« The Iranian Holocaust Conference: an exercise in theatre | Main | BlueStarPR: Crude but aesthetically pleasing propaganda »
The Dream Deferred Contest: it stinks like rotten meat
By yaman | December 24, 2006
I almost entered this essay contest on civil rights in the Middle East last year sponsored by the Hands Across the Mideast Support Alliance. Looking over the first place essay, I’m glad I didn’t, and I’m almost certain I will not participate this year either. Responding to the question “Why should Americans like you help civil rights reformers in the Middle East?,” an American student named Mohammed Halawi wrote a piece worthy for publication in the California Patriot belittling the people of that region and advancing an imaginary, mythical image of America for the low price of $2,000.
The first sentence defines the submission: What will U.S.-sponsored freedom in the Middle East unleash? In a nutshell Halawi denies hundreds of millons of people, for whose welfare he claims to have great concern, any sense of agency and initiative. Freedom, for them, will not come as a result of their own struggles; instead, it will be “sponsored” by the U.S., who, as we all know, may threaten to take away that “freedom” whenever it disapproves. “Freedom,” after all, isn’t free but a service possible only with the support of that great liberator America. It might not be in the interests of the United States to “sponsor” freedom in the Middle East anyway because it’s not quite clear what happens when the blob of faceless people there and their uninformed and perhaps medieval opinions will do once “unleashed.” Later, Halawi writes that “freedom is not part of a ‘Western conspiracy’ or a ‘foreign imposition.’” This is true. Freedom is not an invention or an export of the West; however, “U.S.-sponsored freedom” is.
How could this essay, with all its serious flaws, have possibly won the approval and praise of the contest’s panel of notable judges who are true activists threatened by their environment but toiling daily for their goals nevertheless? That will remain a mystery to me, but I can look at other things that may explain how this essay was produced, let alone chosen.
The way the contest was designed, I think, was not conducive to realistic interpretations of current events. For example, the guidelines explicitly state the following when describing “mistakes to avoid” in submitted essays:
Do not focus on US government foreign policy. The essay should center around what ordinary citizens can do, particularly on the grassroots level. And do not focus primarily on regional geo-political challenges, like the Iraq War debate or the Arab-Israeli conflict. Your essay should focus on the struggle to protect individual rights within Middle Eastern societies. These include, but are not limited to, freedom of expression, women’s equality, minority rights, religious freedom, media freedom, economic liberty, artistic freedom, and freedom of association. You may discuss the impact of US and international diplomacy, but we caution you from making these issues the focus of your essay.
…but how can any dialog by Americans about civil rights in the Middle East be complete without reflection on the role that they, by the actions of their government, play in that regards? Isn’t anything that an American does relating to foreign places inherently related to foreign policy? The questions posed by HAMSA cannot be answered without considering foreign policy simply because these are foreign movements and foreign circumstances, and any independent initiative will inevitably clash with or be enhanced by those policies. Foreign policy of Western powers should not be used as an excuse for the lack of civil development (as it often is), but it cannot be completely ignored either and sometimes is a legitimate explanation of certain phenomena.
Given this reality, a question is raised: what exactly can Americans and others around the world do to support these movements from a distance? This is a difficult question to tackle and not one to which I can claim to have a solid answer, but it is not difficult to come up with certain standards defining the nature of any actions undertaken.
1) These movements should not be ‘American’ in the sense that they speak of exporting and/or promoting American values. Besides being somewhat delusional, it’s rather arrogant and indecent to claim ownership over liberty. There is nothing wrong with Americans supporting or taking leadership roles in this movement, but these positions must be grounded in something that has grown out of or come from something in the region in question. The driving force should be sympathy, not pity or ‘duty.’
2) These movements should not claim that “American interests” are inextricably linked to this or that. Admittedly and regretfully, in the past I have made statements to that effect under the illusion that it would be more effective in achieving the end by compromising the means. This was not the case and actually ended up weakening my position. Additionally, I think that a movement grounded in moral clarity and humanity should not be based in self-interest. I suppose the idea behind this tactic is that it is easier to win people over to your side when it is in their interests–but without instilling moral courage into people, what stops them from floating to the next persuasive argument that comes their way?
3) These movements should not frame themselves within current constructs, but ought to create new ones. Halawi in his essay romanticizes about long-standing American ideals (”The U.S. is not the most powerful nation in the world because of the future that is ahead of it, but because of the principles that are behind of it”–hooey) presumably because it’s easier for the audience to digest these sweets than something more sinister like, say, the truth. Let us be matter-of-fact and rhetorically consistent. We should not limit ourselves to ‘acceptable’ political discourse simply so that we appear as ‘moderates’ lest we perpetuate existing orders that may or may not always be aligned with the cause of justice and civil rights in the Middle East. A good part of our contribution to those brave people fighting against tyranny and injustice throughout the world has to do with the way we talk about them and our relationships with them.
4) These movements should not seek the endorsement of Western governments or other celebrities in order to win a sense of legitimacy because, considering those who do have the approval of the West, it’s not all that meritorious. Too many people are easily flustered and excited when they win an audience with The Officials and this can sometimes be inebriating and ultimately undermining. In some cases this eagerness to please officialdom can be downright self-deprecating. Focus on the goals, not the praise. Meetings and official puffery are not successes in and of themselves and nowadays might even be a sign of failure.
5) These movements should not resort to simple and deceptive platitudes like “Islam is the problem” or “Democracy is the answer.” Eliminating Islam or implementing democracy does not solve outstanding grievances and social problems. Just as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s slogan “Islam is the solution” is empty, so are ones of this sort. Some believe that all problems in the Middle East are the product of problems inherent with Islam or with the Arab Mind but, besides being inaccurate, this failed explanation is an intellectual and moral cop out.
I am not claiming that HAMSA is guilty of these things, but I do think the winning essay is. The primary problem with the contest as designed by HAMSA is what I mentioned before: silence regarding American foreign policy. It seems that there is a new wave of well-intentioned progressives who, in their eagerness to win support for their cause, believe it is vital to separate (or create the image of separation between) their cause from that of “radicals” who criticize American foreign policy. This ties in to point #3: a lot of this tendency to ignore issues like Palestine and Iraq is because honestly tackling these topics might “blemish” an individual or organization in the eyes of key political elites. I would agree that it does leave a noticable blemish because it is a morally weak position, not because somebody in power will be disgruntled. It also perpetuates a belief that these issues are not, on some level, connected and interdependent and might lead to the oddly paradoxical belief that somehow it is possible to continue developing civic institutions under military occupation or the threat of war. Both perspectives are flawed and dangerous.
In short, we should not tolerate this brand of self-censorship and we should consider the environment in which we operate when we decide to act. It is not courageous to criticize American and Israeli foreign policy in Damascus, but it is cowardly not to while in a place where a proper critique may fall on ears with the ability to produce change and I can’t think of a more appropriate vehicle for such criticisms than the one offered by HAMSA.
Topics: Comment |
December 25th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
[...] After spending many frustrated hours thinking about the post I wrote about the HAMSA essay contest, I decided I would take the advice of a few good friends and present an argument outlining what the proper way to support civil rights activists abroad is. For the long version, which is based on an earlier blog posting, click the ‘read more’ link below. [...]
January 12th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Wow… Your words have really impacted me; I will admit that before tonight i did not really know much of what was going on in the Middle East, but now that I know a little of it I want to help… But how can one person like me help?
February 18th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
of course Arabs will never let “American-sponsored” democracy work in Iraq, or any other Middle Eastern country because it would be too damaging to their gigantic Arab pride. Americans do try to take credit for things that are not theirs (the “cedar revolution” etc.), and it is understandably insulting to Arabs. But then again how many times do the British say that they “gave” palestine to the Jews, when in reality they only left after getting their asses kicked by Jewish Independence fighters. Or when Jimmy Carter says the UN “established” Israel, when in reality Israel had to establish itself and fight for its survival from the beginning.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Yeah, Arabs will never “let” it work in Iraq, as if “the Arabs” are the obstacle, some masochistic mass that won’t accept what’s good for it. Not only do Americans tend to take credit for things that are not theirs, but they also take credit for things that are entirely imagined, and never happened while rejecting responsibility for things that they have done.
As for the British, I’ve never come across an account of the British claiming that they gave Palestine to the Jews. In fact, quite the opposite, though they did accommodate massive Jewish immigration to the area. The UN did endorse the partition of Palestine into two ethnically defined states, but the Israeli state apparatus and infrastructure were domestic accomplishments. Though I’m not really sure what any of this has to do with the remote-controlled “democracies” of the Middle East. Is this one of those “an eye for an eye” deals, or what? Do you think maybe you dodge the point by giving instances where Jews have been victimized? I don’t understand this logic.