Declan Gavin's perfectly knowledgeable piece in Foreign Policy is perfectly in tune with the typical human rights organization's approach to terrorism, and indeed to the "progressive" views about the challenge of terrorism.
That's why I cite it here for my long-standing point about the lack of heart in the human rights movement -- because he is absolutely typical and also happens to be a Global Human Rights Fellow along with being an Africa researcher.
Every line in his article is the kind of line you find in a typical Human Rights Watch report or a press release or campaign from Human Rights First. And every line is true, in its way.
But...the blood isn't even washed from the floors of the smoking Westgate Mall, attacked by Al-Shabaab terrorists who killed 68 people and injured 150 more in this Al Qaeda affiliate's worst act of terrorism, yet Gavin like so many other leftist do-gooders is already cautioning the Kenyan government not to "overreact." In other words, like so many activists and "progressive" analysts he goes out of his way to blame only harsh policies for terrorism thereby taking the spotlight off the terrorists and their atrocities themselves.
There isn't even a tear shed for people just like him -- a highly-educated couple doing humanitarian work in Kenya -- a woman who was eight months pregnant, and her husband, were murdered in the attack:
A 33-year-old pregnant staffer for the Clinton Global Initiative and her boyfriend were among those killed in the Kenya mall shooting, former President Bill Clinton said.
Elif Yavuz, a senior vaccines researcher based in Tanzania, had been expecting a baby with Ross Langdon, an award-winning architect, who was also killed in the rampage.
Gavin provides a full, well-briefed argumentation rooted in a competent knowledge of Kenya's history to paint a picture of terror growing out of the unhappy childhoods of people caught up by state authoritarianism and its crackdowns on insurgents.
But analysts like this and human rights advocates with the same perspective cannot explain why Somalis who grew up in the US or found refuge here and didn't face anything remotely similar to those kind of brutal policies against terrorists and separatists in Africa still felt the call to jihad in their homeland. They can't explain what factors account for why even victims of human rights abuses with recognizable grievances don't chose peaceful resistance, and they won't examine any of their beliefs -- cultural, religious, political, much less find fault with them.
They can't bite the bullet of the difficult choices that ensue if states are not going to use brutal physical filtration and sweeping tactics against civilians -- that more spying and dragneting of communications may be needed to find the links to known terrorists.
The problem of how to really fight tactics if you really pull back and use all these Human Rights Watch-approved methods for control of unrest just isn't ever spelled out. (I've never met a government in the world that was approved by HRW for its perfect terrorism-fighting methods AND actually combatted terrorism, too.)
Maybe if these "root causes" were really the local things they seem it might work -- but Al-Shabaab has had Al Qaeda support for years and as we can learn elsewhere, is well resourced from running the contrabrand trade.
The terrorist attack was demonstratively international in nature, as the mall was owned by Israelis and frequented by foreigners -- and American jihadists -- Somalis who had settled in the US -- were part of the attack force. Al-Shabaab's demand was ostensibly the removal of Kenyan troops from Somalia -- yet there's a vicious circle here because the troops are there because of Al-Shabaab's terrorism. But this "propaganda of the deed" was very much global in its message -- striking Israel, the West, capitalism, free commerce, foreigners of any type -- cosmopolitanism -- in this extreme collectivist, parochial and even pastoral vision of the terrorists.
But we're supposed to view this as a "root cause" situation rooted only in resource scarcity or vestiges of colonialism -- and of course the past brutal reign of Daniel Arap Moi.
To be sure, everything about his reign was a human rights wrong and there is nothing redeeming there, given the atrocities he himself committed over the decades for which there was never justice.
Yes, I realize there is a supposed civic process going on (although it's in English, on Google docs, and with Twitter, and that means that it's perhaps not as authentic and grassroots as assumed) that is raising important questions with the government that has not been forthcoming with information.
Yes, we need to know if there are hostages and the names of the victims -- but even more capable governments with more resources struggle with these kinds of details as we saw with the Washington Navy Yard and other mass killings in our own country.
And the "civic process" that rushes to blame the Jewish owners of the mall for supposedly lax security or renting to the terrorists -- a fact not confirmed -- isn't necessarily going to stay a "civic process". And the "civic process" isn't mature if it can't concede even of a flawed government that keeping certain information secret may be operationally necessary and isn't a sign of incompetence or bad faith.
Yes, I realize that most people will focus on Kenyatta and the government forces as they are ostensibly in power, but I wish just for once, just for one day, people would talk to the terrorists and tell them what they think and ask them questions!
Yet just with every other act of this nature from Israel to Russia to Nigeria, the human rightsniks can't seem to find a way to say "and terrorists, too, violate human rights and they need to stop".
They don't say this in much the same way that WikiLeaks punks on Twitter explain why they never leak anything from Russia -- it's because they claim that "it's already understood" that the Russian government is bad, and you don't need to keep piling on. Meanwhile you "expect better" from the US which is a democracy.
In fact, the WikiLeakers feel there's something "progressive" about the Kremlin -- which gave their hero a talk show on their propaganda TV -- and those failing ever to condemn terrorists along with brutal governments that chase them also feel there's something "progressive" or "necessary" about violent jihad due to "poverty" or "resource allocation". And they want to direct their critiques to governments that can be responsive -- terrorists aren't susceptible to moral pressures.
Trust me, the greatest believers in "American exceptionalism" are the "progressives" and anarchists at WikiLeaks and Anonymous who think if only they brutally re-make America, everything will be find all over the world.
And the most moral people in the world about governments, especially Western governments, especially the US, can't seem to extend and apply this morality to a judgement of terrorism on a regular and consistent basis.
That is, human rights groups think it's a truism and already obvious who terrible terrorism is, so they don't have to merely reiterate it. They have so many more ideas for how governments should very, very carefully parse the terrorists from their substrate and being oh-so-careful not to crack the eggs of civil rights in the process.
And that's all fine, but increasingly, the moral gap yawns. Why can't we condemn terrorism and why don't we have better ideas of how to stop it -- ideas that might convince even the most hard-hearted security state?
My God, 80 people killed in Pakistan or 70 in Kenya -- and you really have nothing to say about this act itself?! Beyond the pro forma formulas condemning "this cowardly act" -- the favourite saying of liberals who surely don't imagine that they've shamed the manhood of men who in fact are as bold as the little arm-choppers described in Apocalypse Now and fear not.
You wish these analysts and these groups had a way at least to give solidarity to -- or even just attention to -- the people who try to stand up to this mass murder.
After the Westgate attack, taking great risk themselves, 160 Somali Islamic scholars issued a fatwah against Al-Shabaab, saying it "had no place in Islam".
It was the first statement of its kind.
Could we get some human rights and peace groups showing a little solidarity with this? Could we get them applauding it and urging protection of these people from harm?
Why is it that the Protestant churches so quick to denounce Israel can't get behind this important religious statement from their counterparts there in Africa? Why can't the social action Catholic groups? Why can't those peace-making Quakers? Why can't CODE PINK? Human Rights Watch used to be very careful about not issuing approvals of various non-state actors that maybe didn't quite line up with the orthodox human rights position, but if they can embrace Edward Snowden, who really has nothing to do with human rights but is an anarchist hacker, why can't they applaud these Islamic scholars?
Good Lord, they need support with that kind of perspective in an area of the world where most people feel silence is the best policy about terrorists. And Amnesty International -- they've made common cause with CagePrisoners on legitimate human rights issues at Guantanamo, but without distinguishing their ostensible parting of the ways on issues like women's rights. Why can't they embrace these brave Islamic scholars today on this issue?
Recent Comments