By Jennifer Knapp
Kashmir. Chechnya. Palestine. These names have become similar to the boogeyman that hides in the unknown darkness of our imagination, waiting to strike at our innocence. As children, we never questioned why ghosts and shadows would hurt us. Evil was a given. International relations however, are not quite as simple, as Arundhati Roy points out in her new book An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire.
The novel is a collection of the writer's speeches given over the past five years. Scathing, merciless, and unrelenting, her criticisms spare no one as she connects billion dollar industries and media with government institutions. She even goes on to criticize political movements such as the Hindutsva, saying how they too become oppressive and extreme. The media, the government, the military, the network of business and industry and political movements all carry the burden of responsibility in global oppression. When asked whose side she is on, she answers: the oppressed and poor. She wishes to be a voice for those who have none and for those no one will listen to. In a world that now revolves around the red beacon of anger and the mantra of “us against them,” Roy asks for understanding, believing this to be the only way to bring lasting peace.
Reviewing a book with a political theme is tricky. It is difficult not to fall into the trap of focusing more on whether the author agrees with your own political views rather than judging the quality of his or her arguments and the writing itself. It is easy to believe that a writer is good if his or her works coincide with your own beliefs and that he or she is bad if they do not. To appreciate Roy's writing, it is best to approach it with an open mind and thick skin since she is ruthless in her criticism against the system she has named “The Empire.” As a writer, her style flows with poetic ease. She breaks down the complicated world of international politics and brings out various angles for the reader to contemplate. The focus is economic in one section, psychological in another and historical in the next. The source of some of the most deadly conflicts today is more than about two groups fighting--the problem runs deeper than what we see on the news. She reaches out to the reader not to justify acts of terrorism but to show just why people would go to such extremes.
At the risk of being labeled a terrorist herself, Roy argues that if Empire did not ignore and crush nonviolent protests, the people would not feel a need to resort to violence. She cities various examples, including the police opening fire on Adivasis protesters who occupied a wildlife sanctuary promised to them by the Indian government, leaving one killed and several injured. The book is filled with footnotes and references showing how meticulously she has researched her subject to document the causes of the desperation and despair that could lead a human being to terrorism. While she has built a reputation for being very liberal in her views, no one can say that she is ignorant in her line of work. She comes across as a very respectable and educated writer. Even if one does not agree with what she has to say, after reading her work, you come to a better understanding about the workings of international politics and its effects on the world outside the United States.
“Empire brings terrorism onto itself. Because Empire does not respond to nor honor nonviolent resistance, it then by default privileges those who turn violent,” she writes. She mentions situations such as labor leaders mysteriously murdered or disappeared, civilian minorities not protected in times of riots and attack, and displacement of thousands of homes in the name of development. She spreads these examples out to Bolivia, Chile and South Africa, where governments have been either killing off its people ruthlessly in the name of security or preventing a means to acquire basic necessities such as electricity and food in the name of economics. Roy sets up scenarios to show how terrorism is a last resort for many. Being careful however, to show she does not support violence in any way, she writes: “Terrorism is vicious, ugly, and dehumanizing for its perpetrators, as well as its victims. But so is war. You could say that terrorism is the privatization of war. Terrorists are the free marketers of war. They are people who don't believe that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence."
Using this mercantile analogy, she gets her message across about how closely economical oppression and violence are related and how terrorism and war are roughly the same thing: violence against innocent people because of the actions of a government.
Though Roy criticizes the oversimplification of the media, she runs the risk herself at multiple points throughout the book. Empire is built up as the evil machine waiting for the next bait or business deal to come and cast a shadow over innocent people's lives. She illustrates the dark side of the system working against the poor for the sake of getting more wealth. But one might ask: Is it really that simple? The old colonialists, whom she sets up as the grandparents of modern neo-conservativism, were very open with their intentions to take over many parts of Asia. While much of this started out as business endeavors, it later took on the added cause of “white man's burden.” Roy draws on these similarities, such as the expressed desire to spread democracy in the Middle East as well as benefit from its natural supply of oil.
Does history really repeat itself so close to form? In her speech titled “Do Turkeys Enjoy Thanksgiving?” she points out the parallels between old imperialism and new imperialism as old racism and new racism. The new ways have a benevolent face, according to Roy. She scoffs at the idea of the token minority in firms, government administrations, and even in the entertainment business. She points this out because she realizes that not many people are aware of the severity of the discrimination to other people and therefore cannot understand the powerlessness of one who may resort to violence.
However, if Roy calls for understanding for those who have been labeled as terrorists, is it fair then to turn around and call Rumsfeld the “prince of darkness”? As thorough as her research and arguments are, there are still many questions left unanswered, such as: how could we repair the damage already done yet address real threats of terrorism? Roy addresses the long-term solution very well but does not address what is to be done with those who are beyond talk and understanding. Where does one draw the line between legitimate security measures and discrimination?
Similar complexities arise when she brings out the clash between the classes. Roy brings many global issues and problems under one banner of “rich versus poor.” She cannot reconcile the clash between the wealthy and the impoverished. She writes: “…it becomes increasingly absurd for any mainstream political party to pretend to represent the interests of both the rich and the poor, because the interests of one can only be represented at the cost of the other.” This is hardly the way to convince anyone who does not feel victimized to stand up for another's rights. The focus on the gap between business and the poor would serve more to alienate people who identify themselves with business and economics yet are still able to feel compassion for those less fortunate.
All in all, she addresses many counter-arguments very well in her book. One by one she answers the reasons given for government violence such as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or the arresting of thousands of innocent people under the guise of combating terrorism. Roy never tries to appear unbiased. She is very open about her preference for the “have-nots.” She points out the hypocrisy in the rhetoric of the “Empire” and uses catch-phrases like “liberation” and “democracy.” She comes on so strongly and with such heat that one might find her too extreme.
To avoid getting the wrong impression of Roy's message, the reader must take the entire book as a single entity rather than taking each piece individually. Questions that can be raised in one speech are regularly answered in another. In one speech she does not seem to place enough responsibility with the impoverished themselves while in other speeches, she does. It may seem at first that her speeches are reckless throws of criticism at every successful organization and corporation in existence. She says that according to the actions of government institutions, it is a crime to be poor, but sometimes she seems to say that it is a crime then to be rich. Yet later she brings the two together in the call for change.
For those who believe they must fight the system and bring a power balance back to the people, Roy suggests boycotts, nonviolent resistance and protest. This places responsibility on the people themselves to change their situation and their world. With responsibility comes a sense of control over one's life. This empowerment offers an alternative to violence. To bring about real empowerment, everyone must contribute. Those who do not directly suffer from discrimination can see the connection between the destiny of a poor worker in Yemen and a wealthy businessman in the United States after reading this book. Her message to the reader is to take responsibility to learn about the world outside their borders and become a part of the global community. We are, whether we like it or not, a part of each other's lives. Critics often deem Roy to be an extremist, but an extreme what? An extreme pacifist? An extreme humanitarian? Perhaps the world could do with a few more extremists like this one.
southendpress.org/ (http: //southendpress.org/)
www.arundhatiroy.org.uk/ (http: //www.arundhatiroy.org.uk/)
www.hindu.com/2004/01/18/stories/2004011800181400.htm (http: //www.hindu.com/2004/01/18/stories/2004011800181400.htm)