'Terrorist' hysteria breeds racism

BY SARAH STEPHEN

Racist prejudice is alive and well in Australia. Just cast a glance at the letters in tabloid newspapers, or listen to a few minutes of the shock-jocks' talk-back radio. People judge others according to their national origin and the colour of their skin. Now, religion has become intertwined with race. John Pilger calls it xeno-racism; Robert Manne uses the term Islamophobia.

It has been rearing its head most notably after September 11 and the Bali bombing. Australians from Muslim and Arab backgrounds have been physically and verbally abused, they have faced employment discrimination, their houses have been graffitied, Mosques have been burnt and vandalised.

This was not entirely a spontaneous and automatic reaction to the terrorist attacks. It has been consciously and deliberately fed by governments and the compliant media. Xenophobic arguments are used to buttress pre-existing racist prejudices that are still, in a broad way, reinforced by the shape of global inequality.

"Arab’’ has replaced "wog’’ as the most common term of derision. "FOB’’ (Fresh off the Boat) is a schoolyard taunt peculiar to Australia, drawn from the racist and xenophobic hysteria whipped up by governments and media following the Tampa standoff.

In a February article titled "The Murdoch Effect’‘, Pilger wrote about the "children overboard" lie: "The main route for these lies and xeno-racism has been the Australian media. Those journalists now complaining about the government's 'outrageous deceit' have yet to admit the part they have played in the false hysteria that has clearly hardened public attitudes towards the refugees."

The current hysteria builds on racist prejudice which has been cultivated since the first Gulf War in 1991, and is fundamentally intertwined with the new war drive today. Governments don’t win domestic support for oppressive wars through rational argument and presentation of facts; they ultimately rely on the dehumanisation and demonisation of the "enemy’’.

The terms Muslim, Arab and "Middle-Eastern appearance’’ have all been used interchangeably by the government and media for some time, to the point where each label evokes the same reaction among many people: they have become synonymous with terrorism.

The idea of "Western civilisation under siege" is key to US President George Bush's current war drive. The pseudo-scientific theories of racial superiority once relied on by the Western colonialists have been widely discredited. So new theories to explain the dominance of the imperialist nations have been invented.

Generally the "whiter" nations still rule the "darker" nations. Theories of cultural superiority allow for the racial exceptions, the "blacks" who have made it into the imperialist ruling classes or the Asian immigrants who outscore their peers of European origin in the HSC and its equivalents.

Yet xeno-racism can justify the hugely disproportionate "collateral damage" of the war on Afghanistan, where more civilians were killed than died in the World Trade Center attacks.

How can you sell the 1.6 million civilian casualties resulting from the decade-long economic embargo on Iraq without the racist idea that the life of a Middle Eastern person, an Arab, is worth much less than that of a Westerner?

Prime Minister John Howard has relied heavily on racism throughout his seven years in government. Just consider the government’s accommodation of the views espoused by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, and Howard’s deliberate manipulation of the refugee issue following the Tampa standoff.

Howard defended Hanson as giving an "accurate reflection of what people feel’’. He stood by while she shifted public opinion with racist scapegoating. Howard took advantage of the further polarisation of political opinion in his favour. His government adopted Hansonism, implementing her policies to attack both Indigenous people and refugees.

Having made maximum use of the fear of a nation under siege by an “enemy within”, Bush has the majority of US citizens behind his plans for a war on Iraq. Using the same anti-terrorism hysteria, Howard is trying hard to win a majority to supporting Australia’s involvement in that war. He has a harder battle. The Australian population is not convinced that this war is necessary, nor that Iraq has anything to do with al Qaeda.

The Howard government is hoping that the heightened fears after the Bali bombings and a supposedly greater threat of an attack within our borders may start to shift public opinion. Judging by the huge mobilisations across the country over the weekend of November 30-December 1, he has a big job to do.

In its call for people to be vigilant and keep an eye out for suspicious behaviour, the government didn’t say “keep a lookout for Arabs and Muslims”. It didn’t need to. That theme started popping up straight away, with a suggestion on Sydney talk-back radio on November 21 that each Australian should “monitor a Muslim”.

“Respectable”, moderate political leaders rarely mouth the words themselves, but they give tacit support to those who do, like Howard when he refused to immediately rule out arch-reactionary NSW MP Fred Nile’s provocative call for Muslim women to be banned from wearing the chador.

Chairperson of the Australian Arabic Council Roland Jabbour said in a media release: “rather than condemning the comments outright, [Howard] chose to wait 24 hours, letting the issue gather momentum. Why the delay? Was Mr Howard waiting to see if the Rev Nile was justified in his crusade?”

It was a replay of Howard's response to Pauline Hanson: “I don't have a clear response to what Fred has put”, Howard said on November 21, but “Fred speaks for the views of a lot of people”. The following day, having gauged the fall-out, Howard clarified that he didn't think you could legislate to tell people what they could and couldn't wear.

Xeno-racism does more than help governments win elections. A government which can spread racist prejudice is a government which can convince us to go to war with another country, it can declare war on civil liberties in the name of a “war on terrorism”, it can destroy social services and say that refugees and migrants are bludging off the system. It breaks down the natural bonds of human solidarity, and breeds suspicion and hostility. In dividing us, the government destroys our ability to fight back.

From Green Left Weekly, December 4, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.