Reply #8: Convergence

[FarrenH]

It has always been the case that some conflicts attract more attention than others, long before the I/P conflict was center stage. I'm sure a similar analysis in the late 70s and early 80s would have shown undue attention being paid to Apartheid in SA. And in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq through to the handover to an elected government, the Iraq invasion arguably eclipsed all else. I don't know how extensively it was covered elsewhere but the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 eclipsed all other conflicts for about a year over here. So the article gets it wrong on at least one count. As far as attention alone is concerned, there was no "sin of ommission" in Rwanda.

One error the article makes, Rwanda being an example, is not disentangling much shorter-term conflicts (with admittedly shocking results) from far more protracted ones. In fact most of the conflicts mentioned in the article have been going on for less time than the I/P conflict and some are basically finished.

In fact, I'm not sure which Western media the author is referring to but based on my own perception, the I/P conflict only really started attracting disproportionate press attention in the last decade, maybe decade and a half - and this is after 40 years of occupation.

Its a fair point that the developed world tends to pay disproportionate attention to particular conflicts, but I feel the author goes too far in trying to make this point and at the same time ignores what I believe is the main driver of media focus on the I/P conflict, which is that more people the world over are directly or indirectly connected to its participants than most of the other conflicts mentioned.

Just as Mandarin is the worlds most spoken language, but the sheer reach of English across the globe makes it a kind of Lingua Franca, a more diverse and distributed population the world over has some personal connection to the I/P conflict than, say, the Congolese one.

I'm a formerly Catholic white South African, so on the face of it you wouldn't expect me to be connected in any way. But I was bitterly opposed to Apartheid growing up, and the Apartheid government was doing business with the Israeli govt, specifically in the area of arms (AFAIK we even supplied them with materials for nuclear weaponry). A close friend of my youth served in the Israeli military. For a birthday present, my convert aunt bought me a ticket to a drum circle event two years ago, which was fun, but I was bitterly disappointed to learn afterwards the proceeds were going to help settlers in the West Bank. Diaspora Jews can be found in every corner of the world and there has always been a strong current of loyalty to Israel, as much as that is diminishing among liberal and leftist Jews today. In fact the world pays disporportionate attention to conflicts that the USA is involved in (unsurprisingly since in media terms the USA is the world's noisiest nation) and Israel's extremely close military ties with the US have linked them, rightly or wrongly to many American conflicts and interventions, even as far afield as Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation.

A much, much broader spectrum of both political issues and personal experiences converge on the I/P conflict than the Congolese conflict or the Chechnyan, and to ignore that in any analysis is, I think, foolish. Relations between western nations and the world's billion-odd Muslims, political lobbying by pro-Israeli interest groups in all of the worlds richest nations, American interventions in the Middle East and the ever-present suspicion that Israels interests were at least a component of the thinking behind each intervention, the economic reach of Israel and the necessary implication that moral consumers need to be aware where their products come from. All of these factors apply to the I/P conflict. None (nor any comparable considerations) to the Congo. If it came down to the counting of corpses, the Congolese conflict would garner far more attention, but its our involvement in the I/P conflict that makes people the world over treat it as a cause célèbre.

There are no Congolese-manufactured items in South African shops. There are no local Congolese groups constantly lobbying the SA government to favour this or that side in the conflict. There are no Congolese military advisors working with powerful industrialised nations involved in controversial conflicts. There are no supporters of brutal Congolese paramilitaries on the Internet, working ceaselessly to counter allegations of brutality. There are no Congolese expats in my community organising events I might knowingly or unknowingly participate in, which will raise money for recipients of land siezed by force.

Lastly: There are, admittedly, a flood of Chinese imports, which have all but destroyed entire industries here (the textile industry being one). The South African government, responding to pressure from the Chinese government, refused to issue a visa to the Dalai Lama to do a speaking tour here. And I am outraged by these things and given the chance and an interested listener will ramble on about the issue for an hour or more. But, for the most part, I will encounter agreement from just about everyone (aside from a few fundy libertarians I know) I speak to on the issues of Chinese involvement in Africa and the occupation of Tibet. Even cabinet ministers broke ranks and condemned the government's decision to decline the Dalai Lama's visa. In contrast, support for (or at least obfuscation on and playing of silly moral equivalence games about) the 40-year old occupation in the WB spans the reaches of power and reaches into otherwise liberal and leftist institutions the world over.