Protesters march against the Muslim ban in Washington, DC. (Photo: Masha George / Washington, DC)

In middle school, children in the United States learn that the three branches of the federal government are arranged with a system of “checks and balances,” so that no one branch oversteps its power and violates the rights of individuals. But now, the whole world can see that the only thing “checked” by the White House and the Supreme Court is the human right to freedom of movement.

The cases are united by more than one administration’s xenophobia. Much of Latin America and the Muslim world share a legacy of U.S. interventions driving the very migration now being cruelly restricted.

Latinx migrants at the southern border have been in the national spotlight. But too rarely has the question been asked: What situation would compel so many people to leave their homes and take the perilous journey north in the first place?

An honest answer requires an examination of U.S. policy in Latin America, particularly Central America.

While the Trump administration talks incessantly about its favorite villain, the gang MS-13, it says nothing about the origins of the gang. MS-13 was actually incubated on the streets and in the prisons of Southern California, where so many Salvadoran migrants were incarcerated in the 1990s. Washington’s deportation of former prisoners — among other Salvadorans — back to El Salvador was the context for the development of the MS-13.

The Salvadoran community that developed in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s itself emerged as Salvadorans fled a nightmarish civil war. The United States was deeply involved in that conflict, arming and supporting the Salvadoran government and right-wing paramilitary forces throughout Central America.

These death squads committed acts of unspeakable violence that still reverberate throughout the region today. Similar patterns have played out in Guatemala and Honduras, which are also countries of origin for refugees where the United States has a legacy of backing right-wing leaders past and present.

On the other side of the world is Yemen, one of the seven countries whose people are targeted by the travel ban — and the site of a catastrophic U.S.-backed war. We may not hear the cries of Yemeni children the way we heard those of children detained at the border. But many of them are also separated from their families here in the United States because of the travel ban.

As with Central America, the United States is committing crimes in Yemen that force millions into desperate circumstances.

According to the United Nations, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world todayexists in Yemen — a striking distinction, given that there’s no shortage of other disasters around the globe. There is a civil war in Yemen, in which combatants on both sides have taken actions that have had severe consequences for civilians. But the overwhelming responsibility for the destruction lies with a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which has bombed Yemen mercilessly in support of the Saudi-friendly Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, whom the Gulf States seek to install as the president.

Their campaign has targeted civilian infrastructure, weddings, funerals and even medical facilities. As a result, tens of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced. Millions face starvation as well as sickness and death from entirely preventable diseases like cholera. According to UNICEF, 11 million children, or “nearly every child in Yemen,” is in need of humanitarian assistance.

A dropped bomb or exploded missile leaves so much in its wake. But there is a particular and peculiar remnant of the blasts that have wounded Yemen. Yemenis find, again and again, labels on bomb fragments that indicate they are made and sold by the United States.

Indeed, last summer, Trump negotiated with Saudi Arabia to sell the kingdom $110 billion in weapons. The United States also approved $2 billion in arms sales to the U.A.E. last year. The United States is also supplying intelligence to the Saudi/Emirati coalition, as well as mid-air refueling for coalition aircraft.

The United States, therefore, is doing everything but dropping the bombs itself. But even that distinction dissolves when one remembers that the United States did bomb Yemen repeatedly using drone strikes and cruise missile attacks throughout the Obama administration.

The United States has bombed Yemenis. It is supplying the weapons for other countries to bomb Yemenis now. And, as it’s doing toward Central Americans in the most callous way, it is denying Yemenis the right to enter the United States.

The beginning of accountability for those actions is letting these — and all — refugees in. But that cannot be the end. Let this time of anguish and outrage be one of a deep reckoning — with what the United States does at its borders, within them, and beyond them.

This article was produced in collaboration with In These Times.

Courtesy: https://fpif.org/

The post Given What the U.S. Has Done to the World, It Should Be Letting All Refugees In appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Data on violent incidents in the US reveal that focus on Islamist extremism since 9/11 may be misguided

A woman holds a flag as she looks out over the National Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

On a Tuesday morning in September 2001, the American experience with terrorism was fundamentally altered. Two thousand, nine hundred and ninety-six people were murdered in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Thousands more, including many first responders, lost their lives to health complications from working at or being near Ground Zero.

The 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Islamist extremists, resulting in nearly 18 times more deaths than America’s second most devastating terrorist attack – the Oklahoma City bombing. More than any other terrorist event in U.S. history, 9/11 drives Americans’ perspectives on who and what ideologies are associated with violent extremism.

But focusing solely on Islamist extremism when investigating, researching and developing counterterrorism policies goes against what the numbers tell us. Far-right extremism also poses a significant threat to the lives and well-being of Americans. This risk is often ignored or underestimated because of the devastating impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

We have spent more than 10 years collecting and analyzing empirical data that show us how these ideologies vary in important ways that can inform policy decisions. Our conclusion is that a “one size fits all” approach to countering violent extremism may not be effective.

By the numbers

Historically, the U.S. has been home to adherents of many types of extremist ideologies. The two current most prominent threats are motivated by Islamist extremism and far-right extremism.

To help assess these threats, the Department of Homeland Security and recently the Department of Justice have funded the Extremist Crime Database to collect data on crimes committed by ideologically motivated extremists in the United States. The results of our analyses are published in peer-reviewed journals and on the website for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism & Responses to Terrorism.

The ECDB includes data on ideologically motivated homicides committed by both Islamist extremists and far-right extremists going back more than 25 years.

Between 1990 and 2014, the ECDB has identified 38 homicide events motivated by Islamist extremism that killed 62 people. When you include 9/11, those numbers jump dramatically to 39 homicide events and 3,058 killed.

The database also identified 177 homicide events motivated by far-right extremism, with 245 killed. And when you include the Oklahoma City bombing, it rises to 178 homicide events and 413 killed.

Although our data for 2015 through 2017 are still being verified, we counted five homicide events perpetrated by Islamist extremists that resulted in the murders of 74 people. This includes the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, which killed 49 people. In the same time period, there were eight homicide events committed by far-right extremists that killed 27 people.

These data reveal that far-right extremists tend to be more active in committing homicides, yet Islamist extremists tend to be more deadly.

Our research has also identified violent Islamist extremist plots against 272 targets that were either foiled or failed between 2001 and 2014. We are in the process of compiling similar data on far-right plots. Although data collection is only about 50 percent complete, we have already identified 213 far-right targets from the same time period.

The locations of violent extremist activity also differ by ideology. Our data show that between 1990 and 2014, most Islamist extremist attacks occurred in the South (56.5 percent), and most far-right extremist attacks occurred in the West (34.7 percent). Both forms of violence were least likely to occur in the Midwest, with only three incidents committed by Islamist extremists (4.8 percent) and 33 events committed by far-right extremists (13.5 percent).

Targets of violence also vary across the two ideologies. For example, 63 percent of the Islamist extremism victims were targeted for no apparent reason. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, often visiting symbolic locations or crowded venues such as the World Trade Center or military installations.

In contrast, 53 percent of victims killed by far-right extremists were targeted for their actual or perceived race or ethnicity. Far-right extremists, such as neo-Nazis, skinheads and white supremacists, often target religious, racial and ethnic, and sexual orientation and gender identity minorities.

Motives and methods

There are also differences in violent extremists across demographics, motives and methods. For instance, data show that guns were the weapon of choice in approximately 73 percent of Islamist extremist homicides and in only 63 percent of far-right extremist homicides. We attribute these differences to far-right extremists using more personal forms of violence, such as beating or stabbing victims to death.

We have also found that suicide missions are not unique to Islamist extremists.

From 1990 to 2014, we identified three suicide missions in which at least one person was killed connected to Islamist extremism, including the 9/11 attacks as one event. In contrast, there were 15 suicide missions committed by far-right extremists.

Our analyses found that compared to Islamist extremists, far-right extremists were significantly more likely to be economically deprived, have served in the military and have a higher level of commitment to their ideology. Far-right extremists were also significantly more likely to be less educated, single, young and to have participated in training by a group associated with their extremist ideology.

Threat to law enforcement and military

Terrorists associated with Islamist and far-right extremist ideologies do not only attack civilians. They also pose a deadly threat to law enforcement and military personnel. During the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 72 law enforcement officers and 55 military personnel were killed by members of Al-Qaida. On April 19, 1995, 13 law enforcement officers and four military personnel were killed when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed by an anti-government far-right extremist in Oklahoma City.

Outside of these two events, Islamist extremists are responsible for the murders of 18 military personnel in three incidents, and seven law enforcement officers were killed in five incidents between 1990 and 2015. Far-right extremists have murdered 57 law enforcement officers in 46 incidents, but have never directly targeted military personnel.

Far-right extremists, who typically harbor anti-government sentiments, have a higher likelihood of escalating routine law enforcement contacts into fatal encounters. These homicides pose unique challenges to local law enforcement officers who are disproportionately targeted by the far right.

Moving forward

The events of 9/11 will continue to skew both our real and perceived risks of violent extremism in the United States. To focus solely on Islamist extremism is to ignore the murders perpetrated by the extreme far right and their place in a constantly changing threat environment.

Some have even warned that there is potential for collaboration between these extremist movements. Our own survey research suggests this is a concern of law enforcement.

Focusing on national counterterrorism efforts against both Islamist and far-right extremism acknowledges that there are differences between these two violent movements.

Focusing solely on one, while ignoring the other, will increase the risk of domestic terrorism and future acts of violence.

Both ideologies continue to pose real, unique threats to all Americans. Evidence shows far-right violent extremism poses a particular threat to law enforcement and racial, ethnic, religious and other minorities. Islamist violent extremism is a specific danger to military members, law enforcement, certain minorities and society at large. It remains imperative to support policies, programs and research aimed at countering all forms of violent extremism.

(This story is republished from The Conversation. The original story may be read here).

The post All terrorists are not Muslims: Data on terror attacks in USA highlights killings by far right groups appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an Islamophobic pressure group. (Bryan Smith, PA Images)

The legal tussle over President Donald Trump’s controversial ban on refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries is being watched with the intensity normally reserved for a Super Bowl showdown. Experts track every move and countermove, trying to gauge which team is ahead and who will ultimate prevail. Unlike a normal game, though, there is more to these court battles than the points that flash on the scoreboard. They are also an opportunity for hate propagandists to air their tropes and talking points before a wide audience.

Indeed, if their past campaigns are anything to go by, this may be their primary objective – to exploit the high profile spaces afforded by democratic processes and institutions for propaganda purposes, thus nudging mainstream perspectives toward their own worldview. The actual implementation or enforcement of whatever policy they’ve been agitating for may be a secondary concern. Anti-Muslim ideologues have described themselves as fighting in a “lawfare battlespace”. 

Anti-Muslim ideologues have described themselves as fighting in a “lawfare battlespace”. The explicit goal of their litigation is to change public policy directly. But lawfare also presents an opening “to influence and shape public discourse to ultimately influence and shape public opinion”, says a 2015 publication from the Center for Security Policy, a major anti-Muslim think tank.

“The drama of a courtroom setting attracts public attention and thereby provides a forum and an audience for expressing the appropriate public policy narrative.”

“Litigation creates earned media and thus provides an excellent opportunity to engage the public through this media,” the report says. “Indeed, the drama of a courtroom setting attracts public attention and thereby provides a forum and an audience for expressing the appropriate public policy narrative.”

One long-running nationwide campaign to shape the narrative has involved purchasing advertising space for anti-Islam messages in various metropolitan transit systems. When a metro authority rejects an ad on account of its hateful content, the activists promptly take the authority to court for allegedly violating their free speech rights.

Even if the legal challenge fails, the controversy generates publicity for the cause. Defeat has its benefits, as it can be spun as further evidence of a rigged system. Thus, when the Washington DC metro blocked their effort, leading hate propagandist Pamela Geller accused the authority of cowardice and buckling under the Muslim Brotherhood’s pressure: “This is sharia in America”.

Another Islamophobia initiative that has won considerable public airtime in state legislatures is the campaign to stop Islamic law gaining ground in the US. The manufactured paranoia over sharia has moved more than ten states to enact new statutes or constitutional amendments to insulate themselves from non-American laws (worded broadly since they cannot explicitly discriminate against one religion). Some 20 other states have considered such provisions.there has been no push for sharia from the country’s tiny Muslim minority, and even if there were, American laws need no additional protection against subversion by competing traditions.

According to the American Bar Association and all independent legal scholars, these states are reacting to a non-existent threat: there has been no push for sharia from the country’s tiny Muslim minority, and even if there were, American laws need no additional protection against subversion by competing traditions.

But then that’s not really the point. The anti-sharia campaign’s utility lies in the opportunity to defame an entire faith in state capitol buildings, through ballot measures put to voters, and the news reports it generates.

Lawfare has also been deployed against small Muslim communities trying to partake of their freedom of religion. In 2010, Muslims in Middle Tennessee found their effort to build a mosque obstructed by anti-Muslim activists. In addition to harassment and intimidation, the Muslims were dragged into a court battle. Among other arguments, their opponents said that Muslims were not entitled to religious liberty – as Islam is not really a religion but a violent political ideology.

Predictably, the argument was thrown out; religious equality prevailed. Before long, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro was functioning as intended, as a place for prayer and education. But it was not a total defeat for the Islamophobia network: their talking points that belonged in the extreme fringe were dignified by being deliberated in court. The Islamophobia network’s direct links to the White House are beyond doubt. 

The Islamophobia network’s direct links to the White House are beyond doubt.

This is the background against which one has to analyse current events. The Islamophobia network’s direct links to the White House are beyond doubt. Foreign policy advisers in the Trump campaign include individuals linked to the aforementioned Center for Security Policy think tank, which was also the source of fabricated statistics cited by Trump to justify his proposed Muslim entry ban.

This line in Trump’s Executive Order protecting the US from foreign terrorist entry fits with the Islamophobia industry’s modus operandi: “The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.”

One of the most consequential struggles of our times is the battle for hearts, minds and lives going on between Muslims who prize peace, freedom and inclusiveness, and those who demand obedience to an intolerant absolutism. This is a legitimate debate within Muslim civilisation.

Crystallised in this sentence are talking points that anti-Muslim hate merchants have cultivated for years, treating Islam as a non-religion that threatens American life and law through a violent ideology of sharia. These are the dregs that will remain, polluting public discourse, even if the policy is struck down by the courts – which would of course be milked as further proof that the establishment cannot be trusted.

One of the most consequential struggles of our times is the battle for hearts, minds and lives going on between Muslims who prize peace, freedom and inclusiveness, and those who demand obedience to an intolerant absolutism. This is a legitimate debate within Muslim civilisation. But the Islamophobia hate merchants want to persuade Americans that it is instead a clash between civilisations. They want Islam talked about exclusively in the context of terrorism.

Trump’s executive order may not survive judicial scrutiny, but it has already helped skew the global conversation in the Islamophobia industry’s preferred direction.

(Cherian George is the author of Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and its Threat to Democracy (MIT Press, 2016). He is an associate professor in the communication school of Hong Kong Baptist University).

This story, first published on openDemocracy, may be read here.
 

The post The hidden agenda of Trump’s Muslim ban appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Marvel Comics Superhero Kamala Khan

During the first few weeks of the Trump administration, we’ve seen increased pressure on Muslim and immigrant communities in the United States.

In the face of these threats, which Marvel superhero might be best equipped to defend the people, ideals and institutions under attack? Some comic fans and critics are pointing to Kamala Khan, the new Ms. Marvel.

Khan, the brainchild of comic writer G. Willow Wilson and editor Sana Amanat, is a revamp of the classic Ms. Marvel character (originally named Carol Danvers and created in 1968). First introduced in early 2014, Khan is a Muslim, Pakistani-American teenager who fights crime in Jersey City and occasionally teams up with the Avengers.

Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, fans have created images of Khan tearing up a photo of the president, punching him (evoking a famous 1941 cover of Captain America punching Hitler) and grieving in her room. But the new Ms. Marvel’s significance extends beyond symbolism.

In Kamala Khan, Wilson and Amanat have created a superhero whose patriotism and contributions to Jersey City emerge because of her Muslim heritage, not despite it. She challenges the assumptions many Americans have about Muslims and is a radical departure from how the media tend to depict Muslim-Americans. She shows how Muslim-Americans and immigrants are not forces that threaten communities – as some would argue – but are people who can strengthen and preserve them.

Superhero-in-training

After inhaling a mysterious gas, Kamala Khan discovers she can stretch, enlarge, shrink and otherwise manipulate her body. Like many superheroes, she chooses to keep her identity a secret. She selects the Ms. Marvel moniker in homage to the first Ms. Marvel, Carol Danvers, who has since given up the name in favor of becoming Captain Marvel. Khan cites her family’s safety and her desire to lead a normal life, while also fearing that “the NSA will wiretap our mosque or something.”

As she wrestles with her newfound powers, her parents grow concerned about broken curfews and send her to the local imam for counseling. Rather than reinforcing her parents’ curfew or prying the truth from Khan, though, Sheikh Abdullah says, “I am asking you for something more difficult. If you insist on pursuing this thing you will not tell me about, do it with the qualities benefiting an upright young woman: courage, strength, honesty, compassion and self-respect.”

Her experience at the mosque becomes an important step on her journey to superheroism. Sheikh Abdullah contributes to her education, as does Wolverine. Islam is not a restrictive force in her story. Instead, the religion models for Khan many of the traits she needs in order to become an effective superhero. When her mother learns the truth about why her daughter is sneaking out, she “thank[s] God for having raised a righteous child.”

The comics paint an accurate portrait of Jersey City. Her brother Aamir is a committed Salafi (a conservative and sometimes controversial branch of Sunni Islam) and member of his university’s Muslim Student Association. Her best friend and occasional love interest, Bruno, works at a corner store and comes from Italian roots. The city’s diversity helps Kamala as she learns to be a more effective superhero. But it also rescues her from being a stand-in for all Muslim-American or Jersey City experiences.

Fighting a ‘war on terror culture’

Kamala’s brown skin and costume – self-fashioned from an old burkini – point to Marvel Comics’ desire to diversify its roster of superheroes (as well as writers and artists). As creator Sana Amanat explained on “Late Night With Seth Meyers” last month, representation is a powerful thing, especially in comics. It matters when readers who feel marginalized can see people like themselves performing heroic acts.

As one of 3.3 million Muslim-Americans, Khan flips the script on what Moustafa Bayoumi, author of “This Muslim American Life,” calls a “war on terror culture” that sees Muslim-Americans “not as complex human being[s] but only as purveyor[s] of possible future violence.”

Bayoumi’s book echoes other studies that detail the heightened suspicion and racial profiling Muslim-Americans have faced since 9/11, whether it’s in the workplace or interactions with the police. Each time there’s been a high-profile terrorist attack, these experiences, coupled with hate crimes and speech, intensify. Political rhetoric – like Donald Trump’s proposal to have a Muslim registry or his lie that thousands of Muslims cheered from Jersey City rooftops after the Twin Towers fell – only fans the flames.

Scholars of media psychology see this suspicion fostered, in part, by negative representations of Muslims in both news media outlets and popular culture, where they are depicted as bloodthirsty terrorists or slavish informants to a non-Muslim hero.

These stereotypes are so entrenched that a single positive Muslim character cannot counteract their effects. In fact, some point to the dangers of “balanced” representations, arguing that confronting stereotypes with wholly positive images only enforces a simplistic division between “good” and “bad” Muslims.

Unbreakable

Kamala Khan, however, signals an important development in cultural representations of Muslim-Americans. It’s not just because she is a powerful superhero instead of a terrorist. It’s because she is, at the same time, a clumsy teenager who makes a mountain of mistakes while trying to balance her abilities, school, friends and family. And it’s because Wilson surrounds Kamala with a diverse assortment of characters who demonstrate the array of heroic (and not-so-heroic) actions people can take.

For example, in one of Ms. Marvel’s most powerful narrative arcs, a planet attacks New York, leading to destruction eerily reminiscent of 9/11. Kamala works to protect Jersey City while realizing that her world has changed – and will change – irrevocably.

Carol Danvers appears to fill Kamala in on the gravity of the situation, telling her, “The fate of the world is out of your hands. It always was. But your fate – what you decide to do right now – is still up to you … Today is the day you stand up.” Kamala connects the talk with Sheikh Abdullah’s lectures about the value of one’s deeds, once again linking her superhero and religious training to rise to the occasion. In both cases, the lectures teach Kamala to take a stand to protect her community.

Arriving at the high school gym now serving as a safe haven for Jersey City residents, Kamala realizes her friends and classmates have been inspired by her heroism. They safely transport their neighbors to the gym while outfitting the space with water, food, dance parties and even a “non-denominational, non-judgmental prayer area.” The community response prompts Kamala to realize that “even if things are profoundly not okay, at least we’re not okay together. And even if we don’t always get along, we’re still connected by something you can’t break. Something there isn’t even a word for. Something … beautiful.”

Kamala Khan is precisely the hero America needs today, but not because of a bat sign in the sky or any single definitive image. She is, above all, committed to the idea that every member of her faith, her generation, and her city has value and that their lives should be respected and protected. She demonstrates that the most heroic action is to face even the most despair-inducing challenges of the world head on while standing up for – and empowering – every vulnerable neighbor, classmate or stranger. She shows us how diverse representation can transform into action and organization that connect whole communities “by something you can’t break.”

(Katie M. Logan is Assistant Professor of Focused Inquiry, Virginia Commonwealth University).

This story was first published on The Conversation.

The post Why America needs Marvel superhero Kamala Khan now more than ever appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Legal battle continues after Trump administration files appeal to ruling that saw restrictions halted

A demonstrator against the immigration rules implemented by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration, protests at Los Angeles international airport in Los Angeles, California, U.S., February 4, 2017. (Photo: Reuters/Ringo Chiu)
 

The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals early Sunday morning denied a motion by the Justice Department on behalf of President Trump which sought to reinstate enforcement of an immigration and travel ban that targeted seven Muslim-majority nations.

The DOJ had filed an official appeal on Saturday night over a federal court ruling issued late Friday in Washington state by US District Court Judge James Robart. It was Robart's ruling, which included a temporary restraining order, that led both the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security on Saturday morning to halt their enforcement of the ban.

As CNN reports:

The Justice Department's strongly worded [Saturday night] court filing lodged a multi-pronged attack on Robart's decision, emphasizing that halting enforcement of the travel ban "harms the public" and "second-guesses the President's national security judgment" in the immigration context.

"(Robart's ruling) contravenes the considered judgment of Congress that the President should have the unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens," the Justice Department wrote in its filing.

"Courts are particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the President's prospective judgment about future risks. …Unlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process."

But though the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the appeal—and asked for all parties to submit legal briefs to support their cases with a Monday deadline—it refused Trump's request to have the travel restrictions reimposed, stating: "Appellants' request for an immediate  administrative stay pending full consideration of the  emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."

Since news arrived Saturday that the restrictions were lifted and airlines were told they could once again allow travelers from the targeted countries with proper documents to board planes to the U.S., those who had been left in limbo—many separated from families, employment opportunities, or school—were reportedly moving fast to make arrangements.

According to Reuters:

Iraqi Fuad Sharef, his wife and three children spent two years obtaining U.S. visas. They had packed up to move to America last week, but were turned back to Iraq after a failed attempt to board a U.S.-bound flight from Cairo.

On Sunday, the family checked in for a Turkish Airlines flight to New York from Istanbul.

"Yeah, we are very excited. We are very happy," Sharef told Reuters TV. "Finally, we have been cleared. We are allowed to enter the United States."

Rana Shamasha, 32, an Iraqi refugee in Lebanon, was due to travel to the United States with her two sisters and mother on Feb. 1 to join relatives in Detroit until their trip was canceled as a result of the travel ban.

She is now waiting to hear from U.N. officials overseeing their case. "If they tell me there is a plane tomorrow morning, I will go. If they tell me there is one in an hour, I will go," she told Reuters by telephone in Beirut, saying their bags were still packed. "I no longer have a house here, work, or anything," she said.

An official at Beirut airport said three Syrian families had left for the United States via Europe on Sunday morning.

Meanwhile, immigration experts and refugeee advocates, celebrated the court's ability to push back against the ban they argue is unconstitutional.

(This story was first published on Common Dreams.)

The post Court of Appeals says Trump’s Muslim Ban will remain Blocked … for now appeared first on SabrangIndia.

No Ban, No Wall protests at PHL airport, Jan. 29, 2017. Picture by Joe Piette/Flickr. CC BY-NC 2.0.

The controversial ‘Muslim ban’ that has led to the widespread panic and a second spike of outrage since the Woman’s March against Trump’s inauguration is a sobering reflection of the sordid state of affairs in the US. It reveals the failures of past administrations – not just the current – in managing the most insidious symptoms of the longstanding, myopic western policy toward the Middle East. While the new immigration-blocking measure is framed in the media and in global discussions as the derailing of American policy, it is not the unique by-product of Trump’s isolationist train of thought. Far from signaling a new American agenda, it signals a naked national security strategy that further entrenches the stance of the “west versus the rest.” 

The executive order, which attempts to curb immigration of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East, taken from Obama’s 2014 list of “failed states” in the region no less, is a move to mop up the run-off of the damaging western exploits in the region. Rather than maintain a ‘split-brain’ policy of violence toward Muslims abroad and a semblance of tolerance at home to mask overseas indiscretions, Trump's new policy is actually more in keeping with longstanding US priorities and geo-strategic goals than not; foremost among them being support for the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, the curbing of ‘terror’ which replaced the threat of communism, and quenching its addiction to oil.

Institutionalised forms of discrimination at home have also been a standard feature of American policy following 9-11.

Trump’s policy attempts to apply a tourniquet to the perceived 'Muslim problem' that has been manufactured and now exacerbated by the west's wayward dealings in the Middle East. Institutionalised forms of discrimination at home have also been a standard feature of American policy following 9-11, and must be addressed as such. Racial profiling was etched into US law via the unconstitutional Patriot Act in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon leading to the ‘war on terror’ with no ‘sunset’ in sight. The prioritising of national security over civil liberties laid the foundation for this plaster-policy signed by the new American president and temporarily stayed by a federal court.

If such policies are nothing new, then, why are people only just starting to take note and to agitate against it? For the first time, many feel personally affected as either they or someone they know has been directly hit by the travel ban. Shielded as they were until now from the ethical implications and misguided missions of the 9-11 wars, the collective psyche is unsettled by the reality of American double standards. It is also due to the way in which this edict was unflinchingly issued without a modicum of political correctness, whereas people had been used to the more subtle and diversionary tactics of a more left-leaning administration. Despite the wake-up call provided by the so-called ‘Muslim ban’ and the act of judicial activism, which provided a partial check on Trump’s executive power, there is still a general reluctance to see the bigger-picture problems. 

Why aren’t people similarly protesting the targeted killing of Muslims overseas by western forces or indeed the curtailing of civil liberties at home? This reflects a selective blindness induced by systemic obfuscation and hypocrisy. Bad-apple theories, which pin the blame on ‘rogue’ actors, such as Trump, absolve the system and its constituent parts, of their complicity in this fiasco. Foreign leaders from the British prime minister to European Union officials who have condemned Trump’s executive order are mainly grandstanding to wipe their own hands of guilt for similar discriminatory practices. The EU in particular is mired in a regional refugee crisis, for which it is increasingly evading responsibility, and Brexit is emblematic of this fleeing tendency.

Why aren’t people similarly protesting the targeted killing of Muslims overseas by western forces or indeed the curtailing of civil liberties at home?

Europe has also problematically collapsed its immigration policy under a common counter-terrorism agenda, which only serves to criminalise those seeking refuge from conflicts in which European actors also have a hand. The United States’ next-door neighbour, Canada, took full advantage of the occasion to disingenuously issue a benevolent invitation to all refugees denied entry to America, capitalising on the pre-electoral mantra among Democrats of making a mad-dash for Canada if Trump is elected. This seemingly generous gesture belies an inbuilt national security loophole that ensures that “single male" refugees would be excluded from such an invitation, thus rendering the offer hollow.

Oscar-winning Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi’s vow of solidarity to boycott this year’s Oscars even if his travel ban is lifted – however nobly-intentioned – still ensures that the status quo of east-west enmity remains intact. Picking up from the plight of those like Farhadi affected by the ban, the Academy of Motion Pictures has even publicly outed itself “as supporters of filmmakers—and the human rights of all people—around the globe.” Such acts of principled defiance may signal a budding transnational ethos of zero-tolerance for discriminatory practices, but for now they remain in the realm of platitudes.

(Mishana Hosseinioun is an associate member of the Department of Politics and International Relations and St Antony’s College at Oxford University, where she earned her doctorate in 2014 at University College. She is president of global consultancy MH Group. Her forthcoming book is Before the Day Dawneth: The Paradox of Progress in the Middle East, published by Palgrave Macmillan.)

This article was first published on openDemocracy.
 

The post The original sin of US foreign policy in the Middle East appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Flickr/Lorie Shaull

A growing chorus of corporate leaders are speaking out against US President Donald Trump’s executive order, which suspends entry into the United States from citizens (or dual citizens) of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Hi-tech companies were the first to raise concerns, at least partly because their industry is highly reliant on foreign talent. In fact, one study shows that 51% of America’s billion-dollar startups were set up by immigrants. Some of the sector’s biggest companies have been founded or run by executives, engineers, and managers born abroad. Many came as graduate students and stayed on, as Google’s Sundar Pichai and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella’s cases show. Some, like Google co-founder Sergey Brin, are children of refugees. After the ban. Brin and Pichai addressed Google employees with spirited speeches, expressing solidarity with the staff’s anger. (Brin was also seen at the San Francisco airport, showing support to demonstrators and pro bono lawyers, who are the real heroes of this drama).

(Also read: Business can and should ally with those defending human rights)

Other companies have joined in the protests too: Starbucks announced that it would aggressively recruit refugees over the next five years; Airbnb is offering free rooms to those stranded; Amazon has reached out to US Congressmen to explore legislative options to counter the executive order; and Apple’s CEO Tim Cook also said he is exploring legal options.

Coca Cola, whose CEO Muhtar Kent is Turkish-American, has criticised the travel ban, as has automaker Ford. Goldman Sachs’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein told his employees, “Being diverse is not an option—it is what we must be.” General Electric and Nike, too, have said they oppose the ban. Yogurt maker Chobani, which has recruited refugees for nearly a decade, said it would back every employee who faces any threat or problem because of the executive order.

US corporate leaders deserve praise for speaking out.

Cynics will argue that their moves are calculated—free movement of people, like free movement of goods, benefits the corporate bottom line. Some have even suggested that companies are speaking up because they are global players, and as such have to respond to customers throughout the world, not only in America. True, these companies rely on foreign-born workforces at home and overseas. They also rely on foreign markets for revenue and profit.

And yet, to suggest those considerations drive their public posturing is cynical, because it assumes companies that commit themselves to act in a responsible manner don’t take their own policies and commitments seriously. Many of the companies that have spoken out have policies that include acting in a socially responsible manner, and some have human rights policies in place.

All of these company statements against Trump’s order demonstrate the need for a more nuanced understanding of business-government relationships.

All of these company statements against Trump’s order demonstrate the need for a more nuanced understanding of business-government relationships. CEOs don’t make such decisions lightly. They have many factors to balance, including the safety of their employees and their families. Often, such public advocacy falls way short of what is necessary to protect human rights.

To be sure, the record of these companies may not be perfect. No doubt they can do more, and speak out more often to advocate respect for human rights. But none of that negates from their stand.

Conspicuous by their absence to date are pharmaceutical companies—which rely on foreign talent far more than does the tech sector—and oil companies, which have presence throughout the world, including in countries targeted by the executive order.

All of these company statements against Trump’s order demonstrate the need for a more nuanced understanding of business-government relationships. Corporate critics see businesses as allies of the state—relying on governments for contracts, lobbying to change laws, to lower taxes, and to secure preferential terms. But the role of a corporation today is more complex—the pursuit of the bottom-line is important, but other factors, including appearing to be doing the right thing in a global marketplace, as well as living by corporate values, are also important factors. (Ford’s Mark Fields and Coke’s Muhtar Kent both cited their companies values as one reason they criticised the executive order). The values they’ve spoken of include respect for diversity, dignity, inclusion, and equality.

President Trump has set up a Strategic and Policy Forum to advise him on economic matters, which includes leaders of Wall Street firms like Blackstone, Blackrock, and JP Morgan Chase, as well as GM and Tesla, Uber, Pepsi, Disney, consulting companies EY and Boston Consulting Group, Walmart, Boeing, and IBM, among others. These members certainly have their work cut out for them.

Corporate leaders must use their collective influence to make the case that pursuit of economic prosperity is impossible without respect for human rights. The world is watching them.

(Salil Tripathi is Director of Emerging Issues at the Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB). His long experience in advancing the business and human rights agenda includes being a researcher at Amnesty International (1999-2005) and a senior policy adviser at International Alert (2006-2008).

This article was first published on openDemocracy.
 

The post The world is watching—corporate action on Trump travel ban appeared first on SabrangIndia.