his time. His ideas of conservation and alternative energy innovation (not to mention his penchant for bringing attention to human rights violations without regard for “political allegiances”) are more pertinent today than they were in the late 70s. (There’s also the little matter of Carter’s role in the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab country…)

This week, by publicly pointing out the obvious (thereby doing the media’s job for them), Carter has, once again, shown that he is still a leader – and still not afraid to take on life’s real challenges.

“[Protesters equating Obama to a Nazi] are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.”

Well said, Jimmy. Once again, you’ve said what no one else was willing to admit.

But looking deeper requires, well…intelligence. And the “tea party” protesters are obviously in short supply of that.

Again, Carter says what no one else will: The Truth originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on September 17, 20092009-09-17T05:09:00ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

Context, not weapons, will help devise a new global strategy (and a better democracy)

Wil Robinson — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:36:29 +0000

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who until now showed that he understood the folly of the preemptive war doctrine, just crossed the line into Rumsfeldian stupidity. Instead of addressing the context and forming a new paradigm of strategic policy for the world, Gates hearkened back to the failures of arming proxy-states to further U.S. interests.

Here’s Gates’ answer to how we can convince Iran to give up on their nuclear ambitions:

“Our Arab friends and allies can strengthen their security capabilities…I think [it] sends the signal to the Iranians that this path they’re on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it.”

“[S]trengthen their security capabilities” is just a euphemism for “buy more weapons from the U.S.”

And more to the point, “Arab friends and allies” is only referring to the dictators in the region with a record of human rights abuses, torture, corruption, and complete disdain for democracy (think: the Saudi royal family, Hosni Mubarak).

So really what Gates meant was “the autocratic U.S. agents in the region should get more guns, bombs, and missiles.”

Haven’t we been down this road before? Hasn’t the U.S. already tried the “give one side more guns than the other” tactic, foolishly believing that more weapons somehow equals peace?

In the 1980s after Iran’s revolution, our answer to combat the “threat” in Iran was to arm the secular Arab dictator next door with a modern military machine – complete with biological and chemical weapons (including weapons-grade anthrax and botulism right up until Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990).

Seems that idea didn’t turn out too well – not for the Iranians (estimates of more than 500,000 dead), nor the Iraqis (300,000+ dead), nor for the Kuwaitis (invaded and occupied in 1991), the Israelis (SCUD attacks during the First Gulf War), nor the Shiites, the Kurds, etc., etc. In fact, we’re still paying the price for blindly arming a power-hungry dictator with WMDs.

So what makes Gates think that this strategy will work any better now? Does he really believe that putting more weapons in the hands of – let’s face it – only two nations (Saudi Arabia & Egypt) is the answer? The same two nations from which many of the 9/11 hijackers came? Two nations whose complete lack of freedom has created major terrorist networks inside their own borders they can’t control? (Two weeks ago a suicide bomber nearly killed Saudi Arabia’s anti-terror chief.)

You can file this one away with the “new strategy” in Afghanistan (new = more weapons, more troops, more bombs – how original).

Is no one in Washington paying attention anymore? Have we decided to just assume that when any strategy fails, it must have been because we didn’t fire enough rounds of ammunition?

If we are ever to progress, we need to revolutionize America’s world view and develop something truly “new” instead of just supersizing the same failed military tactics.

A major revision of our worldview begins with acknowledging context – and this is a role for the media. We tune into the news not to hear some idiot tell us their talking points and instigate blind anger, but to understand the causes and effects of what is happening in our world.

This requires, first and foremost, that our journalists stop focusing on the sensational and spectacle, but instead on the economic, social, and geopolitical factors that are at the root of contemporary events.

We have to stop seeing the world through a prism of isolation, and begin to acknowledge that violence, terrorism, and war don’t just materialize out of thin air.

Insurgents/rebels/militias (whatever you want to call them) in Nigeria aren’t just out to make trouble – they’re pissed that multi-national oil companies are pumping a valuable natural resource out from under them (land that they have lived on for generations) and exporting the profits out of Africa with little concern for the poverty, environmental destruction, and corruption that such profit-taking requires.

Yet any news stories rarely look at this context – they simply report that more crazy black people in Nigeria have taken a hostage or attacked a pipeline (and we are left to assume it’s because they “hate progress”).

[...nearly $30 billion in annual profits - not bad, considering they are pumping some of it from a country where per capita GDP is $1,500...]

We need our journalists to show us that religion is not the cause, but merely a convenient tool used by would-be despots to gain power.

Somalia isn’t a haven for Islamic militias and would-be terrorists because they are Muslim – it’s a shithole because of desertification and the consequential lack of suitable land for agriculture that causes food shortages and eliminates income opportunities. Now even their coastline is preyed upon by fishing vessels from European and Asian countries. The warlords that seek to benefit financially and politically from this chaos use religion as a rallying cry because few people are willing to kill indiscriminately over fish or sorghum.

However, the news just reports that more crazy black people (this time Muslim) are hijacking and killing to fulfill their jihad (and we are left to assume it’s because Islam is a violent religion…or so we’ve been told – repeatedly).

Our journalists must show us that some of the worst crimes against humanity are not because of our racial or ethnic differences, but the result of human pressures on ever-dwindling resources.

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda wasn’t about one tribe killing another over historical hatred – it was about a crowded nation left with little land to grow food, raise a family, and hand down to their descendants. But the political leaders that instigated the genocide (notably, through talk radio…) knew few people would be willing to hack their neighbor to death with a machete over where to put a fencepost. So they used tribe, ethnicity, and race, which is why in areas where there were no Tutsis to kill, an equal number of Hutus were killed instead.

But the news media just reported (and still reports) it as more crazy black people killing because of “race” (because when Africans kill each other, it must be over ethnicity/tribal affiliation – but when we kill Iraqis, Afghans, or Pakistanis, of course, that has nothing to do with race…).

Once our media begins to show context, a stupid-ass quote from our Defense Secretary about arming our Arab allies to convince Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons will be exposed for its insanity.

After all, the main reason Iran is developing nuclear technology is to deter a U.S. invasion from one of the many neighboring countries America currently occupies. Thus, putting more weapons in the hands of more of Iran’s neighbors would only strengthen their resolve to get a nuclear weapon before it’s too late (nuclear deterrence has worked well for that other part of the Axis of Evil, North Korea…).

But of course, that kind of context is ignored. Instead, we are told – again and again – Iran is developing nuclear weapons to “wipe Israel off the map.”

When it comes to understanding the news, context is everything.

An uninformed (or misinformed) public can’t sustain true democracy. All they can do is follow those waving the bloodstained flags of race, ethnicity, religion, and division.

Context, not weapons, will help devise a new global strategy (and a better democracy) originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on September 10, 20092009-09-10T05:36:29ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

Ganesh – at his best

Wil Robinson — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:45:20 +0000

Last night was the end of Ganapati – a ten day long festival in honor of Ganesh, the four-armed, elephant-headed deity (often referred to locally as Ganapati).

In Mumbai this is, by far, the most exciting festival (and in India, there is plenty of competition).

Essentially, every family buys a plaster statue of Ganesh and keeps it among incense, oil lamps, garlands of jasmine and marigolds, and various other pooja items (religious offerings). Local neighborhoods, politicians, and businesses sponsor large, temporary temples around the city where an immense Ganapati is kept, and people can visit and worship for free.

These temples are the most impressive – the streets are lined with lights (a la Christmas style), music is blasted (only Ganesh’s favorite tunes), and firecrackers are omnipresent (as usual).

From my flat on the 11th floor, the lights were pretty impressive.

But once you get to ground level, the lights were blocked by the advertisements…commercialism is king.

The makeshift temples are constructed with raw wood and rope, and covered with cloth to produce the appearance of a fantastic structure. This was the main temple built last year below my apartment building.

This year, they went for something a little more subtle – a Sai Baba-themed temple.

The portrait in the center of the old man in white is Sai Baba, a 19th century saint from the region. He is thought to have been a Hindu that grew up studying under a Muslim Sufi, influencing his universal approach to religion. Sai Baba is still revered by both Muslims and Hindus, and is probably the most popular figure in Mumbai.

This temple was the one at the center of the lights I could see below my flat, complete with vendors selling toys and balloons to the kids waiting in line.

This amazing golden temple (again, only a temporary structure built from sticks, rope, and cloth) had a waterfall inside.

Around the corner, another makeshift temple.

Yesterday, in the early evening, the final processions began. On the last day, the Ganesh statues are placed on the back of a large truck and escorted, with all the pomp and circumstance required for a popular deity, to the nearest body of water (in the case of our neighborhood, a pond). These large gatherings have a sense of community (and safety) that seems to be lacking in the U.S. – there is no alcohol, no fighting, and no trouble. Just people having fun.

The parade of celebrants leading the way is slow-going, loud, festive, and always accompanied by drums, cowbells, and cymbals.

And, of course, firecrackers…

This parade had a line of young men in their Gandhi caps and dhotis playing cymbals in honor of Ganesh.

There was also a few young warriors on horseback leading the way. The kid in the center is supposed to be Shivaji, a 17th century Marathi general who enjoys royal status in Maharashtra.

At the back of the procession was the Ganapati – this one is from the Sai Baba temple. People on the back of the trucks hand out free prasad (sweets or food that contains the deity’s blessing).

Along the parade route toward the pond the crowds gather, including those throwing pink powder that ends up covering anyone around, including the drummers (apologies – some photos are blurry because it was getting dark…).

This Ganapati is a mix between Shiva and Ganesh.

At the end of the parade route is the pond, where, after a final prayer, brave young men float out to the center on inner-tubes with the Ganesh statues and submerse them in the water forever.

Thanks to my partner in crime, Serendenstudios.com, for some of the photos.

Ganesh – at his best originally appeared on A World of Progress TeamZine on September 4, 20092009-09-04T04:45:20ZF j, Y.

Wil Robinson
AWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will

No related posts.