http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051300301.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&
amp;sub=AR
Massive protests against reports that US soldiers have peed on the Koran and flushed copied down the toilet have spooked the Afghan government and gotten the attention of the SCLM. The protests have made the front page of today's Washington Post.
The demonstrations have not been confined to Afghanistan. There were also demonstrations in Pakistan, Indonesia, and Palestine.
This is a story which has waited too long to be reported:
Many of the detainees at Guantanamo are Afghans, and stories of American interrogators desecrating the Koran to extract confessions have circulated since at least early 2003, when some released prisoners returned to Afghanistan. But the Newsweek report has gained currency here since being fueled by broadcasts on Taliban radio and stoked by clerics who used Friday prayer sessions to call the demonstrations justified.
These reports have been circulating since 2003. That means that the media waited two long years before finally waking up from their stupor and reporting these stories. The job of the media in a participatory democracy is not to cheerlead the government or just report what people say. Their job is to investigate reports of such actions and determine whether they are true or not. The fact that they waited two long years to do this means they were being lazy.
I completely understand the anger and rage that these people feel from being denied justice. The Americans proclaimed at the outset of the war in Afghanistan that their goal was to bring democracy to the Middle East. But democracy requires active participation from everybody, even people whom you find unpleasant. The fact that these people are demonstrating after two long years means that they were denied participation. Therefore, the US is failing in its prime objective in promoting democracy in Afghanistan.
The administration seems to think that democracy is all about having votes. But that is an oversimplified view of democracy. Tunisia's election had the government party winning 95%+ of the vote. Togo is currently racked with violence because the opposition is being left out of a sham vote there, and tens of thousands of refugees have fled. Egypt has always had "elections" in which the government is the only legitimate party. Algeria started a war against their political opponents rather than give them the seats that they won. Lack of participation means that elections will be a sham.
The Middle Eastern countries are thumbing their noses up at the administration's promotion of democracy like a kid being told to run during PE warm-ups and breaking into a shuffle. A good example is Saudi Arabia, which has instituted local elections. However, these "elections" consist only of candidates which have been approved by the mullahs in charge of safeguarding their reactionary version of Sharia, or Islamic law. And only men can vote in them.
It is not enough to give people elections. Back in the Jim Crow days, Southerners said to Blacks that they could vote as long as their fathers and grandfathers had voted. Since most fathers and grandfathers hadn't voted, most Blacks couldn't vote. Afghanistan is the same way. We have given the Afghans elections in which they vote for a president and assembly. However, we have not given them a real democracy because we have denied them the right to participate by petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
In a true democracy, the US government would have investigated the allegations of Koran desecration back in 2003. They would have charged the people responsible, convicted them, and retrained their soldiers so that something like this wouldn't happen again. But that is not what happened.
What we have instead of democracy is colonialism. Colonialism is the belief that benevolent Western governments should export their ideas and values to non-Western countries. Because, in the view of colonialism, "Western values good, non-Western values baaaad," Western nations are justified in using force to subdue the natives. This is an extension of the belief among fundamentalist Christians that their religion is the only way to get to heaven and therefore, they need to send people all over the world to proselytize natives.
The Bush administration's reaction is typical: blame the terrorists:
Some U.S. officials and analysts said the report, which appeared as a small item in Newsweek, was being manipulated as a way to inflame passions and undercut Karzai's authority ahead of his U.S. trip.
At the Pentagon, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the rioting in Afghanistan could be related to domestic Afghan politics.
A State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the demonstrations in Pakistan were being manipulated by al Qaeda supporters in retaliation for the arrest last week of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, identified as a senior al Qaeda leader, along with 10 other suspected terrorists.
This is typical patronizing behavior from the State Department. They're saying that as long as you're good little Muslims and don't get too uppity and don't cause us any trouble, you're a good `ol boy. But whenever you get too uppity, you're being evil and ungrateful to the good people who brought you democracy and supporting the terrorists. And, oh, no, you can't complain about a few bad apples. If we don't act ruthlessly, the Taliban will come back and ruin all your new-found freedoms.
This is why we here at Kos should be careful about labeling people Nazis, fascists, or other such names. To label people as such serves the function of shutting them out of the discussion about their interests and values. If we do label people, we should do so on the basis of specific actions. For instance, I honestly think John Bolton is a misogynist based on his treatment of Melody Townsel. That is a perfect description of the way he treats women who speak out against his actions. Labeling Bush a liar is OK as well, because he lied about the evidence that led us into war with Iraq. However, I have a much bigger problem with labeling Bush a Nazi. That is because none of us to my knowledge have been arrested for posting here about how bad the administration is and none of us has been sent to a concentration camp.
Instead of equating the protestors to Bin Laden, the State Department should have apologized on behalf of the president and the American people to the people whose Korans who were peed on and flushed down the toilet. The government should then set an example by paying the people affected damages and then file a lawsuit in court to recover the damages from the people responsible. But apparently, the people over at the State Department have been influenced by John Bolton and the New School of diplomatic thought which says that if someone crosses your path, you should sling all the mud you can and hope some of it sticks.
Like the SCLM, McClellan and Rice are saying the right things 2 years too late:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday that U.S. officials "share and understand" Muslim concerns. "Disrespect for the holy Koran is something that the United States will never tolerate," he told reporters.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the military was investigating the allegations that American interrogators desecrated the Koran. She said that if they "are proven true, we will take appropriate action."
Regarding McClellan, the US has tolerated disrespect for the Koran for two long years. The administration has let boys be boys as long as they don't get caught. McClellan's comment is also a classic example of doublethink. On the one hand, the State Department is equating the demonstrators to Al-Qaeda. On the other hand, McClellan is saying he shares the concern of Muslims around the world. I suggest that what Rice and McClellan are saying is merely for public consumption, while the anonymous source in the story reveals the State Department's real attitude towards the complaints: "I don't really give a rat's behind!!"
Rice is saying that the military will investigate the interrogators. However, how far will they investigate? Will it be just like Abu Girhab, where the only people tried and convicted were rank and file soldiers? Or will they hold people who developed these interrogation policies responsible as well?
Update [2005-5-14 12:53:27 by Eternal Hope]: Demonstrations are occuring in Egypt as well. In this bizzare scene, the ruling NDP and a small opposition party were demonstrating at a meeting by judges to determine the rules of the upcoming "election." The highlight of the brou-ha-ha was when both parties started chanting at each other, "They are with America!"
http://arabist.net/archives/2005/05/13/ndp-vs-kefaya/#comment-8469