| Number 152 | April 5, 2002 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, I usually have some interesting and important things to say in my weekly editor's note, but I just don't have too much this week. So, that's the end of this editor's note. Succinctly yours, Nygaard |
|
|
I will have much to say about the situation in Israel/Palestine in future issues of Nygaard Notes. However, the situation is so grave right now that I want to take a little space this week to give some resources for those who wish to either learn more or, better yet, to take action to improve the prospects for peace and justice in the region. The key fact for United Statesians to remember is that, for better or worse, the United States is the world's sole superpower and, as such, is the only nation with the power to really make things happen. As citizens of this country, we thus have a special duty to make an effort to push our leaders to consider the promotion of justice before the promotion of our own "national interest." I happen to believe that our "national interest" is always and ultimately best served by promoting justice, but many of our leaders have a much narrower—and more dangerous—definition upon which they base their decisions. Here are just a few Internet resources to help Nygaard Notes readers to learn and act. (Readers who do not have access to the Internet can go to the nearest library, where the librarian will help you find these resources. Where possible, I will give phone numbers as well.) For basic background on the conflict, I recommend two sources, both of which can be read in less than an hour. One is the group from whom I draw this week's "Quote" of the Week, "Jews for Justice in the Middle East." Their short booklet, "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict," can be found at several sites on the ‘Net, but the easiest to deal with is probably the site of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs at http://www.wrmea.com/jews_for_justice/. I can't find a phone or postal address for this group. The second excellent brief history of the conflict comes from a group called the Middle East Research and Information Project, or MERIP. They have published a "Primer on Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict." Go to their site at http://www.merip.org/ and you will see the link at the bottom of the page. Phone (202) 223-3677. Here are two of the best sources I've found for breaking news on the unfolding crisis. As always, ZNet is an exceptional source, at http://www.zmag.org/. They have a special section called "Mideast Watch" that is unbelievable. Another fine idea would be to get on the E-mail list serve of Minnesota Jews for a Just Peace. You can do that by visiting http://www.topica.com/lists/sallyshalom and following the instructions. If you have already made up your mind about what to do and how to do it in regard to Israel and Palestine, then you don't need me to tell you anything. But, just in case, I will mention two very quick and easy options for those who are short on time. One is a group called Churches for a Middle East Peace, which has a clear and concise petition that you and all your friends could sign and send in. Find it at: http://www.cmep.org/petition.html. Phone 202-488-5613. The Jewish peace group "Not In My Name" has a good little action page on their website at http://www.nimn.org/. Check out the several petitions listed there. Phone 312-409-4845. |
|
It's annoying to many people when we in the United States refer to ourselves as "Americans." There are, after all, about three dozen nations in North and South America, all of whose citizens are also "Americans." The Spanish-speaking people of the hemisphere have a word —"Estadounidense"—the noun form of which specifically means "a citizen of the United States," with the adjectival form meaning "of or from the United States of America." Unfortunately, and tellingly, English doesn't seem to have such a word. This week my discomfort in using the convenient shortcut "American" becomes too great to bear, so I have decided to introduce the awkward term "United Statesian." This is somewhat of a problem still, as there are other nations that call themselves "United States," the United States of Brazil, for example. Still, removing the "United States" from any other country's name leaves one with a precise and unique name for that country, while doing so with our own nation leaves us with the imprecise (and arrogant) "America." Imperfect and cumbersome though it is, the point of using the phrase "United Statesians" is to hint at the role of language in breeding resentment toward an imperialist political culture like our own. And, as always, clunky and awkward things are amusing to me (which explains why I crack up when I think of my adolescence) so "United Statesian" is no doubt here to stay for a while. Speaking of resentment of the U.S., the depth and breadth of it from around the world is often baffling to many United Statesians. Sometimes it can seem like we live not just in another country, but on another planet. How are such different realities constructed? This week's piece about the death of Jonas Savimbi illustrates one simple aspect of how it works: Consider that our country sometimes supports a person or government whom we are told is a "Good Guy," but the rest of the world considers him/it a "Bad Guy." (This is a quite common occurrence; the case of Savimbi is but one example.) When this happens, every United Statesian who believes the official propaganda is deprived of a useful tool that would be sure to help them understand one of the sources of the resentment directed at us. So many of us fall victim to this that many people in other countries find it hard to believe that the average United Statesian can really be that far out-to-lunch. (For more on how and why the "official history" of the United States differs from the history recorded in other parts of the world, see "America's Official Historian" in Nygaard Notes #131.) I realize that the preceding paragraph really didn't have anything to do with introducing the new phrase but, since it gave me some practice in using it, I left it in. |
|
The name Slobodan Milosevic has become a household word in the United States as he stands trial in The Hague for genocide and crimes against humanity, which isn't surprising given that he is charged with responsibility for up to 10,000 deaths and the displacement from their homes of something on the order of 250,000 citizens. On the other hand, a name that is not a household word in this country is the name of Jonas Savimbi, who bears a large share of the responsibility for up to half a million dead and the displacement from their homes of something on the order of 6 million citizens. The difference in "name recognition" is to be expected. A quick search of the news archives of the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) yields hundreds of articles about the former Serbian leader and his crimes, but not a single news story mentioning Savimbi and his similar (and, quantitatively, far greater) crimes. For those who don't know who Jonas Savimbi was, until six weeks ago he was the tyrannical leader of a group called the National Union for the Total Liberation of Angola, the Portuguese acronym for which is UNITA. Angola, the fourth largest nation in Africa, achieved its independence from Portugal in 1975, a fight in which UNITA participated along with several other Angolan liberation armies. Over the years since liberation, Jonas Savimbi led UNITA in an endless war against the ruling government. After free and fair elections were held in 1993 and Savimbi was defeated in his bid to be president, Savimbi refused to accept the results and the bloodshed continued. Savimbi thought it was his destiny to be the leader of Angola, and he would stop at nothing to achieve his destiny. Savimbi was killed by the Angolan military on February 22. Not coincidentally, UNITA signed a cease-fire with the government this week and agreed to demobilize under U.N. supervision. How the Media Write History How to remember a historical figure like Jonas Savimbi? It must be said that most Americans won't remember him at all, since his victims had little propaganda value to U.S. elites and therefore to the U.S. media. However, the coverage that did appear upon his death provides Nygaard Notes readers with an almost textbook-perfect example of how ideology routinely shapes the news. To illustrate, I present here a group of paired sets of comments from the domestic and international press on the passing of Jonas Savimbi. New York/London Here is the headline for the London Guardian's Savimbi obituary of February 25th: "Jonas Savimbi: Angolan Nationalist Whose Ambition Kept His Country at War." Here is the lead paragraph: "Jonas Savimbi, who has died aged 67, was, for 20 years, a figure as important in southern Africa as Nelson Mandela, and as negative a force as Mandela was positive. For the past 10 years, using the proceeds of smuggled diamonds from eastern and central Angola, he fought an increasingly pointless and personal bush war against the elected government in which hundreds of thousands of peasants were killed, wounded, displaced, or starved to death." Coming at it with a different tone is the New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print") obituary of February 23rd. Here's the headline: "Jonas Savimbi, 67, Rebel Of Charisma and Tenacity." The Times' lead paragraph reads: "Jonas Savimbi, who was killed yesterday by Angolan government soldiers, spent more than 35 years in the African bush battling first for Angolan independence and then for personal power. Mr. Savimbi, 67, was among the more charismatic rebels on the continent. The burly leader was easily recognized by his lumbering gait, menacing scowl, combat fatigues, pistol and black beret, all of which served to obscure his Swiss doctorate in political science." Washington/Sydney The Washington Post rounded up a former UNITA official, and also a former Congressional staff member, for comment on the passing of Savimbi. They said, respectively, "For all his flaws, Savimbi represented those who felt excluded by the current regime," and "Like it or not, it was Savimbi who captured the hopes and aspirations of the people of the south [of Angola]." Here's the London Observer: "His fighters laid siege to a country's cities, starved and enslaved its people, and sowed its fields with mines. In 30 years they drove a third of the population from their homes in their battle with the government... By late last year UNITA had been transformed into an ideology-free Khmer Rouge, slaves to a messianic personality cult, fighting without wages or proper clothes in thrall to one man's dream of absolute power." Australia/U.S. Australia's national newspaper, The Australian, quoted a former UNITA official saying that "Jonas Savimbi was really a total dictator." (By the way, let's be clear that the difference in coverage is dictated only by nationality of the news source. A regional, less-influential paper, the Los Angeles Times, found an "anonymous" former U.S. government official who pointed out that Savimbi "...was nothing short of a maniacal megalomaniac.") The national news service UPI, on the other hand, dug up a former Reagan administration official (they're easy to find these days) who offered this comment: "I think there was a real chance for democracy in Angola if Savimbi had come to power..." London/Washington In a slightly more subtle example, note how two newspapers "reported" on crowds taking to the streets after Savimbi's death. The London Guardian said: "His death in fighting in the eastern province of Moxico was greeted with celebrations in the Angolan capital, Luanda." The Washington Post said: "In Luanda, revelers hoping that Savimbi's death would lead to peace took to the streets Friday night..." What was behind these celebrations? The Guardian reports it as a "Ding, dong, the witch is dead" response. The Post prefers a vague "hope for peace," which refuses to assign the lion's share of responsibility for decades of war to the long-time U.S. client. The one indisputable fact is that a man named Jonas Savimbi is dead. But was he one of the most negative forces in Africa, or an "easily-recognized," highly educated, charismatic "rebel?" Did he symbolize a "chance for democracy," or was he "a total dictator" and "maniacal megalomaniac?" Did he "capture the hopes and aspirations of the people," or were the people "slaves to a messianic personality cult?" It depends on which papers you read, I guess. |