Women for Oil
The First Lady of the United States took to the airwaves last weekend to denounce the Taliban treatment of women. It's part of a global public relations effort to illuminate just how bad things were under the Taliban. The horror of the treatment of women in Muslim societies should have us stopped us all from buying another drop of gasoline, years ago. Along with the criticism of the routed regime, come hopes and pleas that the successors will show a little more awareness of what we consider essential human rights.
Though the Taliban produced more heroin than oil, their existence was a sidebar to the larger tragedy of petro-politics which has seen a considerable percentage of the women on our planet subjugated under draconian despotism, where conditions would make a brave man's skin crawl. Many of the worst -- those prosecuting the worst of the hardline policies — are "our" political allies.
It's all about black gold. We'd have little to do with Muslim society if it weren't for their controlling the world's oil supply.
The fact is that the petroleum industry has been bedding our politicians for a long time. Through investments -- excuse me, campaign contributions -- they have paid to make sure that (1) we haven't made a significant search for solar alternatives to their anachronistic, poisonous ooze, and (2), we don't offend the folks with the oil wells, offensive as those folks might be, and they are among the most offensive. It's all about power, of course, as in energy to power the great capitalist juggernaut, and as in personal power, as held by the royal in-breds and crooks in places where we have huge sums invested in oil and ordnance.
A Thomas Friedman piece in The New York Times last week put it all in perspective. The governments in the Islamic world protect the priests who keep the people behind the government, through "education" and social management harkening back a thousands years. Friendman quoted at length a Pakistani writer who called on intellectual and truly spiritual Muslims to throw off the repressive shackles of the mullahs and embrace a saner, viable future. It was very plainly put, and necessarily so; the matter isn't complicated. Transformative, yes; people are being asked to use their own minds, to take responsibility for their own lives, and to join the modern world. And not for better or worse, but for better.
It's a dicey moment. We have an opportunity to take giant strides forward, generating a popular movement away from war, and toward collaboration and community. With everyone on that same page — some coerced into participation through economic "incentives" — then we can eliminate terrorism in every form, both militaristic and economic. We can jump on the Bush Disarmament Bandwagon, shedding nukes and chemical warfare in a glorious paean to the children. Just imagine what we could do with the $175,000,000,000 we could save by cutting the Pentagon budget in half. Every year.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox. But consider what an extraordinary turning point in history this might be. If suddenly the women of the world said, No more second-class citizenship. That through the Internet and fallen veils, there suddenly began a sea change of freedom for women that even the princes and emirs couldn't stop.
It raises questions about what might be our role. Can we push or nudge, offer bribes, threaten force? I don't think we can offer sanctuary -- we'd probably be overwhelmed with applicants — but we can certainly facilitate opportunities for education and training on location in other countries. Whatever happened to the peace corps?
I'm glad to see Laura Bush speak up on the issue of women's rights, even if it is a PR move. Maybe it will awaken some among us who need to think harder and deeper about patriotism -- and matriotism -- and about our new role in the world community.
And that's SetonnoteS...I'm Tony Seton.
.