An Unwanted Spokeswoman

Sahar

I couldn’t help but laugh out loud when I read Mark Landler of The New York Times’ interview with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Reminiscent of a colonial-style arrogance, the brazen title of the interview, ‘Saving the World’s Woman—A New Gender Agenda’ set the mood of the interview.

In the interview, Clinton is asked a series of questions in which she highlights political, economic and social problems facing women  today, and what she considers  ‘solutions’.  We are given the impression that she wants to be remembered for her contribution in alleviating the problems women are facing.

I find it remarkable that Clinton– who assumes the role of spokeswoman for all women in the world—is talking about global women’s rights, while concurrently a part of a government that has wrought so much havoc on many in the developing countries specifically mentioned in the interview (India, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq).

I wasn’t surprised by her attempt to present herself as a representative of women, considering she ran in the Presidential elections under such a rubric.  However, her policy stance on women seems disjointed and incongruous when you consider she is known for her hawkish stance on numerous issues like nuclear weapons and Iran, national security and the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to academic Stephen Zunes, she has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that have horrendous human rights violations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel.  She has insisted upon unconditional funding for the disastrous and illegal war in Iraq and further increase in military spending.

Clinton asserts “ I happen to believe that the transformation of women’s roles is the last great impediment to universal progress — that we have made progress on many other aspects of human nature that used to be discriminatory bars to people’s full participation. But in too many places and too many ways, the oppression of women stands as a stark reminder of how difficult it is to realize people’s full human potential”.

Putting aside the contention of a normative discourse on universal human rights, theoretically, Clinton, like any Western leader, adheres to this liberal notion and stresses the importance of universal human rights, yet, she has questioned the credibility of known human rights organisations like Amnesty International when they’ve criticised the policies of the U.S. and its allies.  Moreover, she has also been an outspoken critic of the UN, opting for a unilateral stance in international politics.

She further states “Women and girls are a core factor in our foreign policy”—yet her historical record suggests either she is being disingenuous or is oblivious to the implications of her policies on women in particular.

Knowing the implications of war with Iran because of the experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, she has eagerly continued with a hawkish stance on confronting Iran where in which she has described the Iranian ‘threat’ as unacceptable and suggesting a military strategy is possible. Early this year she vehemently defended the abhorrent Israeli invasion of Gaza which killed over 1000 civilians.  Just this month she has finalised a defense agreement with India to ensure US companies sell sophisticated arms to New Delhi.  Clinton states that she travels and talks about women’s rights and raises women’s concerns with leaders while simultaneously ensuring the imperial praxis remains.  It’s difficult to imagine how women’s lives are improved when she encourages and in fact openly endorses increasing militarism in countries like Pakistan, India, Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan—rather than on development to ensure political, economic and social stability. There is no mention of the structural mechanisms in place which generate North-South inequalities and maintain them via neo-liberal policies. These global economic policies create an unsafe environment for women and children who are vulnerable to war and poverty. Clinton would much rather blame women’s oppression on religious fundamentalism and global terrorism.

 “If you look at where we are fighting terrorism, there is a connection to groups that are making a stand against modernity, and that is most evident in their treatment of women”. What Clinton fails to understand, or purposely ignores is that the Islamic movements she is alluding  to are modernist movements which are resisting U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. They are not simply resisting because of their hate of freedom, so the Bush administration mantra went—rather, they are modern in their own right and challenging a Western hegemony and a colonial modernity that is being imposed on them in the guise of economic exploitation and Western consumer culture.

With glaring audacity she continues,

“What does preventing little girls from going to school in Afghanistan by throwing acid on them have to do with waging a struggle against oppression externally?”

Clearly it’s in Clinton’s best interest as a representative of a government responsible for so many of the conflicts raging in many Muslim countries, to ignore the historical and political context in which women’s issues can be better understood.  The cultural violence that has ensued by Western countries in the ‘developing’ world harks back to colonialism and perpetuated today in similar policies of exploitation and domination.  The throwing of acid can only be understood within such a context in order to read it accurately as a response to the encroachment on national sovereignty and the cultural life of these people—where women often are seen as the cultural/national symbol. Thus, instability ensures women become a prime target of preserving what is perceived to be cultural losses.

If Clinton was genuine about wanting to help women (which I certainly doubt she is) she should– along with her ‘white sisters’– stop basking in the colonial glory of ‘saving’ women in developing countries.  Instead, she should acknowledge her complicity in ensuring that current oppressive political and economic structures remain, which reinforces a dichotomy of power and powerless that has had disastrous effects on global politics, particularly on the lives of women. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.

Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, Angela Merkel and “well built” female lawyers

Farah

One of the commenters on my burka ban post a couple of weeks ago led me to the story of Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein – a Sudanese journalist who was arrested along with 11 other women in a Khartoum café for breaking Sudanese indecency laws by wearing trousers. While 10 of her companions have pleaded guilty to the offence, al-Hussein has decided to challenge the law. She has come out quite strongly against the indecency laws, and has declared that she is willing to take her case to the highest court in Sudan and, if they do not rule in her favour, she is willing to be lashed “not 40, but 40,000 times”.

She was quoted in the Guardian as saying, “Islam does not say whether a woman can wear trousers or not … It is not about religion, it is about men treating women badly.” Similarly, in her article “Lubna, a case of subduing a woman’s body” published in Al-Horreya newspaper shortly after al-Hussein’s arrest Sudanese journalist Amal Habbani also highlights that this law and the treatment of al-Hussein was “not about fashion but a political tactic to intimidate and terrorize opponents.” Habbani has since been charged and fined by the government after the article was published.

Sudan has a long history of women’s activism, and the strong support Sudanese women and men have given Al-Hussein has been highlighted over the past weeks. This activism stretches back to the 1989 coup that put the NIF in power. In “Gender Politics and Islamization in Sudan” Sondra Hale highlights that women were at the forefront of the 1989 coup. She notes that women were far more than “the ‘Greek chorus’ of the Islamic revolution. They [were] the central organizers and socializers … these women were not only learning and interpreting Islam for themselves and other women, but were also militant, independent in spirit, and effective organizers in the movement.” Leaders like Hasan al-Turabi came out in strong support of the role of women in the new Sudan, including in his pamphlet “On the Position of Women in Islam and in Islamic Society” published in 1973. But Hale questions whether or not women can sustain such an activist role now that the NIF is consolidating their control. Take for example the indecency laws. They are a part of a broader campaign in which women are re-socialized and religious ideas and institutions manipulated to form new power relationships. But the campaign verges on essentializing Islam; women’s behavior in the name of the ‘ideal woman’ is being ideologically manipulated by male-controlled religio-political institutions.

Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein. Image via Sudan Tribune

The focus is solely been on her right to wear trousers, while ignoring the broader issue. This approach is adopted by the articles I found trawling through my Google search. People say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but honestly I think that award should go to the pun. Some of the more (lamer) article titles I came across were:

• “al-Hussein wears the pants”
• “Lubna Hussein, standing up to Sudanese law on who wears the pants”
and other predictable variations on “Guess who wear’s the pants”, “blah blah pants wearing”. Alternatively, there was
• “Fashion statement: A Sudanese woman risks a flogging over pants” (fashion statement? Really?)
• “Lubna Hussein makes an ass of the law”
• “Trouser martyr”
• “Martyr to her trousers”
which is probably a bit much – she’s not dead so can we lay off the martyr talk?

Discussions of appropriate clothing are certainly not restricted to Muslim women. In 2006 Australian judge Peter Young said that some ‘well built’ female lawyers wore inappropriately revealing clothing. In an opinion piece, he stated “It is clear that some female solicitors have no idea of appropriate court dress. The worst offenders are usually well-built women who expose at least the upper halves of their breasts, and as they lean forward to make a point to a judge sitting at a high level they present a most unwelcome display of bare flesh.” The opinion of a respected member of society in a country where supposedly ‘democratic’ values prevail – and that was only a couple of years ago. More recently (and when I say recent I mean yesterday) German Chancellor Angela Merkel and politician Vera Lengsfeld (both members of the conservative party) have come under fire for publishing an election ad campaign where both wore low-cut dresses which showed ample amounts of cleavage – apparently the ad lowered the tone of the election and was ‘inappropriate’.

While Merkel, Lengsfeld and all those well-built female lawyers aren’t breaking laws, people’s attitudes remain the same. I’m not downplaying the significance of al-Hussein’s situation; there is a concern she could be flogged and I don’t agree with laws that prosecute against ‘indecent’ clothing, whether that clothing is trousers or burqas. But the issue here is a lot bigger than just a right to wear pants and focussing on that right alone obscures the broader issue. In a second article called “Alienation and Belonging—Women’s Citizenship and Emanciation: Visions for Sudan’s Post-Islamist Future”, Hale notes that “one of the unanswered questions … is why women are … superficially on the agenda … and, yet, a vision for what a gender egalitarian society would look like is glossed over or ignored.” The right of a woman to control her own body emerges in a number of contexts in all countries in a number of areas, including right to wear clothing free from legal constraints. These issues relate to broader questions about the role of women. What is deemed appropriate/inappropriate in certain contexts? Do we have a right to dictate by law the choices women make? And what type of national identity is being dictated to women, and being constructed over our bodies?

While we wait for an answer to those questions, I want to start a campaign. Not about al-Hussein – she already has ample support both in Sudan and across the world (Sarkozy has even jumped on the bandwagon). My campaign? Free Merkel and Lengsfeld’s cleavage from our traditional and backward attitudes. Do you want a society in which your daughter can’t show off her cleavage (if she has any, and if she doesn’t she can always get implants – not that I’m suggesting your daughter conform to a particular standard of beauty)? Come on people, do it for the kids.

Mistranslations and Finger-Pointing – Revisiting Stolen

Farah

A couple of weeks ago my post on the documentary Stolen generated a whole discussion about whether or not slavery exists in the Tindouf refugee camps in Western Sahara. Is there, isn’t there, it went on and on (even though I distinctly remember saying the post wasn’t discussing whether or there was slavery, but rather about the abuse of Fetim’s story for the uses of others.) But never mind. I decided to reserve my opinion on the existence of slavery in the region until after I watched the film. On Friday I had that opportunity (it was screened as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival) but unfortunately for Fallshaw and Ayala I’m still undecided about the whole issue, and that’s even looking past the fact that it was badly directed.

Fetim (right), with two of her children. Courtesy MIFF.

First, let’s get my major criticism of the film’s structure out of the way. The bulk of the film is shot in the refugee camps, but there are also scenes in Europe, the US and other parts of Africa. One of the biggest problems with the way they’ve structured the movie is that the setting shifts and changes without so much as signposts for the audience. They jump around from France to Geneva to Mauritania to Morocco to New York to Casablanca. Other scenes are thrown in of sitting in airplanes and collecting luggage at airports – but hardly any clarification is given as to where they actually are. Admittedly this isn’t an issue which deters from their central message (of slavery in the refugee camps) but it makes me think the documentary was hastily finished and just really slapped together – and it’s not a great first impression to make.

There are two main problems I have with the film itself. Halfway through the documentary they realise the PLF is out to get them; they bury their tapes in the desert, get detained by the PLF, and after a few hours of negotiation are released on the proviso that they cannot re-enter the camps. The problem is how they get the tapes out of the camps and eventually, out of the region. Assistance is provided by a mysterious Moroccan government official named Mohammed Reda. He tells them the tapes can be smuggled out in a Moroccan diplomatic bag, as long as Ayala and Fallshaw go to an UN-sponsored talk to be held in New York and raise the issue of slavery with the Polisario representative, and also hold a press conference highlighting slavery in the camps. They then proceed to do so. Later the tapes and the directors are reunited in a dingy hotel room – Fallshaw ripping open the plastic bag they were buried in and shaking the sand out of the cases. It’s all very emotional – I was so moved I nearly cried. Tears aside, do the words selling out come to anyone’s mind? In the Q and A session after the film, Fallshaw says doing what Reda wanted was the only option open to them to get their tapes out of the country. Yes they got the story of ‘slavery’ out, but at what cost? By becoming puppets for Moroccan government?

Later they travel to Geneva to question Ursula Aboubacar (the Deputy Director of the UNHCR Bureau for Middle East & North Africa) regarding slavery in the camps. Aboubacar has since denounced the film and questioned her representation; accusing the directors of manipulating what was supposedly a 1hr long interview into a 2 minute sound bite (a transcript of the part of the interview shown in the documentary can be accessed here). Aboubacar says in her email to the directors:

“While you continued to focus on slavery practices in the camps only, I explained that slavery is an issue to be seen in a regional, traditional and cultural practice which will take a long time to completely eradicate. This was the only moment I mentioned the camps as, per se, they are part of the sub-region. Again you manipulated these statements in the most abusive way and took them out of their context for your own purposes.”

Aboubacar highlights the biggest issue I have of the film – the film focuses solely on the practices within the camps. We are given no context, no dynamics, no nothing – the filmmakers don’t tell us the history of the Sahrawi people or from whence they came or anything at all. While it is a complex history and would be difficult to condense, the documentary isn’t overly long – at 1hr 20mins surely they could’ve provided some context – something at least better than what was shown. David Dorward (former head of African Studies at La Trobe University) states, the film “doesn’t adequately deal with ingrained cultural complexities… Legally, the descendants of slaves have [equal rights], but in reality they are second class citizens right across Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania… What they are talking about is racial prejudice. The film takes the notion of slavery and imposes a Western view of a much more complex caste system.”

Like my sister said afterward, the whole film was an exercise in selective finger pointing.