Completing the Unncompleted: Rethinking the US Terrorism List
H O
COMPLETING THE UNCOMPLETED: RE-THINKING THE US TERRORISM LIST
Afis. A Oladosu
"He who kills a soul without a just cause, his recompense shall be that of he who annihilates the whole of humanity; and he who gives life to a soul, his recompense shall be that of he who gives life to the whole of humanity" (Qur'an 5: 35)
Early in the week, the United States released what it called an updated list of Countries of Interest, an euphemism for countries which it believes "produces" or have the potential of "producing" terrorists. Included in the list, as expected, are predominant Muslim countries in Asia and the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) such as Saudi–Arabia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. The newest addition to the "exclusive" club, aside from Cuba, happened to be Nigeria in sub-Sahara Africa. Nigeria "gained" admission sequel to the infamous audacity of al-Mutallab's son to attempt to commit suicide and multiple murder by downing a US Jetliner across the Atlantic on the 25th of December 2009 (Pray! How do parents feel when their children become reference point for infamy). The inclusion of or is it the "Re-branding" of Nigeria by the US as a Terrorist nation has rightly drawn the flak of the Federal Government even as innocent and law abiding Nigerians who have genuine causes to travel to the United States now become afraid of venturing to the US Visa section and the various international airports. In the Visa Section of the US Embassy, to apply for visa with the green passport is to fail the interview; to venture into the airport with the green passport is to be given the Mutallab treatment. The updated terrorist list has declared all Nigerians guilty of terrorism; my body would now have to go through the scanner in the airports even though I neither approve of Umar al-farouq's action nor could I find justification for it in the Qur'an.
But the US updated terrorist list appears weak in its philosophy and incomplete in its content. To declare the list philosophically jaundiced is not to privilege ignorance of its goal. Coming as it were from the metropolis, the list travels the familiar pathway in which the powerful or strong seeks to not only affirm its authority but constantly seeks to deny the weak all opportunities to self-define. Unlike the Bush administration during which the world was told of the existence of the axis of evil (Iran, Iraq and North Korea), now the world has woken up to another reality- a reality which only the United States is capable of appropriating- of the existence of over ten countries in which "terrorism" is planted and nurtured in order to be unleashed against the world. The world, we must keep in mind, is the West; the West, we must never forget, is the United States of America.
Now when the philosophy on which the list is premised is closely interrogated, one finds only one premise – the necessity of keeping citizens of countries on the list under close watch. The list assumes that the next act of terror is likely to be perpetrated only by citizens of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Cuba, Somalia and others. This assumption appears not only invalid but completely off the mark. It is invalid because insofar as the previously drawn up list failed to predict, a priori, the event of the 25th of December, 2009 and the emergence of al-Mutallab's son as the next terrorist, then it stands to reason that the US list of Terrorism-Inclined-Countries (TIC) or States which sponsor terrorism would likely be of little effect either in preventing or mitigating acts of terror all around the world in the future.
I disagree with the list based on another premise: that it completely ignores the "why" question. In other words, all counter-terrorism activities of the United States appear to have been targeted at answering only the "how" question. Put differently, rather than asking the question: why would a cleric in the hungry land of Yemen deliberately indoctrinate a Nigerian religious zealot in order that the latter might seek to kill himself in order to kill hundreds of innocent Americans, America would gloat in the revelry of asking: how do we exterminate our enemy?; how do we defeat al-Qaeda?; how do we establish our military supremacy? The point at issue is this: incidence of terrorism would gradually witness a reduction once America's power and authority is deliberately fashioned against the promotion of the other side of America and Americans to its adversaries; once America decides to address questions which bleeds the hearts of its enemies all around the world; once America, for example, gives security to Israel while ensuring the nationhood of Palestine.
When reference is made to the list as being incomplete, however, it is with the intention to turn the American argument on its head. Let us attempt to examine the sophistry of the America's philosophy on this issue. To do this we would have to recall the recent execution of a British citizen, Akmal Shaikh, in China for carrying narcotics to that extremely regimented or policed state. Thus as soon as I read the list of what I now call the TIS (Terrorism-Inclined-States) from the US, I found myself eagerly awaiting a similar list from China which would contain names of countries with close links to narcoticism all around the world. In other words, let China or Nigeria draw up its own list of countries which not only "produces" narcotics but actually nurtures. It is my expectation that Mexico and Columbia would occupy position number one and two. Employing the American argument, and taking into consideration the saga of Akmal, the British citizen in China, then Britain should be given position number three! By American standard, the guilt of one is the guilt of all!
But the United States drawn up list of countries with links to terrorism is actually incomplete for its deliberate exclusion of a popular but powerful country whose citizens have perpetrated terror all around the world. The country that has been excluded, quite ironically, by the US is the United States of America! Citizens of America were, of recent, caught in Pakistan trying to join al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Late last year an American soldier unleashed terror on his colleagues in Fort, Texas, sending about a score to the great beyond.
Thus we are face to face with an extremely profound reality: acts of terrorism are gender- and racial-blind. Again, to link acts of violence only with the Muslims is also to bask in ignorance of history. An assumption that terrorism could be bound to a particular space or geography in our world today is to suffer inanity. In other words, the same way terrorism could be perpetrated in Texas, in like manner, it could be perpetrated in Tokyo.
The Muslim world is equally in the eye of the storm and in a dilemma. We are confronted with the truth which our religion professes and clamours for; we are embarrassed with the falsity in and the falsehood which characterizes the actions some of our brethren in faith; We are marooned in-between the peace and peaceful authority that the Qur'an represents and the violence that the authoritarian among us visits not only on the minds of innocent young Muslims but equally on the Qur'an. To assume, as some still do, that America is, and would forever be, a nemesis to the Muslim world, an arch-enemy, that must be fought, is to neglect the fact that the United States has produced and provided succour and safety – and still does- to some of the greatest Muslim intellectuals of the contemporary period; it is to expose the lacuna in our appropriation of reality: that we are unable to stand at that important juncture at which we would identify the difference between America, the government, and America of the Americans. To position America as the eternal enemy is to forget a basic, solemn and profound feature of this world – no nation is completely good; no country is completely evil.
I close with the address of Abu Bakr (d. 634) the successor of the Prophet of Islam, delivered, in part, to the first expedition he sent to the Syrian borders. The address images a perspective to the quintessential position of Islam on war and the treatment of the non-Muslims and innocent creatures of Allah. He says: "Stop, O People! that I may give you ten rules to keep by heart. Do not commit treachery, nor depart from the right path. You must not mutilate, neither kill a child or aged man or woman. Do not destroy a palm tree, nor burn it with fire and do not cut any fruitful tree. You must not slay any of the flock of the herds or the camels save for your subsistence. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them to that to which they devoted their lives. You are likely to find people who will present to you meals of many kinds. You may eat; but do not forget to mention the name of Allah" |
Obododimma Oha
Now imagine if Umar Farouk Abdalmuttalab had been Swedish – or a
Swedish citizen like Mehdi Muhammed Ghezali or Oussama Kassir. But
Nigeria is not Sweden…
To just take up a single strand from this your most perspicacious
article:
“Coming as it were from the metropolis, the list travels the familiar
pathway in which the powerful or strong seeks to not only affirm its
authority but constantly seeks to deny the weak all opportunities to
self-define. Unlike the Bush administration during which the world was
told of the existence of the axis of evil (Iran, Iraq and North
Korea), now the world has woken up to another reality- a reality which
only the United States is capable of appropriating- of the existence
of over ten countries in which "terrorism" is planted and nurtured in
order to be unleashed against the world. The world, we must keep in
mind, is the West; the West, we must never forget, is the United
States of America.”
Repeat a lie enough times and it will begin to metamorphose into being
“the Truth”, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the truth
which will set you free and make Uncle Sam happy.
That’s what happened with the myth of Saddam’s “Weapons of Mass
Destruction” which have now all disappeared from sight. In its prime
time, that truth was being backed by this kind of document:
http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/Britdossier.pdf
Brian Eno’s introductory essay in “What Have You changed Your Mind
About “ published by Edge Foundation in 2009, voices exactly the same
concern.
http://edge.org/
He takes up the question raised in your paragraph above, in more
general terms - as the very reason for the existence of that book:
“There is now an almost total disconnection between the validity of a
story and its media success: it’s a good enough – or convenient
enough- story, it will echo eternally around the media universe. We
lack any publicly accepted way of saying; “This is demonstrably
wrong.” And as a result there is no disincentive to unconstrained
spinning, trafficking in poor information, and downright lying. The
result is a diminishing accountability at almost every level of public
discourse and a burgeoning industry of professional Swiftboaters.
There used to be a regular program on BBC radio, during the 1980s. It
was only five minutes long, but in that five minutes the makers sought
to examine a modern myth to see whether it held up to scrutiny.
During those Reagan/ Thatcher years, a popular way of attacking the
conspicuously successful (and inconveniently socialistic Swedish
social system was to knowingly point out that they has the world’s
highest suicide rate - as though the price of all that official
altruism was widespread cultural despondency. Actually it turned out
that the Swedes didn’t have an exceptionally high suicide rate - the
country was ranked somewhere in the thirties, below France, Spain,
Japan, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark and Germany, and just
one place above the United States – but it was too good a story to
drop , and to this day, you'll still hear it..
I suppose it doesn’t really matter if people continue to think the
Swedes are killing themselves at record-breaking rates, or if people
believe that “The Da Vinci Code” is a true story( as I was
confidently assured by a New York policeman), or if they think that
Eskimos have four hundred words for snow, but it really does matter if
they believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, or that
global warming is an anticapitalist plot, or that Senator Kerry was a
coward during his Vietnam service. These things matter because they
have direct real-world consequences, and in a media-soaked universe
they point out the Achilles’ heel of democracy. Democracy was intended
to flourish by engaging the intelligence of the wider population – on
the assumption that people might, on average, be able to assess what
is in their best interests. But if the information upon which they
make their assessments is of poor quality, how can that work?”
In other words Dr Oladosu A. Afis, we are in trouble. We are all in
trouble – and none of us – no one of us wants to be perceived of a
being a terrorists or a potential terrorist, which is what we must
assume is the way that they see us/ look upon us - when we line up to
face the airport scanner in our spotlessly clean underwear, conscious
that what must be must be, at the airport
“Where are you from Sir?”
- Nigeria
“Could you kindly step over here?”
Ignominy. The very thought of it. Wants to see whether or not you’ve
got some explosives stashed up your gnash.
“Madam, (in hijab and Burka) could you step over here please?”
And even if you’re called Kofi or Kwame, it’s not going to help that
much – at the airport they’ll probably think you’re lying, we all look
like Nigerians anyway - and today one Nigerian represents all
Nigerians – in fact all black men potentially from the terrorist
nation.
That’s one reason why we should PROTEST.
Once it was part of the colourful graffiti and scrawled in men’s’
toilets too “All Africans have aids”
And now we are all potential terrorists.
Nigeria has a very vibrant media, second to none in Africa…. But what
impact does that media have in the West – and how is it handling this
question of our collective terrorist image?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com
--
Obododimma Oha
http://udude.wordpress.com/
Dept. of English
University of Ibadan
Nigeria
&
Fellow, Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies
University of Ibadan
Phone: +234 803 333 1330;
+234 805 350 6604;
+234 808 264 8060.
Cornelius Hamelberg
“Perhaps the best thing to do when one is going to pass through
airports to get to one's destination nowadays is not to dress up at
all. Instead of removing one's shoes, belt, jacket, etc. at several
checkpoints, one should just carry those in one's hands and finally
dress up when one gets to one's destination.”
Your literary article coincides with/ complements this one:
The NAKED TRUTH about airport scanners
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/07/the-naked-truth-about-airport
The age of nudity and of transparent clothing is soon upon us – just
one stop/step away from Obama’s grass skirts of Honolulu. That could
be a pretty sight at Arlanda , the young ladies ( exhibitionists)
prancing around, bare breasts bobbing up and down, carrying their
clothes as hand luggage - but they’d still have to step up to the
scanners for the voyeurs to see what else they may/ could/ would be
carrying in their other crevices….hope that the scanners do not emit
radiation and that the scanners/voyeurs themselves do not explode
The practical questions remain unanswered:
How are we going to redeem our tarnished image?:
On Jan 10, 12:37 pm, Obododimma Oha <obodo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Cornelius,
> Here's a reflection on airport search which I posted on one of my blogs in
> 2008 that might interest you:
> "Undressed Thoughts <http://obododimma.livejournal.com/#entry_2639>"http://obododimma.livejournal.com/#entry_2639
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
H O
Dear Prof Cornelius...
Let me thank u for elaborating on this issue and for the additional sources...but your piece has succeeded in frightening me the more....im not sure i want to go thorugh the al-Farouk treatment whether in Nigeria in Uncle Sam's land..not anymore....in the warm and bucolic terrain of the University of Ibadan im sure nobody would have the audacity to examine how big or smal my prick is...which is the undisclosed reason for the scanning or is it scamming machines...
Oladosu --- On Sat, 1/9/10, Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Cornelius Hamelberg
In the “ vulnerable world” of air travel that we are all heir to, you
did express the following misgivings about the future possibilities,
in these prophetic words/suggestions, written on Wole Soyinka's 74th
birthday, 13th July, 2008:
“Perhaps the best thing to do when one is going to pass through
airports to get to one's destination nowadays is not to dress up at
all. Instead of removing one's shoes, belt, jacket , etc. at several
checkpoints, one should just carry those in one's hands and finally
dress up when one gets to one's destination.”
Happily or unhappily due to the suspicions about the now the young
man who is currently/topically the most well known Nigerian in the
world, we now read something like this:
“Unfortunately, just as we now must remove our shoes at airport
screening thanks to Richard Reid’s botched attempt to light one of his
shoes, new security measures have a decidedly rearview mirror quality,
e.g., passengers are to remain seated during the last hour prior to
landing since Mr. Abdulmutallab stood up to ignite his underwear. “
And the title of the story is:
“Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Meets Inspector Jacques Clouseau”
More on the story:
http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/robert-weissberg-umar-farouk
http://www.hwforums.com/2206/messages/18706.html
On Jan 10, 12:37 pm, Obododimma Oha <obodo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Cornelius,
> Here's a reflection on airport search which I posted on one of my blogs in
> 2008 that might interest you:
> "Undressed Thoughts <http://obododimma.livejournal.com/#entry_2639>"http://obododimma.livejournal.com/#entry_2639