Really... that's a different take on Afghanistan

I was happily (well, as happy as I can be at 5:30 a.m.) driving to work this morning listening to dw.world on CBC when mine ears were tweaked by this story on the debate in Germany over whether to agree to NATO's request to send combat troops to Afghanistan.

The debate itself was not what caught my attention but the last couple of sentences where the reporter said that Hamid Karzai, the big man himself, had questioned the efficacy of having more foreign troops present and that opinion polls in Afghanistan had shown a growing lack of support for this same presence.

Reeeeeaaaaaaaallllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy?

Last time I checked, we were being told here in Canada that there was unflinching support for our troops by Afghanis and that more troops were needed. Didn't Karzai just issue a statement in the last couple of months that our troops were essential to stability in Afghanistan and that *any* troop withdrawals would cause serious problems? Wasn't there just something in the Manley report about requiring more troops from NATO in order for our troops to stay?

I guess they don't want just anybody's troops, just ours. Gosh, I feel all warm and fuzzy.

Oops, but wait, perhaps there has been a shift in Karzai's position. Here is a report from Australia today confirming the German report. It'll be interesting to see what kind of play the story gets here in Canada.

Interesting how stories are reported in different countries. I highly recommend the CBC between 5 and 6 a.m. - news from Australia, Prague and Germany followed by the Business Network. The most useful hour of radio that I've found.

Stating a bit of the obvious...

In case you've missed it, Israel has closed the borders into Gaza meaning that no supplies (including humanitarian aid) have been entering the Palestinian territories for the past 5 days...

"Meanwhile, John Dugard, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, also released a statement on Friday saying that recent Israeli actions in Gaza violated international treaties.

“The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a Government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel’s respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process,” he said in a press release.

Mr. Dugard said the actions violated the strict prohibition in the Geneva Conventions on collective punishment and one of the basic principles of international humanitarian law – that military action must distinguish between military targets and civilian targets.

Mr. Dugard, who serves in an unpaid and personal capacity, reports to the UN Human Rights Council, which will hold a special session this Wednesday – at the request of the Group of Arab States and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – to consider and take actions on “human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions in the occupied Palestinian territory,” including Gaza and the West Bank town of Nablus." (from the UN Daily Digest on 21 January 2008)

Violating international treaties? Violating the Geneva Conventions? Ya think? Dear, dear me oh my. I think it is time for this occupation to end.

One final, historical example of exclusion

Again from Hopgood's article, a few quotes on the project to assimilate 'the Indian' in the U.S. back in the 1800s and early 1900s.

The native peoples of America were considered to be like children by the governments in the U.S. during this time period. They were deemed incapable of taking care of their own land and behaving in a civilized manner, therefore, their lands were held in trust until they showed their capacity. Those who could pass the competency test were given "fee-simple titles to the land and thus citizenship during elaborate and heavily symbolic ceremonies conducted by the Indian Office:"

"The crowd would look on while their 'competent' brethren were summoned individually from inside the lodge. The candidates for land titles were dressed in traditional costume and armed with a bow and arrow. After ordering a candidate to shoot his arrow into the distance, the presiding officer... would announce 'You have shot your last arrow'. The arrowless archer would then return to the tipi and reemerge a few minutes later in 'civilized' dress. 'Take the handle of this plow', the government's man would say, 'this act means that you have chosen to live the life of the white man - and the white man lives by work' " (from Frederick E. Hoxie, A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989: 180).

This process of "cultural suicide" was continued through institutional schooling which in the words of Captain Richard Henry Pratt aimed to "Kill the Indian in him and save the man" (David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1995: 212, 52).

"Education serves to both clean the slate and replace it with a new lesson" (Hopgood, 18). The trick is that back in the 1800s, the elites were open and proud of this mission - to replace the savage with the civilized, to create an individual who would be worthy of citizenship and participation in civil society. Today, this intention has had to remain part of the subtle background, elite members of a society can no longer openly proclaim their project to erase the savage and preserve the man but, instead, attempt this aim through the promotion of supposedly universal human rights.

Sigh.

A Practical Example of Exclusion

I realize that yesterday's post may have been a wee bit confusing so I thought I'd provide an example - but first a tiny bit more explanation. Civil society, in the sense that I am using it, is a space in which members of a society can engage in free and constructive debate to determine what type of society they want to live in. Citizens (however that is defined) or more generally, members of the society ideally would all have equal access to this space. To me it seems obvious that anyone who is excluded from this discussion suffers a loss of standing in their level of citizenship - a hierarchy is created between those whose opinion is valuable and acceptable and those whose ideas are not.

On with the example. Back in 2006, there was a controversy about a book that had been well-researched and well-written and that dealt with an important topic. The book I am talking about is Three Wishes: Palestinian and Israeli Children Speak by Deborah Ellis. This book has been restricted in many school districts, including Toronto, because of a campaign by the Canadian Jewish Congress after the book made the Silver Birch award finalist list. This article by Mary-Lou Zeitoun provides a quick introduction to the situation from one side, here is an article from the Toronto Star posted by the CJC. The issue was whether this book was appropriate for children, and whether it should be made available through schools.

Another book which has been restricted, or banned outright, from various school boards is The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman as well as the other two books in his Dark Materials trilogy after a campaign by the American Catholic League and the release of the major motion picture in 2007 (although the books have been available since 1995). In this article from the CTV, the reason for the removal is explained - Pullman is an admitted atheist and his values do not fit with those of the Catholic School Board. The best part is that in Halton, the review board okayed to book for Grade 7 and up but the trustees voted to ban it entirely. After all, students can always go the "public" library to get the book. Interesting, where exactly does the Catholic School Board of Halton get its funding?

Okay, the point of this is not that books get banned, after all, we've been allowing library boards to do that for decades but that these bannings, I think, point very strongly towards the groups whose views are acceptable and whose views are not. Palestinians, nope, not acceptable. Atheists, nope, gotta go. And, above all else, children must be protected from reality, from the fact that there are terrible things that happen in the world and that there may be people who disagree with the ones educating them.

In order to have a truly open debate we need to hear from all points of view, be able to critically engage with those views, and come to new understandings about why and how we are to live our lives. I'm not sure how this is supposed to happen if we limit the participants of dialogue only to those people and groups with whom we agree and who support our point of view.

To me, that's pretty weak.

The Hypocrisy of Modern, Liberal Civil Society

I finished Stephen Hopgood's article, "Reading the Small Print in Global Civil Society" (Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2000. 29(1): 1-25) today and he raises some interesting concerns about the displacement of morality and virtues from discussions in civil society to a position of sub-text that underlies the more acceptable "rights" discussion occurring in the world today. The idea is that back in the 1800s and early 1900s, in order to be a citizen and acquire the rights of that position, one would have to meet certain criteria of civilization. Those criteria would include certain moral values, in the United States these would mostly be the Protestant virtues of "industry, piety, parsimony, and self-reliance" (16).

Today, it is accepted that it is incorrect to expect everyone to have the same values so instead we talk about universal human rights. The trouble is that within this distribution of rights is the assumption of a certain moral basis - instead of openly constructing societies with the same moral basis, liberals now try to sneak them in the back door, at least, according to Hopgood.

It makes me wonder if there is any chance for a truly open space of discussion (or discourse) to exist. If we all bring our own moral choices to the discussion, how can we remain open to what others will say? Moreover, if global power elites insist that all those included in the discussion have the same sets of values, how will we ever move past the ideas that divide us? How can we come up with truly universal rights when only a select group of people with similar values is allowed to participate in the discussion?