In looking back to the 1980s, there is that sense of longing about the way we were taught especially in the arts by a teaching force that was truly multicultural. This was also a period of turmoil in southern Africa. I regard the course “20th Century literature” as the apex of my study of literature in the UB English department of the 1980s. Relevant to the discussion is George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”. Both novels are highly satirical and look into the future. “Brave New World” explores the conditioning of humanity through Fordist production processes and also raises critical questions on science and its use. “Nineteen Eighty-Four” attacks totalitarianism. While it is believed that Orwell’s novel caricatured Stalin’s Russia, it is as relevant today as it was in the Stalinist era. It is really nauseating that the concept of Big Brother is adulterated by Reality TV series for commercial purposes. Many youngsters will have no clue as to what Big Brother, in Orwellian terms, really means.
Since the 9/11 disaster and the subsequent so-called war on terror, Big Brother is watching has become even more intensified. In a bid to contain terrorism, Western governments have resorted to closing in on society and curtailing the limited civil liberties citizens enjoy in capitalist states. Gradually, states are being transformed into police states. Surveillance is the order of the day. The use of surveillance cameras in public places like roads, airports, train stations, public buildings means society is constantly monitored.
This also extends to business records, records from hardware stores, bank records and credit card transactions. All these are monitored in the name of security. In other words, the state would want to know what one purchased in a given store, to establish if one did not buy explosive making material, bank records to see if you are not funding a terrorist organisation or you are funded by them. Even in academic institutions, library records are monitored to find out what books people read and for what purpose. The websites visited regularly are equally monitored.
All these issues raise questions about civil liberties. Civil liberty groups are up in arms against anti-terrorist laws such as the US Patriot Act and the stringent Anti-terrorist laws of Australia. While society is raising concerns on these laws, in the wake of the July 7 London bombings, Western governments and their associates are even calling for a further trade off of civil liberties and security. There is a talk of introducing a national ID for Australians and the British. John Howard vehemently opposed proposals to introduce it in 1987 but has since declared that he has had a change of heart as circumstances have changed. But across the political divide and the society, there are opposing views as some see this an affront on privacy. There is also talk of empowering security agents to do random search on rucksacks. Presently, the anti-terrorist laws allow security agents to conduct pre-emptive raids on houses, impound computers and laptops and even trash these if it is established that they have information that threatens security. One academic and a political correspondent have had these searches and computers trashed. Worse still, there are restrictions on what one can say about security agents’ actions.
The danger of these Big Brother gadgets is that quite often they are abused. In the 1960s in the US, termed eavesdropping, they were used to monitor the civil rights movement to establish its relationship with the Communist Party of America. When it was found that King was not influenced or funded by communists, the monitoring continued, but this time with the mission to destroy him. The security agents tapped phones in hotels that King checked in with women other than his wife. They were later to drop recorded conversations to King’s wife. The mission was to show the American public and his followers that he was not the ideal leader that they knew. He was an unfaithful husband and leader with no good moral standing.
The other danger of this anti-terrorist tide is the alienation of Muslim communities around the world. Islamophobia is certainly taking root in western societies, as there is a media barrage on Muslim communities, accused of preaching hate and anti-western sentiments. Muslim communities in the developed countries are under great pressure to denounce violence and disassociate Islam with terror. The tragedy is that any condemnation of Western governments’ actions on issues that Muslims consider critical to world peace such as Iraq and the Middle East is bound to be interpreted as an endorsement of terrorist actions. We cannot freely condemn botched Western governments’ operations in Iraq, where it is estimated that there are 800 violent deaths each day.
The scampering that Muslim leaders seem to be doing in Australia and Britain to project the good image of their faith is all part of the pressure that is placed on them. They are being asked to subordinate their freewill and faith to national identity. Failure to do so is failure to pass the Australian or British citizenship test. But there is evidence that there is simmering discontent among Muslims around the world. Recent TV interviews of young working class Muslims in Leeds, where the London bombers originate, show that the young Muslims are bitter and angry against a society in which they were born and raised. There is a sense of alienation, dislocation and non-acceptance. These youngsters even express fear of wearing their traditional garb in public (self-monitoring) for fear of being labelled terrorist. Part of the danger of the present anti-terrorist discourse is that it runs into the danger of being exploited by ultra-right groups - and there are plenty of them in the US. Racism is likely to be fanned by some of these views. One university professor here recently lost his job for openly asserting that Australia should return to a policy of white Australia, which is being tainted by an influx of Asians and blacks. The law professor went on radio to express his old racism sentiments in which blacks are perceived to be less intelligent and violent.The real answer to anti-terror is reaching out to Muslim communities around the world and attending to their grievances and problems.
A macho view projected by the US president will not take the world anywhere. If anything, it will make the whole world an unsafe place to live in as interests of the West prevail in all corners of the globe. A war on faceless enemies cannot be won. Perhaps it’s time to “jaw-jaw” rather than “war-war”, as Winston Churchill once put it. We may then see the mirage of world peace.
Mino Polelo
Melbourne
AUSTRALIA
