WAR FRENZY 

Sunera Thobani 

My recent speech at a women's conference on violence against
women has generated much controversy. In the aftermath of
the terrible attacks of September 11, I argued that the
U.S. response of launching 'America's new war' would
increase violence against women. I situated the current
crisis within the continuity of North/South relations,
rooted in colonialism and imperialism. I criticized American
foreign policy, as well as President Bush's racialized
construction of the American Nation. Finally, I spoke of the
need for solidarity with Afghan women's organizations as
well as the urgent necessity for the women's movement in
Canada to oppose the war.

Decontextualized and distorted media reports of my address
have led to accusations of me being an academic impostor,
morally bankrupt and engaging in hate-mongering. It has been
fascinating to observe how my comments regarding American
foreign policy, a record well documented by numerous
sources whose accuracy or credentials cannot be faulted,
have been dubbed 'hate-speech.' To speak about the
indisputable record of U.S. backed coups, death squads,
bombings and killings ironically makes me a 'hate-monger.' I
was even made the subject of a 'hate-crime' complaint to the
RCMP, alleging that my speech was a 'hate-crime.'

Despite the virulence of these responses, I welcome the
public discussion my speech has generated as an opportunity
to further the public debate about Canada's support of
America's new war. When I made the speech, I believed it was
imperative to have this debate before any attacks were
launched on any country. Events have overtaken us with the
bombing of Afghanistan underway and military rule having
been declared in Pakistan. The need for this discussion has
now assumed greater urgency as reports of casualties are
making their way into the news. My speech at the women's
conference was aimed at mobilizing the women's movement
against this war. I am now glad for this opportunity to
address wider constituencies and in different fora.

First, however, a few words about my location: I place my
work within the tradition of radical, politically engaged
scholarship. I have always rejected the politics of academic
elitism which insist that academics should remain above the
fray of political activism and use only disembodied,
objectified language and a 'properly' dispassionate
professorial demeanor to establish our intellectual
credentials. My work is grounded in the politics, practices
and languages of the various communities I come from, and
the social justice movements to which I am committed.

ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

In the aftermath of the terrible September 11th attacks on
the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush
administration launched "America's War on Terrorism."
Eschewing any role for the United Nations and the need to
abide by international law, the US administration
initiated an international alliance to justify its
unilateral military action against Afghanistan. One of its
early coalition partners was the Canadian government which
committed its unequivocal support for whatever forms of
assistance the United States might request. In this
circumstance, it is entirely reasonable that people in
Canada examine carefully the record of American foreign
policy.

As I observed in my speech, this record is alarming and does
not inspire confidence. In Chile, the CIA-backed coup
against the democratically elected Allende government led to
the deaths of over 30,000 people. In El Salvador, the
U.S. backed regime used death squads to kill about 75,000
people. In Nicaragua, the U.S. sponsored terrorist contra
war led to the deaths of over 30,000 people. The initial
bombing of Iraq left over 200,000 dead, and the bombings
have continued for the last ten years. UNICEF estimates that
over one million Iraqis have died, and that 5,000 more die
every month as a result of the U.N. imposed sanctions,
enforced in their harshest form by U.S. power. The list does
not stop here. 150,000 were killed and 50,000 disappeared in
Guatemala after the 1954 CIA-sponsored coup; over 2 million
were killed in Vietnam; and 200,000 before that in the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks. Numerous
authoritarian regimes have been backed by the United States
including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the apartheid regime in South
Africa, Suharto's dictatorship in Indonesia, Marcos in the
Philippines, and Israel's various occupations of Lebanon,
the Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories. The U.S.
pattern of foreign intervention has been to overthrow
leftist governments and to impose right wing regimes which
in turn support U.S. interests, even if this means training
and using death squads and assassinating leftist politicians
and activists. To this end, it has a record of treating
civilians as entirely expendable.

It is in this context that I made my comment that the
United States is the largest and most dangerous global
force, unleashing horrific levels of violence around the
world, and that the path of U.S. foreign policy is soaked in
blood. The controversy generated by this comment has
surprisingly not addressed the veracity of this assessment
of the U.S.  record. Instead, it has focused on my tone and
choice of words (inflammatory, excessive, inelegant,
un-academic, angry, etc.).

Now I have to admit that my use of the words 'horrific
violence' and 'soaked in blood' is very deliberate and
carefully considered. I do not use these words lightly. To
successive United States administrations the deaths
resulting from its policies have been just so many
statistics, just so much 'collateral damage.' Rendering
invisible the humanity of the peoples targeted for attack is
a strategy well used to hide the impact of colonialist and
imperialist interventions. Perhaps there is no more
potent a strategy of dehumanization than to proudly proclaim
the accuracy and efficiency of 'smart' weapons systems, and
of surgical and technological precision, while rendering
invisible the suffering bodies of these peoples as
disembodied statistics and mere 'collateral damage.' The use
of embodied language, grounded in the recognition of the
actual blood running through these bodies, is an attempt to
humanize these peoples in profoundly graphic terms. It
compels us to recognize the sheer corporeality of the
terrain upon which bombs rain and mass terror is waged. This
language calls on 'us' to recognize that 'they' bleed just
like 'we' do, that 'they' hurt and suffer just like 'us.' We
are complicit in this bloodletting when we support American
wars. Witness the power of this embodiment in the shocked
and horrified responses to my voice and my words, rather
than to the actual horror of these events. I will be the
first to admit that it is extremely unnerving to 'see'
blood in the place of abstract, general categories and
statistics. Yet this is what we need to be able to see if we
are to understand the terrible human costs of
empire-building.  We have all felt the shock and pain of
repeatedly witnessing the searing images of violence
unleashed upon those who died in New York and
Washington. The stories we have heard from their loved ones
have made us feel their terrible human loss. Yet where do we
witness the pain of the victims of U.S. aggression? How do
we begin to grasp the extent of their loss? Whose humanity
do we choose to recognize and empathize with, and who
becomes just so much 'collateral damage' to us?
Anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements and theorists
have long insisted on placing the bodies and experiences of
marginalized others at the centre of our analysis of the
social world. To fail to do so at this moment in history
would be unconscionable.  In the aftermath of the responses
to my speech, I am more convinced than ever of the need
to engage in the language and politics of embodied thinking
and speaking. After all, it is the lives, and deaths, of
millions of human beings we are discussing. This is neither
a controversial nor a recent demand. Feminists (such as of
Mahasweta Devi, Toni Morrison, Gayatri Spivak and Patricia
Williams) have forcefully drawn our attention to what is
actually done to women's bodies in the course of mapping out
racist colonial relations. Frantz Fanon, one of the foremost
theorists of decolonization, studied and wrote about the
role of violence in colonial social organization and about
the psychology of oppression; but he described just as
readily the bloodied, violated black bodies and the "searing
bullets" and "blood-stained knives" which were the order of
the day in the colonial world. Eduardo Galeano entitled one
of his books The Open Veins of Latin America and the
post-colonial theorist Achille Mbembe talks of the "!
mortification of the flesh," of the "mutilation" and
"decapitation" of oppressed bodies. Aime Cesaire's poetry
pulses with the physicality of blood, pain, fury and rage in
his outcry against the domination of African bodies. Even
Karl Marx, recognized as one of the founding fathers of the
modern social sciences, wrote trenchant critiques of
capital, exploitation, and classical political economy; and
did not flinch from naming the economic system he was
studying 'vampire capitalism.' In attempting to draw
attention to the violent effects of abstract and impersonal
policies, I claim a proud intellectual pedigree.

INVOKING THE AMERICAN NATION 

In my speech I argued that in order to legitimize the
imperialist aggression which the Bush administration is
undertaking, the President is invoking an American nation
and people as being vengeful and bloodthirsty. It is de
rigueur in the social sciences to acknowledge that the
notion of a 'nation' or a 'people' is socially!
constructed. The American nation is no exception.  If we
consider the language used by Bush and his administration to
mobilize this nation for the war, we encounter the
following: launching a crusade; operation infinite justice;
fighting the forces of evil and darkness; fighting the
barbarians; hunting down the evil-doers; draining the swamps
of the Middle East, etc., etc. This language is very
familiar to peoples who have been colonized by Europe. Its
use at this moment in time reveals that it is a
fundamentalist and racialized western ideology which is
being mobilized to rally the troops and to build a national
and international consensus in defence of 'civilization.' It
suggests that anyone who hesitates to join in is also 'evil'
and 'uncivilized.' In this vein, I have repeatedly been
accused of supporting extremist Islamist regimes merely for
criticizing US foreign policy and western colonialism.

Another tactic to mobilize support for the war has been the!
manipulation of public opinion. Polls conducted in the
immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks were used
to repeatedly inform us that the overwhelming majority of
Americans allegedly supported a strong military
retaliation. They did not know against whom, but they
purportedly supported this strategy anyway. In both the use
of language and these polls, we are witnessing what Noam
Chomsky has called the "manufacture of consent." Richard
Lowry, editor of the National Review opined, "If we flatten
part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it takes, this is
part of the solution." President Bush stated, "We will bear
no distinction between those who commit the terrorist
attacks and those who harbour them." Even as the bombing
began last weekend, he declared that the war is "broader"
than against just Afghanistan, that other nations have to
decide if they side with his administration or if they are
"murderers and outlaws themselves."  We have been asked by
most public commentators to accept the calls for
military aggression against "evil-doers" as natural,
understandable and even reasonable, given the attacks on
the United States. I reject this position. It would be just
as understandable a response to re-examine American foreign
policy, to address the root causes of the violent attacks
on the United States, and to make a commitment to abide by
international law. In my speech, I urged women to break
through this discourse of 'naturalizing' the military
aggression, and recognize it for what it is, vengeful
retribution and an opportunity for a crude display of
American military might. We are entitled to ask: Who will
make the decision regarding which 'nations' are to be
labeled as "murderers" and "outlaws"? Which notions of
'justice' are to be upheld? Will the Bush administration
set the standard, even as it is overtly institutionalizing
racial profiling across the United States?

I make very clear distinctions between people in America
and their government's call for war. Many people in America
are seeking to contest the 'national' consensus being
manufactured by speaking out and by organizing rallies and
peace marches in major cities, about which there has been
very little coverage in Canada. Irresponsible media
reporting of my comments which referred to Bush's invocation
of the American nation as a vengeful one deliberately took
my words out of this context, repeating them in one
television broadcast after another in a grossly distorted
fashion.

My choice of language was, again, deliberate. I wanted to
bring attention to Bush's right wing, fundamentalist
leanings and to the neo-colonialist/imperialist practices of
his administration. The words 'bloodthirsty' and 'vengeful'
are designations most people are quite comfortable
attributing to 'savages' and to the 'uncivilized,' while the
United States is represented as the beacon of democracy and
civilization. The words 'bloodthirsty' and 'vengeful'
make us confront the nature of the ideological justification
for this war, as well as its historical roots, unsettling
and discomforting as that might be.

THE POLITICS OF LIBERATING WOMEN 

I have been taken to task for stating that there will be no
emancipation for women anywhere until western domination of
the planet is ended. In my speech I pointed to the
importance of Afghanistan for its strategic location near
Central Asia's vast resources of oil and natural gas. I
think there is very little argument that the West continues
to dominate and consume a vast share of the world's
resources. This is not a controversial statement. Many
prominent intellectuals, journalists and activists alike,
have pointed out that this domination is rooted in the
history of colonialism and rests on the ongoing maintenance
of the North/South divide, and that it will continue to
provoke violence and resistance across the planet. I argued
that in the current climate of escalating militarism,
there will be precious little emancipation for women, either
in the countries of the North or the South.

In the specific case of Afghanistan, it was the American
administration's economic and political interests which led
to its initial support for, and arming of, Hekmatyar's Hezb
i Islami and its support for Pakistan's collaboration in,
and organization of, the Taliban regime in the
mid-1990s. According to the Pakistani journalist Ahmed
Rashid, the United States and Unocal conducted negotiations
with the Taliban for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan for
years in the mid-1990s. We have seen the horrendous
consequences this has had for women in Afghanistan. When
Afghan women's groups were calling attention to this
U.S. support as a major factor in the Taliban regime's
coming to power, we did not heed them. We did not recognize
that Afghan women's groups were in the front line resisting
the Taliban and its Islamist predecessors, including the
present militias of the Northern Alliance. Instead, we chose
to see them only as 'victims' of 'Islamic culture,' to be
pitied and 'saved' by the West. Time and time again, third
world feminists have pointed out to us the pitfalls of
rendering invisible the agency and resistance of women of
the South, and of reducing women's oppression to various
third world 'cultures.' Many continue to ignore these
insights. Now, the U.S. administration has thrown its
support behind the Northern Alliance, even as Afghan women's
groups oppose the U.S. military attacks on Afghanistan, and
raise serious concerns about the record of the Northern
Alliance in perpetuating human rights abuses and violence
against women in the country. If we listen to the voices of
these women, we will very quickly be disabused of the notion
that U.S. military intervention is going to lead to the
emancipation of women in Afghanistan. Even before the
bombings began, hundreds of thousands of Afghan women
were compelled to flee their homes and communities, and to
become refugees. The bombings of Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad
and other cities in the country will result in further loss
of life, including the lives of women and children. Over
three million Afghan refugees are now on the move in the
wake of the U.S. attacks. How on earth can we justify these
bombings in the name of furthering women's emancipation?

My second point was that imperialism and militarism do not
further women's liberation in westerm countries
either. Women have to be brought into line to support racist
imperialist goals and practices, and they have to live with
the men who have been brutalized in the waging of war when
these men come back. Men who kill women and children abroad
are hardly likely to come back cured of the effects of this
brutalization. Again, this is not a very controversial point
of view. Women are taught to support military aggressions,
which is then presented as being in their 'national'
interest.  These are hardly the conditions in which women's
freedoms can be furthered. As a very small illustration,
just witness the very public vilification I have been
subjected to for speaking out in opposition to this war.

I have been asked by my detractors that if I, as a woman, I
am so critical of western domination, why do I live here? It
could just as readily be asked of them that if they are so
contemptuous of the non-western world, why do they so
fervently desire the oil, trade, cheap labour and other
resources of that world? Challenges to our presence in the
West have long been answered by people of colour who say, We
are here because you were (are?) there! Migrants find
ourselves in multiple locations for a myriad of reasons,
personal, historical and political. Wherever we reside,
however, we claim the right to speak and participate in
public life.

CLOSING WORDS.. 

My speech was made to rally the women's movement in
Canada to oppose the war. Journalists and editors across the
country have called me idiotic, foolish, stupid and just
plain nutty. While a few journalists and columnists have
attempted balanced coverage of my speech, too many sectors
of the media have resorted to vicious personal attacks. Like
others, I must express a concern that this passes for
intelligent commentary in the mainstream media.  The manner
in which I have been vilified is difficult to understand,
unless one sees it as a visceral response to an 'ungrateful
immigrant' or an uppity woman of colour who dares to speak
out. Vituperation and ridicule are two of the most common
forms of silencing dissent. The subsequent harassment and
intimidation which I have experienced, as have some of my
colleagues, confirms that the suppression of debate is more
important to many supporters of the current frenzied war
rhetoric than is the open discussion of policy and its
effects. Fortunately, I have also received strong messages
of support. Day by day the opposition to this unconscionable
war is growing in Canada and all over the world.

I would like to thank all of my family, friends, colleagues
and allies who have supported and encouraged me.

************** 

Note added from Rita: 

There is a petition supporting Dr. Thobani at
http://www.cfsontario.ca/freespeech.

For background information, please see www.rabble.ca and
look for the following article: "Mediating Thobani". To see
Professor Thobani's full speech see www.straightgoods.com.

This past week it was announced that Professor Thobani was
being investigated by the RCMP for a potential violation of
Section 319 of the Canada Criminal Code--inciting hatred
against an identifiable group.

As people may know, Professor Thobani expressed criticism of
US foreign policy in a speech delivered to a women's meeting
October 1. Since then, she has been vilified in the media
and is now, apparently, under  criminal
investigation. Such an application of the law is the
antithesis of the intent of that legislation. It is now
being used to limit dissent.

It is critical that we support this attack on academic
freedom and the right to free speech. Please forward this
message, add your name and seek endorsements from your
organisation. We will be contacting all signatories in the
future for further activities related to this matter.

In solidarity, 

Pam Frache 
Ontario Campaigns and Government Relations Coordinator 
Canadian Federation of Students 

************************* 

"Americans have political problems which they don't even
recognize as political. The impoverishment of the country by
the arms race is a good example."

- American author Donald Barthelme (interviewed by Barbara Roe, 1988)