Rant- Ask Why (in regards to the Paris Attacks)
Late rant about what made me upset about the paris attacks.
My biggest thoughts on recent events is that I hope people don’t stop asking questions and thinking critically. Political shock stuns the public into conformity that would support what is normally criticized (for more on this, see Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine or read my post). I’ve written an entire tumblr post on my personal blog where you can read my personal thoughts and my answers to some questions.
For reference, here are some questions I had for myself and I think you should ask yourself too.
Is the decision of my country rooted in fear and shock?
What are the long term consequences of the options on the table?
Is this the best way to go forward for all parties involved (not just my country)?
Why was solidarity with Paris so quick to happen as opposed to other locations?
Why is there still common place violence/war in certain regions still?
Psychologically, what has happened to our population to allow commonplace violence and wars to be acceptable in certain countries and unacceptable in others?
Why was Paris bombed and not somewhere else?
Why would further intervention be a good (or bad) idea?
Where is this ideology coming from?
Why does engaging in war to stop war seem like a good idea?
1) History, War and Sympathy
What happened in Paris was a tragedy by any means. However, so are the injustices happening in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Nigeria, etc. However, those tragedies aren't highlighted in the same light in the media, or given the same global sympathy. The main argument I've heard for this is because tragedy happens in those locations daily. It's commonplace. In Paris, it's not so there's more of a shock to it. For this, I have some responses that speak on the greater notion of war altogether.
a) How did violence in such nations become so commonplace? Let’s analyze this.
To me here are the main factors, but to fully understand them (which I don’t) means studying the history of such regions in detail: But here are the main factors nonetheless.
a. Being post-colonial countries : being a post- colonial country largely means that after many years of brutal rule, new countries were created with a need to
i. Unite many ethnic minorities that have historically been at war
ii. Create a government (usually a western-supported ‘democracy’) with no political experience in the manner
iii. Control an economy despite also having no experience in the manner
iv. Call and train an army despite their instability and again, no experience in the manner
b. Foreign intervention: during the time of their creation, many post-colonial countries also had to deal with the interventions of powerful countries like the USA, Russia, and many in Europe (including France). During this time, post-colonial countries had to accept their inability to stop stronger contries from:
i. Propping up leaders in place of citizen elected leaders (USA is very guilty of propping up dictators in place of communist leaders).
ii. Staging coups that would overthrow citizen backed governments. Keep in mind that these coups meant arming opposition forces in such countries (and also a sneaky way of doing so without it directly leading back to the supporting country (Russia, USA, etc)). Things to remember:
1. Who did the arming (US, Russia, China, France -> top provider of arms)
2. Where did the weapons go after the coup? (Changes depending on the country, but this is how a lot of terrorist organizations got their weapons later on).
3. What were the citizens supporting?
4. Who exactly was being overthrown, who was being armed, and which overseas countries benefited. Don’t let western propaganda skew the answers to these questions (and blatantly assume all communists were bad). Look at what each side stood for, and ask if you were a citizen in that country, what you would want.
iii. Some wiki articles to introduce the topic:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
Back to the main question. How did violence in such countries become so commonplace? My answer is that we continue to intervene and use war as the answer: supply more weapons to people who are on our side only for a moment, only in 10 years to have them turn around and become our greatest enemies. How many times does this need to happen before we realize this strategy of stopping such violence isn’t working!
b) Psychologically, what has happened to our population to allow commonplace violence and wars to be acceptable in certain countries and unacceptable in others? Question staged another way, is ‘why is terrorism in France so much more shocking than terrorism in Lebanon (for example)?’ Here are my answers:
a. A lot of the time, violence overseas is our fault (see part a). It’s harder to sympathize when the USA, France, etc is causing / responsible for the violence and at some level, we think the violence is justified. After all, we are there fighting terrorists, right? They deserved to be bombed, etc. (see part a for fallacies in this idea. Where did the terrorist come from, and just how successful war actually is).
b. In America, we can just sympathize with France more. France could have (and has been) in the past us. We (the USA) are colonizers, arms- dealers, and foreign interventionists just like France. Both countries have done a lot of damage overseas and incurred a lot of enemies and hate as a results. However, both countries are also supposed to be more powerful militarily and thus able to protect themselves from such repercussions of actions abroad. However, in this instance France failed and it’s scary. It scary because we are supposed to be stronger, and they are supposed to be weaker. They are not supposed to be able to hurt us back. I think this speaks to a deeper issue at so many levels. For example,
i. Why is it ok for us to harm a weaker country, and not expect hurt in return?
ii. How are countries supposed to grow peacefully and be at the same level at the USA if we treat them this way (weaker countries to be bullied)?
In summary, I think it’s just sad. Because by sympathizing more with France than Lebanon, we are sympathizing with the oppressor and not the oppressed. When we continue to support this dynamic, injustice will continue. Truly equal nations that can collaborate on a global scale won’t happen if we continue to believe that certain countries deserve to be better than others.
2) Shock Doctrine
The idea of shocking people into obedience is relevant not only in regards to shock therapy, but also politics. After moments of shock, whole societies are more inclined to follow leaders and policies that were otherwise unsupported.
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSF0e6oO_tw
Full Movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550p455dfM4&list=PL1DE69769369B7089
This came to mind when I read two headlines,
• France Bombs ISIS headquarters in Syria
• An article written in French paper Le Figaro titled, “Is France Ripe for an Authoritarian Regime?” published a day before the Paris attacks.
I can see the change happening, the change being allowed from shock happening already. And this is why I say questioning is important. Because as Naomi Klein points out, “Information is shock resistance.” Don’t take what is-force fed to you. Keep questioning.
3) Burmese Elections
Burma just had democratic elections led for the people by the people. While the country still has a ways to go, I could not be happier, mostly because of Aung Suu Kyi. She is the leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and the winner of the nobel peace prize in 1991. She has been advocating for peace and democracy in Burma since before 1991, and it has not been an easy path. I mention this because of two reasons.
a) I believe this is the path to the future. Aung never supported war, and instead supported collaboration among all citizens and progress through peace and dialogues. While it sounds idealistic (because it is), it can happen and Burma is now another case to back such idealism. It’s not an easy or short path, as Burma knows, (before 1991!) but I believe it’s more stable than the options for war and will lead to more prosperity to citizens everywhere overall. When thinking about the current situation in other countries (like Syria and Iraq) and how we can go forward, keep the progress in Burma as an example.
b) Aung San Suu Kyi has a speech that resonates with me called, “Freedom from Fear”. So many policies are rooted in fear. When we move forward to make decisions in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, I warn us not to make or support decisions based on fear. Like the shock doctrine points out with shock, Aung San Suu Kyi says, ‘fear is not the natural state of civilized man.’
4) Keep asking questions
War is often a decision that comes out of fear and insecurity (not always), and before we engage or enter any more violence, I would like us to really think of the words of Naomi Klein and Aung San Suu Kyi. Before we make any decision, I think we should think first. Are we still in shock? Is this decision rooted in fear? What is really happening and why? Is this what should be happening? Is this the best way to go forward?
I spent ~ 2.5 hrs writing that and it’s still not perfect, but hey…those are my thoughts.