Tuesday 6 August 2013

US embassy closures: Since when is Bangladesh in the Middle East?

19 US embassies may be closed until the end of August due to an alleged heightened security threat. Apparently, intercepted communications between head of Al Qaeda Ayman Zawahiri and an Al Qaeada affiliate in Yemen reveal a real risk to US security. Much of the coverage of the US embassy closures has focused on the NSA scandal. The timing is certainly very convenient for those seeking a justification for the NSA's surveillance programmes. But there is a far simpler reason to be suspicious about the latest terrorist alert: the location of the embassies in question.

It is startling how little attention seems to be paid to this key question. The Guardian headline runs "White House warns some US embassies could remain closed for another month" and the sub-headline "Obama administration downplays connection between current scare and ongoing debate over NSA surveillance in the US". Interesting stuff, but nowhere in the article does it say which embassies are closed. 

The BBC reports that US embassies across the Middle East and North Africa are closed, and provides us with a list of places. It includes diplomatic posts in Riyadh, Cairo, Doha, Dhaka, Bujumbura, Antananarivo and Port Louis. Since when were Burundi, a tiny country in sub-Saharan Africa, and Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean, in North Africa? And is Bangladesh really in the Middle East? Qatar is a good friend of the US and a loyal ally in the so-called war on terror - is the embassy in Doha really under threat? 

The list of embassy closures speaks volumes about the incoherence of US foreign policy and gives us good reason to be highly suspicious about the alleged security threat. The state department claims to be particularly concerned about an attack in the Middle East or North Africa. So why is Washington reopening its outposts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Algeria, while closing embassies in Burundi, Rwanda and Madagascar? Are we really supposed to believe that the security risk is higher in Bujumbura than in Kabul or Baghdad? 

The other striking thing about the coverage of the embassy closures is that few mention the attack on the US embassy in Libya last year, in which the US ambassador was killed. In the aftermath of the attack in Benghazi in September 2012, the response of the Obama administration was merely to order an increase in security. The Republicans berated Obama for his weak reaction. But is the security threat today really greater than it was back then? Why is practically nobody comparing Washington's response to the current threat with its response in Libya last year?

Some have already used the heightened security threat to justify the NSA surveillance programmes. George W. Bush's popularity increased after every terror alert - perhaps the Obama administration is hoping for a similar boost. There are many reasons to doubt the substance behind the alleged security risk. But we should also demand answers to the obvious questions. 



No comments:

Post a Comment