Combat
the epidemic of misinformation that plagues the corporate media! Click here to
make a tax-deductible donation to Truthout and keep independent journalism
strong.
 |
| Rep. Keith Ellison |
One might imagine the ties between Minnesota and the Horn of Africa are
tenuous at best, but the Midwest state has one of the
largest Somali diaspora populations in North America, and
Rep. Keith Ellison (from District 5, representing metropolitan Minneapolis) is
one of Congress' most prominent voices addressing issues that matter to both
the United States and Africa.
Ellison, who in 2006 became the first Muslim elected to Congress, has spent
much of his tenure forging closer relations with Middle Eastern and African
countries, from Malawi and Mauritania to Liberia, Libya, and Sudan. He's
traveled to the region more times than he can recall, most recently to Somalia
in February, as the first member of Congress to visit the war-torn nation in
four years.
On that trip, he met with newly elected Somali President Hassan Sheikh
Mohamud in Mogadishu before traveling to Nairobi, Kenya, to visit the
Minnesota-based
Center for
Victims of Torture to gain a better understanding of what refugees
uprooted by war and ethnic conflict face at home and abroad.
As co-chair of the
Congressional Progressive Caucus, Ellison serves as a
progressive yin to neighboring Minnesota District 6's Rep. Michele
Bachmann's conservative yang. Alongside super-rich members of Congress steeped
in gun-lobby financing, Ellison stands apart.
The
Twitter-savvy Detroit native is also one of the few
members of Congress who doesn't shy away from debating the Obama
administration's use of weaponized drones and actually encourages such debate
by regularly participating in
open public forums.
In a January Washington Post
op-ed, Ellison wrote, "The heart of the problem is
that our technological capability has far surpassed our policy." In the
piece, he cites a Stanford Law School and New York University Law School
report that
documents some 700 civilians (including 200 children) who have reportedly been
killed by US drones since 2004, calling the deaths "unacceptable."
In a March 2013
letter to President Obama, Ellison and five
Congressional colleagues expressed concern about "vague legal
boundaries" for drone activity and called for the White House to publicly
present in an unclassified form its full legal basis for using drones.
This scrutiny comes as the United States is increasing its use of drones and
special operations in a
growing number of African countries. On February 22, in a
155-word memo simply titled
Letter from the President - Concerning Niger, Obama
informed Congress that he had deployed approximately 100 US military personnel
to Niger to "provide support for intelligence collection [and]
intelligence sharing."
Recently Ellison spoke to Truthout by telephone from Minneapolis about
drones, the growing US military presence in Africa, immigrant civil rights and
the American media's portrayal of Muslims.
Jon Letman: In January, you wrote an op-ed for The
Washington Post titled "
Time for Congress to build a better drone policy." How
was the piece received by your colleagues in Congress?
Rep. Keith Ellison: It had mixed reviews. Some people told
me it was the administration's prerogative and to just butt out, and even
insinuated that if I did anything to try to restrain the US military's use of
weaponized drones, that might not be greeted as the most patriotic thing in the
world. Other people said, "Spot on - you're right." It was a very
mixed reception.
My point was to try to provoke a more in-depth conversation than we've been
having. I was disappointed that we haven't even really discussed this. The op-ed,
as much as I was happy to write it and get it published, didn't have the splash
that Rand Paul's filibuster had. Even though he and I agree on almost nothing,
I was pleased to see him get attention for this really critical issue.
JL: Who supported your op-ed?
KE: Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California). She thinks we have to move
forward on drones and have transparency, due process, accountability and
international protocols that are respected. And others - we had a good group
around us, but not nearly enough. We need some committee hearings.
JL: In February, you again publicly called for Congressional hearings
on the use of drones in warfare, but to date, there have been no hearings
scheduled. Is that correct?
KE: I think there have been some hearings scheduled but I don’t have
the dates off the top of my head. I [can] quickly get right back to you.
(Ellison's staff responded the next day with
information about Senate Judiciary Committee drone
hearings.)
JL: What more can Congress do to bring drone warfare to the
forefront?
KE: I think one thing members of Congress can do is to hold community
forums in our local districts to get citizens to start speaking up on this
issue. I think that makes a big difference. I've had a couple of
community forums - I had one just last week - and I
encourage citizens to demand or set one up themselves and invite their member
of Congress to attend.
JL: On February 22, President Obama
informed Congress he was sending 100 military
personnel to build a drone base in Niger. The
New York Times reported the base could eventually
house 300 Americans and be used for more than just surveillance. Have you made
a statement regarding the Niger drone base?
KE: I can't say I have. I was aware of it. I focus my attention more
on weaponized drones in places where there has been loss of civilian life, so I
have been thinking more in terms of Pakistan. But I think you're right. I
probably should think about how this drone technology is proliferating. Where
it's going is important, but the most important thing is, wherever it is, that
we follow internationally accepted protocols, respect due process, human rights
and the lives of civilians.
JL: I haven't seen comment on the Niger announcement from anybody
anywhere.
KE: Well, we probably should be, and you're probably correct to point
that out, and I think I better think seriously about what we are going to do
about it.
JL: Do you think it's a good idea to be building a drone base in
Niger?
KE: I've got to be honest to tell you that to start talking about it
without knowing anything is not that good of an idea. It does concern me, and I
am disturbed by it, but I just want to know a little bit more before I start
offering public comment.
JL: By not debating increased military presence in Africa is Congress
lowering the threshold for US involvement and making our participation in armed
conflict more likely?
KE: Now that you've posed that question to me, that's the question I
am going to be contemplating as I go through it with my staff, as I get the
research and I start reading about the
contours of this program and the implications, the
question on my mind will be, What does this mean in terms of lowering the
threshold for a greater conflict on the continent? I think that's an entirely
appropriate question.
JL: In 2011, the Obama administration announced a military,
diplomatic and strategic realignment referred to as the "Asia-Pacific
Pivot." Are we also seeing an unannounced - kind of a shadow pivot, if you
want to call it that - an "African pivot"?
KE: Obviously, this can be a double-edged sword. My most recent
exposure to Obama policy in Africa was [in February 2013]. To see the US
government, under Obama, recognize Somalia for the first time in 22 years, was
good. To see that we're going to build some real relationships that can benefit
the Somali people is also good. So, in a way, an "African pivot,"
depending on the shape that pivot takes, could be a very positive thing. But I
think we've got to make sure that Africa is benefiting from the pivot.
On the other hand, I support the US supporting the international force in
Somalia which drove out Al Shabab. I make no apologies; I supported that
because the people of Somalia were living in hell under Al Shabab.
At the same time, there are other things to consider. We've seen cases in
which Africans have been guinea pigs for drugs, markets for things like
cigarettes. We've seen exploitation of minerals. But I don't think we should be
completely bound by the historic colonial role of the West in Africa. I think
we can write new chapters, and I believe in that, but it's also going to take
the act of engagement of people on the continent themselves, and Americans who
care about a just foreign policy.
JL: Even as President Obama pushes for gun control, we've seen the
first American citizens killed by US drones in Yemen; most notably the
16-year-old Denver-born
Abdulrahman al-Alawki killed in October 2011.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that up
to possibly 237 children may have been killed by drones and other covert
operations in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. As Americans, how can we reconcile
this killing of civilians, especially children, in other countries as we claim
to protect our own kids at home?
KE: We've got to have accountability, transparency, due process,
protection for civilians. That has to be the hallmark of any US engagement
abroad. Now, obviously it's an irony, isn't it? No doubt about it, but I read
your question more as a statement because you are pointing out an irony, as we
are flush in the middle of talking about how to protect our own kids from
violence, warfare and gunfire, this is going on abroad and it's clearly
disturbing. The question is: What are we going to do about it? What I'd like to
see us do is to put some sane, sensible rules around guns in this country, and
at the same time, I'd like to see us put some sane, sensible rules around
drones abroad.
JL: According to the
Defense Department's 2012 Base Structure Report, the United
States has 666 military bases and military installations around the world. How
many foreign bases and foreign troops do you think the United States should or
would be willing to accept on our soil?
KE: Well, obviously zero.
JL: Let's say some country, for whatever reason, wanted to protect
its interests by having some kind of small base.
KE: Obviously, the United States would not tolerate any foreign
occupation on its soil. And obviously we have military installations all over
this world. The real question is not which country are we going to allow to
occupy us; the real question is, how are we going to get our nation's military
to the point where it's really looking out to defend and protect the American
people rather than appear to be an expansionistic, hegemonic sort of entity.
Is having all those military bases good for the American taxpayer? Is it
good for our diplomatic relations with the rest of the world? Is it fiscally
sound? Does it make us safer, or not? Does it make us more of a target and more
resented around the world? These are all excellent questions and I'm glad that
you're asking them, but at the end of the day, what are we going to do about
it? I personally believe that we need to cut our nation's military. I'm not
talking about cutting soldier's salaries, but I think that all the military
bases we have around the world - some of these weapons systems, particularly
nuclear weapons systems - do we really need all this? Whose interests does it
serve? Does it even serve the American people's interest? I have serious doubts
about that.
JL: In January, when Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud visited
Washington, you said, "It's now time to strengthen our relationship with
Somalia based on mutual interests." Can you talk about those mutual
interests?
KE: I think that the people of Somalia have an interest in peace and
security. So do the people of the United States. I think that the people of
Somalia have an interest in economic prosperity for their people. So do we.
[They] have an interest in environmental protection and sustainability. So do
we. And the people of Somalia have an interest in civil and human rights for
all, and certainly, so do we.
For the short term, I think Somalia has awesome potential as a nation. The
people are smart; they're creative; they want a better future for themselves
and their children. [They] would like to move from being an emergency food aid
recipient to at least being self-sufficient and, God willing, one day to be a
donor to other nations. It wouldn't be the first time a country has gone from
dependency to independence to surplus. And they'd like to be not a national or
international security problem, but actually be a security partner.
JL: What do you think the average American does not know or
understand about Africa, but should know and understand?
KE: The thing Americans need to know about Africa is that the people
there are exactly like them. They love their kids; they want to grow old in
dignity. They want to work hard. They're smart; they're creative. We are bound
in this web of mutuality. I think Americans suspect the reason Africa has
problems is because Africans don't have their act together or can't get their
act together, but it's not really true. The whole world is deeply implicated in
Africa's problems, and some people think the only thing America can do is just
get out and stay out. I don't believe that the way things have been are the way
things need to stay. What about a just foreign policy? I think we can do it. It
might be naive, but I still believe we should try. I believe we have an obligation.
Another thing that I don't think Americans fully appreciate enough is that
you can't give any country enough foreign aid to make it a middle-class
country. We've got to help Africa find its way to be able to access commercial
markets around the world. Not just extractive stuff; I'm talking about things
they make or grow that we can use. Africa is full of a lot of really talented,
creative people. That's why I think we need to have more exchange in terms of
education, technology-sharing - things like that.
JL: In one word, how would you characterize America's relationship
with Somalia today.
KE: Dependent.
JL: What would you like to see it become?
KE: I'd like to see the relationship be interdependent.
JL: And you believe that's possible?
KE: Yes. Not overnight. Maybe not even in five years. But I think it
is possible.
JL: Your Congressional district is home to one of the largest Somali
populations in North America.
KE: True.
JL: I read 70,000 in Minnesota and
32,000 in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
KE: I wouldn't doubt it.
JL: Whether migrants, immigrants or refugees, what challenges do
Somalis face in Minnesota?
KE: I think if you were going to tell the story of Somali Americans,
you would probably have to start not so much with challenges, but
opportunities. There's
Hussein Samatar, he's a good friend of mine. He was elected
to the Minneapolis school board. Most of his voters were not Somali. They were
white; they were black Americans; they were Latinos; they were all kinds - and
some Somali.
The story of Somalis has been one of success, actually. Now there are
challenges - linguistic challenges, cultural; there's the challenge of any
immigrant community losing track of its children as they mainstream into
American life. But I think most of the story is triumph, success, people
overcoming difficulties. Somalis, like most African-Americans, face racism.
They also face religious bigotry because they are Muslim, by and large, but
because like most immigrants, they're willing to work really,reallyhard, many
have been able to buy homes and start businesses. I think it's really been
primarily a story of triumph and success.
There are a lot of Somali immigrants in Norway, and the chief of police from
Oslo came to Minneapolis to study how Somalis here have been so successful in
the United States, in a cold, Northern climate. The answer was that they're
part of our society, our people. They're Minnesotans and we treat them like
that, for the most part. In any given situation, there are flowers and weeds. I
like watering the flowers rather than the weeds.
JL: How have you seen civil rights for Muslim Americans and Muslims
in America changing over the last decade?
KE: There's a small, concerted effort to try to marginalize Muslims
in the United States. It's a well-funded effort. It's a small effort, but they
have yielded some results. They're just people who write, speak and promote the
idea that Muslims are threatening to America and should be marginalized and are
dangerous to our country. They are the moral equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan,
but they couch everything they say and do in anti-terrorism.
JL: Do you see an improvement in the US media's portrayal of Islam
today?
KE: I think the media is trying. I really do. When you talk about the
mainstream media, I think there is an effort to reach out, and I think the
media in some specific ways is trying to highlight the Muslim community in a
way that is respectful and fair. Of course, you have to look at the foundation
on which all this recent reportage has been done. We're talking decades and
decades of stuff like Crimson Jihad in the movie True Lies. We're talking
about decades of like, even the movie Back to the Future - you know, the
Libyans are out to get Michael J. Fox. There's a movie called
Reel Bad Arabs;
this particular documentary details how badly Arab and Middle Eastern and
Islamic people have been portrayed in Western media for a long time.
You've got some good reporters like
Neil MacFarquar and
Andrea Elliot, and there are others who have been
trying to do a good job - Soledad O'Brien, Anderson Cooper. They've done a good
job. Even Wolf [Blitzer] has done a good, decent, respectful job - you can't
say that they haven't. But they've done it against the backdrop of many years
of the other stuff.
JL: In February, you had a rather
robust exchange on FOX News
with Sean Hannity in which you called his work "yellow
journalism." How do people like Hannity impact the public's perception of
issues, and do they have a legitimate role in the US media?
KE: Well, if you define "legitimate" as legal or
authorized, yes, he has a legitimate role. Does he have a positive, legitimate
role? I don't think so. He's certainly operating within the First Amendment,
but I think he and others like him are promoting misinformation and stirring up
hate and suspicion among Americans - which he is entitled to do – sadly.
JL: Are there any media resources you recommend for good,
comprehensive, accurate, fair coverage of Islam or things related to the Middle
East or Africa?
KE: I think that if you are going to be a well-aware person, you have
to consume a number of news sources. I believe that you can avoid watching FOX
News and still be extremely well informed. In fact, there may be an inverse
relationship between watching FOX and being well informed.
JL: There was a
study released
about a year ago that said just that.
KE: I think if you can cut FOX out - I wouldn't put that in my media
diet - I think you've got to look at a number of diverse sources. Go ahead and
look at MSNBC and the networks, go ahead and check out Democracy NOW! But also
check out Bloomberg and read widely. It used to be hard to get any information.
Now you can get it, but you just have to sort through the good and the bad. I
think that the only way to be successful is to read widely.
