Laleh Khalili gives
an interesting account in her chapter “Invisible Prisoners, Proxy-Run Prisons.”
She talks about the role of proxies in not only the Israeli invasion of Lebanon
in the 1980s, but also in the counterterrorism operations of the United States
during its “War on Terror.” A recurring theme is present in most of the
articles we have read, and that is the issue of visibility. In this scenario,
“zones of invisibility” are created. Black sites are established around the
world, where detainees are held and tortured without a warrant for arrest or a
trail. This type of detention is ideal when secret services wish to perform in
a way that would be considered illegal in prisons monitored by the ICRC, for
example. Rendition also fits this mold of invisibility, where prisoners are
sent to countries with little to no oversight on the treatment of detainees.
Khalili quotes Robert Baer: “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a
prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If
you want someone to disappear- never to see them again- you send them to
Egypt.”
What I think is the
most fascinating part of her argument is the way she intertwines the themes of
gender and race. To Khalili, the use of proxies are useful not only because it
blurs accountability and legal jurisdiction, but also because is reinforces a
certain “civilizational hierarchies in which the proxies’ brutality reinforced
the humane superiority of their patrons.” It makes sense when one looks at the
blatant racist rhetoric during the Bush administration at the height of the
“War on Terror.” The Middle East and Middle Easterners only understood
brutality and hated Westerners for their “freedom.” Khalili recounts that the
Rafi Malka, head of Shin Bet’s Operational Branch, stated, “Lebanon gave us
Lebanonization...In order to stay sane and stay alive, you had to do things
that were unacceptable.” Ben-Gurion called for the “fight against the spirit of
the Levant,” which will only corrupt societies to the level of Arab countries.
I think that this idea is a product of 19th century colonialism, where the
Middle East, Africa and Asia were occupied in the name of civilization.
Imperialist powers, whether they were in occupied lands for natural resources
or not, played a direct hand in the daily lives of the populace because it was
the “white man’s burden” to lead the path towards Westernization. Imperialism
was blatantly racist, as is the War on Terror and the efforts of the US and
other coalition forces to reestablish order in Afghanistan and Iraq after
ravaging it.
Gender is also used
to separate the status of the proxy from the occupying forces. It is weaponized
to prove that the conquered populations become owned, and therefore feminine. I
think this was a very interesting topic to bring up in this article. Khalili
quotes a commander in Iraq, who states, “When are these people going to
discover their manhood and stand and fight with us to save their city.” Through
classes and readings, the idea of imperial conquest has always been considered
“masculine,” while the occupied populations are considered “feminine.” Look at
the British occupation of Egypt- the idea of the occupied population/country
was blatantly gendered. This was evident through political cartoons about the
colonization of Egypt, where more often than not, the reoccurring two subjects
in the cartoon were 1) the very masculine/handsome British general manhandling
the 2) tied-up oversexed/exposed woman who was to represent Egypt. I can’t also
help but think about the role of NGOs in the Middle East when the subject of
gender comes up. I read an article in my “Women in Islam” class last year,
where the role of NGOs can also be seen as a product of Western imperialist
thought. Many of these NGOs strive to “liberate” women, in Afghanistan for
example, and show them that unveiling is the only way to move towards equality
and ameliorate their situation. Yet, accounts from Afghani women themselves
show that their veil is the LEAST of their worries. They live everyday trying
to put food on the table and to educate their children. Instead of trying to
instill this “feminism” on a suffering population, why not teach sustainable
farming? Why not give women the tools to take the lead in educating their
children if they cannot afford schools? The need for a more culturally
sensitive approach to populations around the world is more than necessary after
decades of injustice.
No comments:
Post a Comment