The concept of 'Xeno-racism' in the context of the 'war against terror' - Essay Example

"People are really rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people with a different culture." -- Margaret Thatcher, 19781 As Earth becomes an increasingly global society, human beings have the unique opportunity to redefine themselves as a single human race, a reality verified by science, and to see the world as a series of interconnected burrows and neighborhoods, upheld by the increasingly global economy and the technological communicative ease of the internet, rather than as a planet of closed societies. Unfortunately, human beings also have the tendency to see change as the enemy, as a threat to their identity and their survival, and they rail against it. With the twenty-first century, the world has witnessed a rise in fear on all sides of the globe, one that pits humans against humans, country against country, and religion against religion. From a NATO perspective, the Cold War has given way to the War on Terror. Today, developed countries fear terrorist attacks from Islamic fundamentalists, while many in the Middle East fear amoral, mindless consumerism and even bellicose, forcible take-overs spawned from developed countries. So it is the same old story that has been told and retold for centuries. It is the same story, reframed in new terms, using new verbiage, yet the message and meaning are the same. Yesterday's racism becomes today's supposedly "legitimate" concerns about the financial liability of the poor immigrant, the unpredictability and potential danger of the deranged religious fanatics, and the threat of pervasive immorality. Although this is a multi-faceted and complex issue, for the purposes of this paper, the Western xeno-racist perspective will be defined and addressed in the context of the war on terror, and its usage as a basis for justification for xeno-racist policies on the part of Western governments, especially in regard to Muslim people, will be analysed. At the heart of racism lie the instinctive fears and desires of human beings. Whatever excuses people might use to explain their racist remarks and attitudes, the crux of the matter is that they fear that a foreign people coming into their land might somehow threaten their survival. This fear is intensified by the basic human desire to create order, which is projected into national identities and societal structures. These structures and identities are threatened by change, represented by the foreigner. Furthermore, these self-definitions are maintained by the ability of people to define themselves as different and distinct from "the other", the stranger. When these strangers desire to move across national borders or otherwise impact a country and its people, fear is often the result. It is the fear of change, the threat to national identity, and the potential fear of being overtaken by the foreigners that drives people to reject immigrants and to deny them entrance2. Science has proven that there is no such thing as multiple races, yet the belief in race persists. "Race", being a social construct, "has no inherent or fixed meaning. What "race" is emerges within specific historical, economic, and political situations and is whatever racists have the social power to define it as. It is an open-ended political category constituted out of struggle3. Indeed, it is one of the great ironies of modern life that while race is a complete fiction, it continues to drive social structure and political action4. Furthermore, although it is no longer socially acceptable to be outright racist, claiming that a person of a certain color or country of origin is automatically inferior, human beings have not altogether discarded the boundaries they have built around themselves. Likewise, it is no longer considered rational to be afraid of a stranger simply because they are unknown, a condition referred to as xenophobia, and yet the human fear of the other and the human desire to create national identity and order has not succumbed to science and rationality so easily. So, in the place of xenophobia and racism a new kind of fear, xeno-racism, has emerged. This fear, this "racism without race", is "racism whose dominant theme is not biological heredity, but the insurmountability of cultural differences. Ostensibly, it does not posit the superiority of certain groups of people in relation to others, but only the harmfulness of abolishing borders, the incompatibility of life styles and traditions"5. This new racism, xeno-racism, is legitimized not by a belief in the inequality of people on the basis of color of nationality, but by an underlying belief in the necessity of preserving a group's identity for the sake of purity and economic success. Although racism based on skin color still exists, xeno-racism is more prevalent in Western countries, because it is used by governments and peoples as a legitimate and acceptable basis upon which to discriminate against a foreign people. Taguieff points out the insidious nature of this xeno-racism as an "unprecedented gentle, and euphemized forms of racism," which praise difference outwardly yet inwardly justify the exclusion and exploitation of others6. In the cases of Britain and Germany, race thinking was founded on a belief in the importance of national unity7. Xeno-racism is justified by the idea that today's stranger represents a threat to social order and, because most potential immigrants are poor, to economic security8. With the advent of terrorism, displaced Muslim immigrants become symbols of a threat to national security as well. The most common representation of the stranger and the pauper as one individual in the twenty-first century is in the figure of the non-European, Third World immigrant, and if that person happens to be Muslim, add to that the figure of terrorist. Therefore, this immigrant is deemed a threat and is considered suspect or is outright rejected as a potential citizen. Furthermore, xeno-racism is manifesting more and more often in Europe in the tendency to extend human rights and civil liberties only in terms of the rights and liberties of European citizens one that is not granted to Third World countries. The trends in policy making have been predicated on a basis of economic superiority to the Third World, and when such people choose to immigrate, they are denied the same human rights and civil liberties within the framework of Europe to which citizens are automatically entitled. As stated by Liz Fekete, "Over the last ten years, there has been a shift from policies designed to protect refugees to policies intended to reduce their numbers. The whole purpose of refugee law has become to deter asylum claims"9. Adding to this fear of poor immigrants in Europe is the lack of a sense of mission and vision within the political parties. Having done away with ideology, the modern notion is a form of nihilism in which Tony Blair, for instance, spoke of the Third Way, the way of the pragmatist rather than the idealist. Fekete harkens this tendency back to that of the 19th century Utilitarian philosophy which rested on the idea that as long as the greatest pleasure is obtained by the strongest majority, then all is well10. She further states, "One hundred years ago, when the labour movement was formed in this country [Britain], the idea of international socialism and international justice was central. Today there is no concept of international socialism within the mainstream's terms. No suggestion of solidarity with people from other parts of the world"11. Furthermore, a fear of the poor stranger has pervaded the imaginations of developed countries, and although they desperately need the low-skilled laborers as well as the highly skilled, they have formed policies of rejecting the low-skilled on what they perceive to be a justifiable basis of economics and threat to social order, but is, in essence, little more than a form of xeno-racism. The developed countries, then, are engaged in a form of social-economic Darwinism, couched in terms of managed migration. By endeavoring to attract the highly skilled, highly educated people from other countries into their own while leaving the poor and low-skilled to fend for themselves, they attempt to drain developing countries of their talent and their skilled workers. Thus they strengthen their own positions while weakening that of their developing neighbors. In this way, the survival of the fittest economies is ensured while the rest of the world is left to suffer in endless poverty. Trained and educated largely at the expense of their countries of origin, these highly skilled and educated workers are now encouraged to migrate, thus enabling the First World at the expense of the Third. In this way, managed migration is "a continuation of the colonialism and imperialism that rampaged through the world stealing economic resources of Africa, of India - stealing the natural resources of the world"12. Furthermore, managed migration as a form of xeno-racism and as an immigration policy is being used to address the issue of refugees from warring countries, but, indeed, these are two separate issues. "The crux of the [xeno-racist] argument is that they don't want refugees who are poor peasants. They don't want refugees who are the victims of torture and therefore have enormous emotional and psychological problems. They don't want children. They don't want women. They don't want the grandparents. They just want the ones that can benefit the economy!"13 Xenophobia, often seen as a simple, psychological, and reasonable phenomenon, is thus redefined. It is revealed to be an inequitable and unethical means by which modern developed societies are discriminating against the developing nations. Rather than being founded upon simply a fear of strangers, it is a xeno-racist fear of losing one's economic advantage, and it is a means by which governments are enacting policies which ensure their superiority and the continuation of poverty and discord throughout the developing world. The xeno-racist hysteria against middle eastern refugees which has assailed Europeans and North Americans alike is supposedly based upon the numbers of these individuals who are actually arriving in these countries, but, in fact, these numbers are quite small. It is a statistical reality that the overwhelming majority of displaced people throughout the world actually remain in their continents of origin. Therefore, the nations of the continents of Africa and Asia and Latin America are managing their own displaced people, and only a small minority arrive in any developed country14. This is especially true of displaced people of Muslim heritage. Yet, the hysteria remains, not only against potential refugees but against present European and American citizens of Muslim origin. It is, in essence, a process of demonization. In past centuries, the black people were demonized and this was used as justification for slavery. Then, in the period of colonialism, developed countries demonized the natives. Now, while the world undergoes globalization, developed countries are demonizing refugees and potential immigrants to justify the very economic and aggressive policies that have led to their displacement15. The United Nations Human Conditions Report, for instance, estimates that there are 4 million displaced Iraqis. Two million of these remain in Iraq but not in their homes while 2 million have settled in neighbouring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. Many of those displaced before 2003 have attempted to return to Iraq. Egypt also hosts a larger number of displaced Iraqis with their estimates at 100,000. While it is true that in 2006 Iraqis were the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe, these numbers were still very low in comparison with the number of Iraqis seeking refuge in Asia. The 2006 total reported by UNHCR was a mere 22,000. This figure, furthermore, was not significantly higher than the six years prior to 2003 in which approximately 15,000 claimed asylum in industrialized countries16. The moment that the Twin Towers in New York fell, Islam and terrorism became inextricably linked. The repetitive newsbreaks of the towers crashing to the earth in clouds of dust combined with footage of a small number of Palestinians celebrating in response to the catastrophe further escalated the xeno-racist tendencies both in the North American and European imagination. Although the film of the Palestinians was never confirmed as reliable, people believed it was true, and the hysteria grew. As a result, truth in journalism declined remarkably over the period, thus encouraging governments and individuals alike to adopt more and more xeno-racist attitudes and policies17. As an example, there was the sensationalized reporting of the aid worker John McClintock, a convert to Islam, as the 'Tartan Taliban'. Islam itself was inaccurately portrayed as an intrinsically violent belief system which advocated acts of aggression against non-believers and the mistreatment of women18. Some journalists endeavored to give a more comprehensive view of Muslim discontent and educate the Western public against xeno-racist beliefs. Others, however, played upon people's fears, speaking of 'Islamic terrorism,' 'fundamentalism', the 'enemy within' and the 'clash of civilisations'. These xeno-racist views, exploited by the media and employed by right-wing activists and sympathizers to push anti-immigration and pro-war politics, exerted a profound influence on the public, encouraging broad generalities in images of Muslims and Islam and speaking of Islam itself as being a global threat to the 'new world order'19. In the process of globalization, it seems that strangers no longer exist in a faraway land, but rather are no further away than one's backyard. Strangers in the form of immigrants (legal and illegal) and refugees "call into question established spatial images of domesticity versus anarchy and chaos, giving rise to intense desires for order and stability and an easily identifiable community"20. The irony of the refugees that have resulted from the war on terror is that the very countries who created the situation from which the individuals seek refuge are the very ones refusing to take any responsibility for the displaced people's plight. Nevertheless, the policies to keep out refugees continue and intensify. How is this justified From a xeno-racist perspective, the mixing of cultures is perceived to be a mistake, because it breaks down one's own identity and can lead to social conflict between cultures. In this sense, xeno-racism is a purist perspective, built upon the same thinking that drove Israel to build a wall separating two halves of a highway and drove US policy-makers in the 1950's to create "separate but equal" restaurants, facilities, and housing for blacks and whites. The thought process is substantiated in the minds of those who adhere to it by the idea that in order to maintain its identity, a nation must isolate itself from the influence of "the other"21. Thus, social conflict is believed to be inevitable if human beings of different cultures are thrust together in large numbers, thus justifying the claim that exclusionary policies are actually humane, and also implying that anti-racist stances are themselves a cause of racism and conflict, because they fail to appreciate the laws of human nature22. The significance of this phenomenon to recent invasion and extradition policies is evident. While xeno-racism founds itself in the notion of culture rather than biology, its effect is no less separatist and itself is the main source of conflict in the war on terror. According to the logic of xeno-racism, however, "the creation of bounded communities founded on cultural differences are a natural result of human nature"23. Thus it is believed that to break down those boundaries through accepting refugees or through communicating with suspected terrorists would be to force the coexistence of different cultural traditions and will itself, by the supposed laws of human nature, give rise to aggression and conflict. By this reasoning, in order to avoid conflict, boundaries must be drawn and reinforced and defended at all costs. In this way, xeno-racists feel that they are simply working within the boundaries and tolerance levels of human behavior and avoiding either annihilation by an aggressor or annexation through immigration24. In the US, this is illustrated by the Bush administration's dictate that required foreign nationals who were presently living in the US but were from 25 Arab and Muslims countries to register by April 2003. Of the eighty-two thousand who registered, only eleven of the total 82,000, not including the tens of thousands who were screened at border crossings and airports in the first six months of 2003, were found to have links to terrorism25. In another instance, then Attorney General Ashcroft stated, "we make no apologies" for holding suspects to see if they had links to terrorism. As in the cases above, the individuals' human rights were not an issue for Ashcroft in his xeno-racist mindset. He went on to ask Congress for tougher laws for fighting terrorism, including greater leniency in the use of the death penalty26. To fully appreciate the xeno-racist tendencies in the country of Afghanistan, a short history of the area and its relations with the West is necessary. The country of Afghanistan has been the landscape for conflict between developed countries since the Cold War. It is not lost in irony that the Soviet Union, being the first to invade Afghanistan in 1979, was forced out ten years later by the guerrilla tactics of the muhajidin-local fighters or volunteers from abroad who later would be labeled "Muslim extremists," and that these extremists were initially called "freedom fighters" by the Reagan administration. Now they are called "terrorists" by the present US administration, which hails from the same political party as that of Reagan. Furthermore, the victory of the muhajidin was greatly due to the enormous amount of military aid they received from the US. Funneled through Pakistan's interservices intelligence, this aid totaled US$ 2.8 billion. Washington, working together with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, also financed and transported anti-communist fundamentalist Muslim groups to Afghanistan to participate in the anti-Soviet jihad27. In fact, this is how a youthful Osama bin Laden came to Afghanistan. He later described himself in these terms within the conflict in Afghanistan: "To counter these atheistic Russians, the Saudi Arabians chose me as their representative in Afghanistan." adding that his first camp was located where the anti-Soviet jihad volunteers were trained by Pakistani and American officers. The weapons for his soldier were also supplied by the Americans while the financing for his group came from the Saudis28. A short while later, the Taliban fought off the Soviet invaders and became such a military force that they were able to impose their collective will onto the entire nation of Afghanistan, which had already been torn apart by civil war, invasion, and anarchy. Washington saw this coup by the Taliban as a way of controlling Iran and as a step toward securing the prized land route for United States petroleum companies who were anxiously waiting for their chance to build a pipeline of oil and gas reserves out of central Asia. At the time, the Taliban were seen as a possible means for this land route that would "link the central Asian states to the international markets through Afghanistan rather than Iran"29. The Taliban were, then, seen as a positive force in Afghanistan. All of this changed the moment that Washington determined that al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attack. At that moment, Washington demanded that the Taliban government capture Osama bin Laden immediately "as well as all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in Afghanistan." When the Taliban refused, on Sunday, October 7, Washington launched the war with a massive air attack- cruise missiles, carrier based aircraft, and land based bombers. Obviously outgunned, the Taliban government agreed to Washington's demands that bin Laden at least be captured and set before an international tribunal if Washington would cease aggression. Worldwide, it was generally agreed that the US had a right to respond to 9/11, but it was universally agreed that the US had the right to wage war. In fact, serious questions have been raised as to whether any of the attacks by Washington satisfy just war theory, because it is by no means clear that the US exhausted all non-belligerent means of ceasing the conflict30. What did justify this warfare, then, in the minds of the US Clearly, they were motivated by a xeno-racist fear for their survival, a fear of further attacks, and a desire for revenge against this "Other" that unjustly attacked them on their own turf. The US thus demonstrated that it was determined to protect its nation against terrorism, "not only by police measures-interpreting the determination to protect the nation as actions undertaken to constrain and apprehend criminals- but also by actually waging war against governments"31. This role of the aggressor was adopted despite the fact that police measures have been shown to be much more effective in curbing terrorism than waging war. These police measures, which have also been adopted by all countries that fear targeting by terrorist groups, include increased security at airports and on airplanes as well as non-combative foreign policy measures. The use of war has been shown to do little more than exacerbate poor conditions in the victim country as well as "increasing the hatred that can result against the perceived aggressor, as has been demonstrated in the recent war against Iraq"32. The goal of this aggression, then, could not have been to merely stop any further acts of terrorist aggression toward the US and other NATO countries that participated in the Afghanistan invasion. Rather, the goal was hysterical and racist, almost genocidal, in the sense that this "other", the Muslim extremist, was portrayed to be so dangerous and so crazed that they were beyond the need for the targeted countries to preserve their human rights and follow the dictates of international law in dealing with them. Since then, human rights have continued to be denied to any individual suspected of terrorism in Afghanistan. For instance, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who is consistently supported by the governments of several developed countries, is a notorious warlord whose special form of horror and terror is "death by container truck." In this form of torture, captured prisoners were forced into the back of sealed container trucks where they slowly suffocated while being transported to a mass grave. In another example of hellacious war crimes toward Muslims, in January 2002, two investigators from the Physicians for Human Rights discovered 3,000 sick and starving prisoners in Sheberghan prison, which is a prison facility meant for only 80033. Like the Cold War, the war on terrorism, insofar as it presents a perceived threat to the American people, predisposes Washington to operate as if the accepted norms of international law do not exist, as if those laws only apply to Washington's allies, and as if its cobelligerents can do no wrong so long as they are fighting on Washington's side34. Worse than the Cold War in some respects, Gareau describes it as a "war of no negotiations with the enemy, no summit meetings, no compromise, and certainly no need to modify policies to accommodate the feelings and the policies of the enemy, or examine any just grievances that the enemy might possibly have35. The fear against this new enemy began with the paranoid and unfounded propaganda that the enemy would develop and use weapons of mass destruction against NATO countries -nuclear weapons, or more likely, radiological dispersion devices, also called "dirty bombs" (conventional bombs to which radioactive material has been added). This war is defined as an open-ended war with the world as its battlefield and no end in sight36. In moving from the Cold War paranoia to the War on Terror paranoia, the Bush administration has tried to redesign NATO from an alliance set against a Cold War enemy to one set against an enemy called, very generally, a "terrorist". This "terrorist" is framed in terms of prejudicial type-casting, culture, and religion. Normally, these developed countries would agree that it is unjust to discriminate against someone on the basis of such stereotypes. In the xeno-racist mindset of the Bush Administration and its allies, however, such racism is justified by talk of thwarting further attacks and instilling fear into the people that another attack could happen at any moment. At the height of this xeno-racism, "no consideration has ever been given to negotiating solutions, discontinuing policies that generate or increase the enemy's anger and hatred, or adopting new policies that would decrease their numbers and help prevent the creation of new crops of terrorists"37. And no apologies or sense of wrongdoing has ever pervaded the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration frames their argument and their justification in terms of preemption. In fact, in his first State of the Union Address, before 9/11 even occurred, President Bush said "I will not wait on events, while danger gathers"38. Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, defined preemption as any "means forestalling certain destructive acts against you by an adversary"39, adding that there are times when you cannot wait to respond. Put bluntly, the idea is to initiate the violence, an act that traditionally has been called "aggression," just in case the "other" intends to strike. The war against terrorism thus includes the preemptive strike, called in the Cold War "first strike capability" in which Washington "responds" before an adversary, or even a suspected adversary, initiates an aggressive act. Washington's current policy is founded on the notion that "the enemy" is so evil that aggression is acceptable and just, regardless of whether that aggression is defensive or offensive. In Iraq, these strategies have ranged from attempts to bully Saddam Hussein to full-scale invasion40. Although the UN agreed to a tough resolution to search Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, Bush failed to muster the support of the United Nations or all of NATO for an actual invasion of Iraq. As a result, Bush acted unilaterally. Bush called its few allies the "coalition of the willing," composed overwhelmingly of American troops, some from Britain, and a token force from Australia. The invasion of Iraq was immediately declared illegal by the International Committee of Jurists in Geneva (the ICJ), comprised of 315 professors of law at 87 law schools in the United States, 43 members of Australia's legal establishment, and 31 professors of international law in Canada. In their written statement, the American professors said that this invasion was "in defiance of America's treaty obligations" and "a violation of American and international law insofar as the United States Constitution holds that treaties are the supreme law of the land and that the United States government had ratified the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty. The Charter provides that except in response to an armed attack, nations may not threaten or engage in warfare without the authorization of the Security Council. The ICJ expressed "deep dismay" at what it charged amounts to "a war of aggression," and "a great leap backward in the international rule of law" 41. The invasion, then, whether precipitated by phony reports of weapons of mass destruction or connections with terrorism, was predicated by little more than the fears of the people, the fears that some "other" would threaten their survival and their comfortable way of life. This is, then, nothing more than an excuse to secure better access to a developing countries resources, a form, as stated earlier, of social-political Darwinism and xeno-racism. The invasion of Iraq was closely followed by claims that Iraq presented no clear and adequate evidence of intending an imminent attack on the United States, which was later supported by the CIA. The director of the agency, while stating serious concern with that Iraq's efforts to build its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, also wrote in a letter dated October 7, 2002 and addressed to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. (chemical or biological weapons) against the United States"42. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration persisted. This failure in intelligence led the CIA to review its prewar information and sources on Iraq. Intelligence officials revealed that several CIA analysts reported that senior Department of Defense officials and others in the Bush administration pressured them to report the presence of weapons of mass destruction so that the Administration might proceed with its war43. Further movement on the part of the Bush Administration thus needed to be reframed to be palatable to the American public. Drawing on xeno-racist tendencies already intensified by Washington, the press, and the events of 9/11, the Administration reframed the war on Iraq in terms of Iraqi-al Qaeda connections - another case of the "politicization of intelligence". In fact, an entire special intelligence group set up by the Undersecretary of Defense for policy, Douglas Feith, after the 9/11 attacks was to search far and wide for terrorist links around the world that Washington intelligence agencies had overlooked44. The casualties of xeno-racism against Muslims in the Western World are not only those who are buried in wars. The Pew Center's director commented: "The war has widened the rift between Americans and Europeans, further inflamed the Muslim world, softened support for the war on terrorism, and significantly weakened global public support for the UN and the North Atlantic alliance."45 Public opinion of the United States has declined in nearly every one of the countries surveyed-from 60 percent to 43 percent in France, from 60 to 45 percent in Germany, and from 61 to 36 percent in Russia. Likewise, the American favorable view of France dropped from 79 percent holding a positive view of France to 60 percent holding a negative view. Although seven countries still had a positive view of the United States, in most of these nations, the view had still dropped46. Dislike for the United States has spread like wildfire throughout the Muslim world. The populations in seven of the eight Muslim countries polled felt that their countries might be in danger from aggression by the United States. They voiced the fear that Islam itself might be threatened. More alarmingly, a large portion of the Jordanians, Palestinians, and Indonesians, showed at least some confidence in Osama bin Laden. On a positive note, those who expressed these unfavorable views toward the "United States" added that their views were directed "mostly at Bush," not at "America in general."47 The justification of xeno-racism and the aggressive acts of war and extradition of refugees has done nothing to bring peace to the world. Quite the opposite, xeno-racism has further enflamed the fears and imaginations of all peoples and has done nothing to ensure the safety of Western countries from terrorism nor stilled the fears of Muslim peoples who are not presently associated with terrorism. While measures such as making airports safer for travel and subjecting known terrorists to just and fair trials under international law make sense, the hysteria of terrorism has become little more than an excuse for prejudice and discrimination on all sides. References Ahmad British Muslim Perceptions and Opinions on News Coverage of September 11 Journal article by Fauzia Ahmad; Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 32, 2006. Fauzia (2006). "British Muslim Perceptions and Opinions on News Coverage of September 11". Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. (32) Available at: http://www.questia.com/PM.qsta=o&d=5015778416. Balibar, Etienne (1991). "Is There a Neo-Racism" in Race, Nation, Class - Ambiguous Identities, Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein (eds), London: Verso. Bevan, Vaughn (1986). The Development of British Immigration Law. London: Croom Helm. Castles, Stephen (2000). "The Racisms of Globalization," Ethnicity and Globalization. Sage Publications. Fekete, Liz (2006). "Xenoracism and the Hypocrisy of Managed Migration". Canadian Dimension Magazine, March/April, available at: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2006/02/26/381/. Gareau, Frederick (2004). State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terror. CA: Clarity Press. Huntington, Samuel P. (1993). "The Clash of Civilizations" Foreign Affairs. Summer, 22-49. Miller, Richard W. (2003). "Terrorism, War, and Empire," p.196 of James P. Sterba, Terrorism and International Justice. New York, Oxford University Press. Rasanayagam, Angelo (2003). Afghanistan, A Modern History: Monarchy, Despotism or Democracy. The Problems of Governance in the Muslim Tradition. London: Tauris. Taguieff, Pierre-Andre (1990). "The New Cultural Racism in France." Telos (83) 109-122. UNHCR (April 2007). "Statistics on Displaced Iraqis around the World". http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdftbl=SUBSITES&id=461f7cb92. Wierviorka, Michel (1995). The Arena of Racism. London: Sage Publications. Read More