A photo taken on November 16, 2015 in Paris shows the Eiffel Tower illuminated with the colors of the French flag in tribute to the victims of the November 13, 2015 Paris attacks (AFP Photo/Alain Jocard)

In the Wake of the Paris Attacks, a Dangerous (and Flawed) Xenophobia

The terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13th, which left more than a hundred dead and hundreds more wounded, were acts of horrible brutality, an affront to all humanity. In the wake of this horrific tragedy, the world rightly stands in mourning for and in solidarity with the people of France. Moments such as this serve as wake-up calls to those whose lives are rarely punctuated by violence and fear at such a scale: the world is, at times, a dangerous and hostile place. For reasons of ideology, religious extremism, or pure sociopathy, there are individuals and groups – the Islamic State, which has claimed responsibility for the attack, among them – who prey on the innocent to further their twisted agenda. To call the Islamic State evil incarnate, a spot of darkness in an otherwise usually bright time, would be appropriate. Its members think, feel, and, clearly, conduct themselves in ways that elicit justified shock and revulsion among those in the civilized world.

Parisians come out in mourning following the attacks. Photo credit: David Ramos/Getty Images
Parisians come out in mourning following the attacks. Photo credit: David Ramos/Getty Images

Yet not only do groups such as the Islamic State prey on innocent targets, they thrive off the fear their attacks create. Lacking an attractive ideology or a sound religious and institutional foundation, these groups use fear as their source of legitimacy and, in turn, strength. And, among all the emotions brought out by the attacks in Paris, fear has been by far the most pervasive and powerful. Fear is what has shuttered the city of Paris in the days following the attack. Fear is what has prompted increase measures of security, scrutiny, and policing. Fear is what has pushed the world’s leaders to, more powerfully over the past few days than ever before, exert greater force and tenacity in combating the Islamic State. Such, of course, is an entirely natural, entirely human, entirely reasonable, and entirely expected reaction. These attacks are aptly labelled as “terror,” and their capacity to terrorize will likely never diminish. In light of that, what matters most is how the victims of the attack, and the world at large, express and use their fear.

A European reporter tripping a fleeing refugee... a reflection of the growing xenophobia in Europe. Source: The Guardian.
A European reporter tripping a fleeing refugee… a reflection of the growing xenophobia in Europe. Source: The Guardian.

Unfortunately, fear can, and often does, manifest itself in the worst possible ways – racism, xenophobia, suspicion, and hate. And, tragically, these currents have tinged the rhetoric and discourse emerging out of the carnage in Paris. An ideological shifting toward the far Right and its associated xenophobic ideals, already well underway in refugee-laden Europe, has been exacerbated by the attacks. Leaders across Europe have been calling for the stymieing of refugee flows, not out of economic concerns as before but out of a lingering suspicion that Muslim refugees could be ISIS terrorists in disguise. Governors and presidential candidates in the United States have come out in opposition to proposals for settling Syrian refugees for similar reasons, proposing instead that the United States only accept vetted “Christian” refugees. Clearly, across the Western world, an underlying Islamophobia, borne from the similar September 11th attacks in 2001, has been aggravated yet again – as seen in hateful discourse laden across social media and growing attacks and prejudices issued against Muslim populations.

Of course, despite the rhetoric of anti-refugee arguments, reality does not neatly correspond with the narratives of those who present them. Only a minority of the refugees fleeing Syria and entering Europe are young males, the typical and perceived perpetrators of such terrorist attacks. The Paris attacks, according to present information, were perpetrated by radicalized individuals of European birth, not fleeing Syrians. In the United States, the process for applying for resettlement can take up to 24 months for Syrians, due in part to extensive background checks and enormous paperwork requirements – a process very likely to root out troublesome individuals. Even then, state governors do not have the ability to supersede Federal resettlement programs, even despite their statements “closing off” state borders to refugees. Their anti-refugee espousal is not rooted in tangible policy, but rather only serves an incendiary rhetorical purpose.

What ever happened to the iconic quote emblazoned upon the Statue of Liberty, a symbol of the values the United States and modern-day France hold dearest? “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” it reads. It is a quote derived from inherent compassion, from a simple humanistic outlook. It is, amidst the fear which has now gripped the world, a quote at risk of being lost, along with the ideals which frame it.

At its core, this growing xenophobia toward Muslim refugees for reason of their faith and their flight stems from a dearth of empathy. To be fair, this does not inherently or necessarily stem from a lack of compassion. Those who malign refugees, who suspect those fleeing to be possible terrorists, are doubtlessly compassionate individuals toward their friends, family, and loved ones. Instead, this xenophobia likely comes from mere ignorance, either willful or otherwise, of the circumstances of our time. It is a classic example of the philosophical and psychological concept of “Otherness,” of the “Other,” of the challenge we have as individuals to understand and compassionately sympathize, if not empathize, with those whose lives and plights are so far removed from our own. For those who have never met a Syrian refugee, who may not even have had sustained relations with a member of the Islamic faith, yet who are consistently exposed to acts of terror carried out in the name of Islam, there is an understandable conflation of Islam with terrorism.

Of course, not only is this a dangerous conflation, for reasons that will be discussed, it is an entirely flawed one. The simple reality is such: the vast, overwhelming majority of Muslim refugees pouring into the Western world are, as the classification of “refugee” entails, fleeing the very same barbarism that befell Paris on November 13th. These are people who are fleeing their homes and homeland for fear of their lives, a most powerful force indeed. This is the reality lost on those who hope to refuse entry to Muslim refugees. They fear that they may be “terrorists in disguise” because of events such as the Paris attacks, yet they fail to acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of victims of the Islamic State’s brutality, the vast majority of those who have suffered at the hand of Islamic extremism, the vast majority of those whose lives have been up-ended in terror and fear, are Middle Eastern Muslims. The very ones who the far Right now claim to be nascent extremists are those who have been victimized by extremism.

A commentary on the reaction to the Paris attacks. Source: The Washington Post
A commentary on the reaction to the Paris attacks. Source: The Washington Post

Perhaps because it was lost on the Western media and its constituents in the midst of the Paris attacks, the growing chorus of anti-refugee individuals, and even well-meaning Westerners, failed to acknowledge the broader scope and scale of attacks occurring simultaneously across the world. In the days leading up to the Paris attacks, bombings and attacks in Beirut, Baghdad, and Kenya killed as many people as in France, though the predominance of the victims were Muslims. The narrative of the Western media, however, honed in on the events of Paris, relegating these other attacks. And, as a result, the emerging narrative reflected a skewed perception: the West, and specifically the West, is under assault by radical Islam, by Muslims. From this narrative, it is easy to see how an xenophobic notion that the Muslim community at large, and its refugee population, poses a threat. If the attack in Paris was an isolated event, disconnected from the broader context of global happenings, perhaps this narrative would be lent credibility. Yet it was not; indeed, the attack in Paris was intimately connected to the violence of terrorism and the currents of extremism engulfing the world, in particular the Middle East.

Herein lies the danger of the implicit and explicit conflation of refugees and Islam with terrorism. Though clearly not the intended consequence of those who espouse xenophobic and Islamophobic rhetoric, who do so to win the support of their fearful constituencies, such rhetoric abets the narrative of the Islamic State. Indeed, the West’s fear, manifested in suspicion and hate, is precisely what the Islamic State had hoped to achieve with its attacks. Facing threats to their lives at home, yet equally facing a hostile and suspicious West refusing to take them in, the refugee population is ever more susceptible to reactionary radicalization and hatred. Such is an entirely understandable and entirely human reaction: suspicion begets suspicion, hatred begets hatred. For those turned back by the West to a land of terror, a lasting scar has been wrought. It is a scar which tarnishes the compassionate image of the West, an image which set the West apart from the barbarism and backwardness of the Islamic State. Having turned its back to those who most pressingly need its help, the West is losing a war of hearts and minds, a war which is decidedly a part of the broader conflict we experience today.

There is a quote, powerfully spoken by Martin Luther King Jr., which goes as such: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” In these troubling times, this sentiment cannot be understated. The world faces the hatred of an extreme and radicalized group, a group bent on inflicting as much harm to innocents as possible. It is a group whose ideology is framed on hatred, which survives off hatred, which seeks and serves to breed hatred. An environment of hatred, of suspicion, of xenophobia and Islamophobia, is the very environment in which groups such as the Islamic State are incubated and thrive. The proper response, the humane response, to groups such as the Islamic State is not that of hatred. It is that of compassion, compassion toward those who have been brutalized by their attacks, compassion toward those fleeing their barbarity, compassion toward those who suffer through their rule. The proper response is not suspicion toward fleeing refugees, but compassion toward them – an open-armed welcoming, a demonstration of the goodness in humanity which persists even through times of darkness such as these.

The Islamic State will not go away any time soon. Attacks will likely continue; the hateful ideology of the radicalized is bound, likely, to persist. In light of this, we are faced with a true challenge. It is not an insurmountable challenge, to be sure, yet one which will touch on the very core of who we are and the values we hold. We cannot be deterred, in times of trouble while facing those who wish to do us harm, from holding true to our humanistic values. We cannot risk being swayed, in these times of trouble, from the very values which form the foundation of our societies, which solely set us apart from the barbarism of the Islamic State.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” the Statue of Liberty reads. It is a quote that resonates with the very fabric of our humane society. It is a quote that encompasses the value of love, a love that can drive out hate. Despite our fear, we should not, indeed cannot, stray from it.

Read More

The Martian

The Least Realistic Part of “The Martian?” China. And Why That Matters.


By now, you’ve likely seen or, at the least, heard about the critically acclaimed, space-themed blockbuster hit “The Martian.” Perhaps you have read the equally acclaimed book off of which the film is based. If neither of these apply to you, stop what you’re doing right this instant and go find it at your local bookstore or movie theater – you’re in for a real treat. “The Martian” is the latest in a series of high-budget, high-profile space films – 2013’s “Gravity,” Ron Howard’s “Apollo 13,” and Stanley Kubrick’s iconic, pre-Apollo-era “2001: A Space Odyssey” come to mind – which have served to excite the general public about space exploration, demonstrating through gripping plots and incredible imagery the many challenges, dangers, and triumphs that space travel entails. Dealing in themes resonant with both the human condition and our civilization’s technological capabilities – and technological failures – “The Martian” embodies the notion and interplay of “man and machine” which has driven the United States through the Space Age. Its no small wonder that NASA has used the film as a centerpiece in its publicity efforts for an eventual real-life mission to Mars.

"The Martian" - one of the most realistic space movies ever made, for the most part.
“The Martian” – one of the most realistic space movies ever made… for the most part. Credit: Twentieth Century Fox.

Above all other selling points, “The Martian” has been touted as being one of the most technically and scientifically realistic space movies ever released, perhaps even the most. The book’s author, Andy Weir, spent years doing research into the intricacies of a human Mars mission, along with details on orbital mechanics, biology, and NASA technology, prior to beginning his writing. Yet the effort to make “The Martian” a scientifically accurate story extended beyond simple research. In order to make the film as close to real-life as possible, the film team partnered with NASA, which provided significant consulting during the movie’s filming. The United States’ space agency answered hundreds of questions – on a weekly basis – on everything from radioisotope systems to the look of potential Mars habitations. NASA also sent hundreds of Mars images and images of its facilities to the film team, to help them design the most realistic sets possible. This marked what is probably the closest collaboration between NASA and Hollywood in history, and the effort definitely paid off – most, if not all, of the film’s few inaccuracies involve elements key in the development of the plot; that is, most of what’s unrealistic about “The Martian” is so because the story needed it to be. Even then, unless you’re a rocket engineer or a planetary scientist, most of these inaccuracies probably passed by unnoticed.

Yet there’s one glaring inaccuracy in “The Martian” that I, being a bit of a space policy buff, couldn’t help but notice; and while admittedly a crucial part of the plot, which the movie couldn’t do without, there are alternatives which could’ve been substituted in its place so as to make the movie more realistic. That said, I think the presence of this inaccuracy is a great thing, for a number of reasons. I’m talking about the subplot involving China’s space agency, the CNSA.

The CNSA (China's space agency) logo. Source: Spacenews
The CNSA (China’s space agency) logo. Source: Spacenews

The premise of China’s involvement in “The Martian” is, without giving away too many spoilers, simple enough. A NASA rocket carrying critical supplies to an astronaut stranded on Mars explodes during launch because of rushed preparations. In the panic which follows, there’s a miraculous turn of events – the Chinese announce that, unbeknownst to anyone, the CNSA has a secret rocket booster capable of making the journey to Mars which is already prepped and ready to go. NASA jumps on the offer, lest a stranded American astronaut die of starvation some 249 million miles from home, and the Chinese send their rocket, laden with supplies, skyward. Toward the movie’s end, the CNSA’s leadership is seen standing next to NASA’s administration, celebrating a positive conclusion to the harrowing series of events. In the book, the Chinese are rewarded with a seat on the next Mars mission for the help they provided NASA. It seems to be a watershed moment in international space relations, a testament to the benefits and goodwill that cooperation in outer space can bring.

And, in real life, it would never happen. That’s because, according to present day policy, it just can’t happen.

Space Cooperation with China? Read the Rules.

One could write a doctoral thesis on the myriad reasons why the cooperation seen between the United States and China in ‘The Martian” would never play out in real life. Arguments of geopolitics, foreign policy, military superiority and secrecy, and sensitive technologies abound when people discuss the factors behind a preclusion to Sino-American cooperation in space. Yet there’s a far simpler and far more definitive answer to why NASA would never accept a Chinese offer for an emergency resupply mission: the United States’ space agency is explicity prohibited, by law, from cooperating in any form or fashion with the Chinese.

In April 2011, the 112th Congress of the United States of America passed Public Law 112-55, SEC. 539. Written into this law was language which stated the following:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China.”

A Chinese "Long March 9" rocket. Don't expect to see it launching anything involving the United States. Source: CSNA
A Chinese “Long March 9” rocket. Don’t expect to see it launching anything involving the United States. Source: CNSA

This is, in effect, a blanket ban on any cooperation between the United States’ space program and China. So, while other space-fearing nations such as the UK and Russia are working jointly with China on a number of potential future missions, NASA is banning Chinese scientists from astronomy conferences. China’s calls for international cooperation on a future space station get no response from NASA. So to think that NASA would gladly accept any Chinese offer to cooperate in space, even to help rescue a stranded astronaut, is, to say the least, unrealistic. For doing so would force the Federal Agency to break Federal law.

And, unlike the renegade astronauts in the film who refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer (and to whom this point also applies), I highly doubt that NASA would choose to just “do it anyway.”

So Why Choose China?

So “The Martian,” in both print and film version, represents a dedicated effort to make the most realistic and accurate space story ever created. It was written, filmed, and produced in close collaboration with NASA, which provided the production team much guidance and information on all things space. Then why is China – perhaps the most unrealistic option out there – the country that was chosen to swoop in and save NASA in its time of need? After all, there are far more realistic options out there that could reasonably substitute in China’s place – Russia, for example, which is noticeably absent throughout the film. The Russians have a history of cooperation with the United States in space, both in a limited fashion during the Soviet era and to a significant extent in recent times with the International Space Station. They have a number of rockets capable of launching a payload to Mars. Even if the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, has had to deal with a number of high-profile failures and institutional issues in recent years, at least it isn’t against the law to work with them.

The answer, I suspect, lay in marketing motivations and what I’ve termed the “congressional movie-goer.”

"The Martian" - bound to be a big hit in China. Credit: Twentieth Century Fox.
“The Martian” – bound to be a big hit in China. Credit: Twentieth Century Fox.

As for the marketing: China is expected to be the film’s largest income source overseas. Something tells me that Chinese moviegoers would be more than happy to flock to a film which paints them in an entirely benign and glamorous light – in the print version of “The Martian,” but not the film, at least some of China’s space leadership have reservations about helping the Americans, citing geopolitical and military concerns – in order to see the Chinese space program rescue the Americans. The Chinese space program, as some scholars have noted, is a source of significant pride for many of China’s citizens. Playing off that pride by having China serve as a rather faultless protagonist in the film is therefore quite a brilliant business decision by Twentieth Century Fox. We’ll need to wait until October 22nd, when the film opens in Chinese theaters, to see whether this really was a motivation behind China’s presence in the film, and whether it indeed payed off.

Yet the greater significance to China’s role in “The Martian” is, I believe, that it serves as a subtle yet targeted lobbying move aimed at the “congressional movie-goer;” that is, aimed at members of the policy-making world who go watch the film. The film is an attempt to make space cooperation with the Chinese appear more benign and appealing; it is an example of the hypothetical good that could come out of working with China. The hope is, I would suspect, that members of Congress or their staff who go watch the film will leave wondering if the cooperation ban written into law is really so rational after all, and whether something should be done to make it at least a little less stringent. So that, perhaps, China actually could help NASA if the time or need ever came.

"The Martian" - bound to change Congressional policy?
“The Martian” – bound to change Congressional policy? Credit: Twentieth Century Fox.

The motivation behind this is rather clear: NASA does not like being barred from cooperating with China. The United States’ space agency has made that much clear time and time again. NASA scientists have boycotted past conferences in protest against the ban. The agency has broached the issue of cooperation with the Chinese to the White House on at least a number of occasions. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden has written blog posts that implicitly hint at the need for future cooperation with China in space activities. Bolden went as far as to say that the ban on Sino-American cooperation in space was “temporary” during the recent International Astronautical Conference – about as thinly veiled a statement of hope that a U.S. government employee required to represent American policy during international events can make, given the circumstances.

Yet, as space policy expert John Logsdon pointed out to space.com, getting the United States to work with China in space will require a long policy battle, one that extends beyond NASA’s ability to influence events. He writes: “The first step is the White House working with congressional leadership to get current, unwise restrictions on such cooperation revoked.” Changes to the United States’ Federal law will require Congressional action and leadership, and the views of Congress, if the current ban says anything, do not always correspond with the views of NASA or the space community. If NASA hasn’t been able to convince Congress to change policy through its lobbying efforts alone, then perhaps some blockbuster magic – brought into fruition through, in part, NASA’s support and suggestions – might just do the trick. After all, NASA has played “The Martian” up in its publicity (and lobbying) efforts to win support for an eventual Mars mission. Its not too unbelievable to suspect that its doing the same when it comes to cooperation with the Chinese.

Why it all Matters.

Cooperation with China in the realm of space will be crucial for the United States if it hopes to maintain its leadership as the world’s eminent space power in the 21st century. There are some who disagree, citing geopolitical reasons, military rationales, or economic/technological concerns. They raise valid and understandable points, and any arguments to the contrary should not serve to underscore the importance of preserving American security and superiority against foreign rivals, especially those rapidly rising on the international stage. Yet the fact remains: the Chinese space program, along with China proper, is rapidly developing in capabilities and ambition, while the United States’ space program faces a period of stagnation brought on by low budgets and inconsistent goals. Mr. Bolden is correct in his blog posts: if the United States hopes to accomplish a Mars mission in the coming decades, or any other mission of major scale and scope for that matter, it will require the help and cooperation of the international community, including the world’s third most developed space program – China’s. There is a significant contradiction in the United States continuing to refuse to work with China on any matters related to space, even if they are for a purely civil, exploratory purpose, while also declaring itself the world’s leading space-fearing power. Meanwhile, other space players, such as Russia and the European Space Agency, with whom the United States will gladly work, are looking toward China for possible joint missions in the future. The United States is ceding its place as a true space leader, as the country capable of coordinating and overseeing an international effort in space akin to its role on the International Space Station, because it is refusing to cooperate with one of the most significant players at the table.

There are also the arguments to be made about the general “nature” of space as it pertains to international relations. Space is one of the few, if not the only, realms where rivals and competitors can come together and work in joint cooperation toward a peaceful goal. Humanity’s activity in outer space represents a shared spirit, that of reaching for what lays beyond and of exploring the unknown. This is a motivation which transcends ideology or nation. The impetus for exploration on the part of Chinese scientists and mission planners is the same for NASA’s. Cooperation in space is symbolic of the broader humanity, and the more fundamental pioneering spirit, that exists in all of us, regardless of our country of origin or economic system of choice. At the least, NASA should be enabled to cooperate with China on matters of exploration, so as to unlock the greater potential of that spirit which as of today is being kept in. The effects of a “handshake in space” have far reaching consequences, after all.

The "Apollo-Soyuz Handshake," a key moment in U.S.-Soviet space relations.
The “Apollo-Soyuz Handshake,” a key moment in U.S.-Soviet space relations. Source: NASA

The 1975 “Apollo-Soyuz” mission, the first joint United States-Soviet mission in space, was marked by a handshake between astronaut and cosmonaut in orbit. More than a simple rendezvous maneuver, it was symbolic of the broader detente that was occurring between the two Cold War adversaries at the time. Sharing mission information and precious spacecraft technology with the Soviets – the same fears which today are keeping NASA engineers from working with their Chinese counterparts – entailed vulnerability on both countries’ parts. Sharing technology could lead to the recognition of key weaknesses or shortcomings; it could give the opponent the upper hand. Those very vulnerabilities, if seen in another light, were the underpinnings of a more peaceful world in the making – they represented trust. It is hard, in this current geopolitical environment and this present day, to “trust” the Chinese in many aspects. They are the United States’ quickly emerging rival in the Asia-Pacific; they are a developing military competitor; they are a significant source of foreign espionage and theft. Yet these are the messy realities of our international system, and are perhaps unavoidable. There are areas abound where differences can and will divide the United States and China, where our two countries will have disagreements, perhaps even tensions. We are headed, with policies that preclude cooperation and mutual support, toward another chilly “Cold War.” Yet space, as the Apollo-Soyuz “handshake” demonstrated powerfully in 1975, offers the opportunity to set aside our Earthly differences for a bigger and more timeless goal – that of exploration, that of discovery. And, to a degree and in its own way, cooperation in space, the building of trust in space, trickles down into Earthly affairs as well.

With this in mind, perhaps the presence of the Chinese in “The Martian” – as faultless protagonists, no less – is one of the movie’s stronger aspects, despite its glaring inaccuracy. For, perhaps its important that we recognize that cooperation is always stronger than confrontation and containment and strike the ban in place on working in space with our future Asian rival. After all, we may one day have a Martian who will owe them his life.

Read More