“The treatment of Muslims in American airports”

The United States of America has adopted stricter security measures in its airports and border passageways, following the uncovering of the failed attempt to detonate a civilian plane over Detroit by a Nigerian young man who was said to have received training in an Al-Qa’idah camp in Yemen. These measures are undoubtedly a sovereign American decision but they are targeting particularly Arab and Muslim citizens, which means that the accusations of “terrorism” have now become limited to those people solely, in a clear reflection of segregation. The American administration drew up a list of terrorist states featuring fourteen countries, thirteen of which are Muslim countries and include Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Algeria, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq and Lebanon.

As for the only non-Arab and non-Muslim country, it was Cuba. The targeting of Arabs and Muslims with thorough searches at American airports is not new. However, the tightening of these measures following the failed detonation attempt will entail further humiliation, investigations, body searches and computer and cell-phone checking, which will render trips to America an unbearable nightmare. Moreover, the fact that an Arab or Muslim citizen holds European nationality does not mean anything, and does not spare the latter from going through the same measures if coming from the states featured on the American lists, whose citizens are believed to be more prone to carry out terrorist attacks.

Therefore, Britons and French [people] of Muslim origins are often forced to get entry visas into the United States in a [form of] clear segregation in comparison with their compatriots of white European origins. The paradox, however, is that this racist segregation is also implemented on Americans of Arab or Islamic origins, since immigration and customs officers often decorate their boarding passes with (xxxx) written in red in order to subject them to additional searching and investigation. Many stories are being related by those traveling to the United States, talking about the harsh treatment they are receiving, [such as] being ousted from the plane, or prevented from boarding it to begin with if the travele’s name is featured on the list of banned or monitored [persons] (which includes around one million names).

In this context, Libya’s current envoy to the United Nations, and former foreign minister, Mr. Abdelrahman Shalgam, was subjected to humiliating treatment at New York airport before boarding the plane, which prompted his government to protest and decide to prevent the entry of Americans into its territories. However, the apology issued by the American administration and its secretary of state for this shameful action helped contain the crisis, even if temporarily. However, the most painful example is that in which the American government sent back a French national of Algerian origins from the airport of the capital, Washington, after he was searched in a humiliating way, just because he was not white and his eyes were not blue.

The Algerian government was almost the only one to protest the American decision to subject its citizens to additional security monitoring in airports, believing it was unjustifiable discrimination… We had hoped to see all the other Arab and Islamic states on the American terrorism lists protesting in a collective way and agreeing to adopt similar measures when dealing with the American nationals who reach their airports, by lengthily interrogating them, fiercely searching them and arresting them for long hours, seeing how the Americans are also perpetrating acts of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are in favor of the protection of innocent American citizens, but also in favor of the protection of Arab and Muslim citizens from humiliation… at the hands of American investigators who despise all that is Arab and Muslim and treat us like convicted terrorists and not like businessmen, students, diplomats or journalists.

Joel Simon of the Committee to Protect Journalists had an interesting comment about Rohde on CPJ’s blog:

Rohde…felt the need, both in his article and in a Q and A with readers hosted on the New York Times Web site, to defend his decision to undertake a risky interview with a Taliban commander as the final piece of his research into a book on Afghanistan.

Such decisions are, of course, subject to scrutiny and debate. At the same time, there is simply no way for a reporter to cover critical issues in dangerous places without occasionally running into serious trouble. The question is not only what journalists can do to reduce the risk, but how media organizations expect the public to respond when things go wrong.

This reminds me a bit of the public outcry over journalist Stephen Farrell’s kidnapping earlier this year, which resulted in the death of his translator and an unknown British soldier. He was not only berated  for putting the lives of those two individuals at risk, but was also characterized as a selfish glory-seeker out for personal fame. I don’t know Farrell personally, so I can’t speak for the characterization (though it seems a bit unfair) but the intense criticism by the public over a kidnapped foreign journalist seems to follow the lines of a “blame the victim” mentality. Yes, journalists should exercise caution when reporting in sensitive areas and on sensitive subjects, but there’s really no solid justification for kidnapping one, either, is there?

Parag Khanna is the Director of the Global Governance Initiative and Senior Research Fellow in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. He will be speaking at the NYU Center for Global Affairs this Saturday from 10:00 to 4:00 pm. Please see the flyer for this event for more details — all are encouraged to attend this event, which promises to be an enlightening debate and discussion on the Obama administration’s strategic objectives.