Uyghur Muslims Rights Abuse: US Sanctions Highest-Ranking Chinese Official Yet

China has denied mistreatment of Uyghur Muslims and says the camps provide vocational training and are needed to fight extremism.

Washington: The United States on Thursday imposed sanctions on the highest-ranking Chinese official yet targeted over alleged human rights abuses against the Uyghur Muslim minority, a move likely to further ratchet up tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Washington blacklisted Xinjiang region’s Communist Party secretary Chen Quanguo, a member of China’s powerful Central Politburo, and three other officials. The highly anticipated action followed months of Washington’s hostility toward Beijing over China’s handling of the novel coronavirus outbreak and its tightening grip on Hong Kong.

Also read: Detained in J&K, 3 Uyghur Asylum Seekers Hope Against Hope for Relief

A senior administration official who briefed reporters after the announcements described Chen as the highest-ranking Chinese official ever sanctioned by the United States.

The blacklisting is “no joke,” he said. “Not only in terms of symbolic and reputational effect, but it does have real meaning on a person’s ability to move around the world and conduct business.”

The Chinese embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. But China has denied mistreatment of Uyghur Muslims and says the camps provide vocational training and are needed to fight extremism.

A masked Uyghur boy takes part in a protest against China, at the courtyard of Fatih Mosque, a common meeting place for pro-Islamist demonstrators in Istanbul, Turkey on November 6, 2018. Photo: Reuters/Murad Sezer

The sanctions were imposed under the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows the US government to target human rights violators worldwide by freezing any US assets, banning US travel and prohibiting Americans from doing business with them.

Sanctions were also imposed on Zhu Hailun, a former deputy party secretary and current deputy secretary of the regional legislative body the Xinjiang’s People’s Congress; Wang Mingshan, the director and Communist Party secretary of the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau; and former party secretary of the bureau Huo Liujun.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Washington was also barring Chen, Zhu, Wang and their immediate families, as well as other unnamed Chinese Communist Party officials, from travelling to the United States.

The main exile group the World Uyghur Congress welcomed the move and called for the European Union and other countries to follow suit.

US Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who sponsored legislation signed by US President Donald Trump in June that calls for sanctions over the repression of Uyghurs, told Reuters the move was “long overdue” and that more steps were needed.

Also read: China’s Suppression of Uyghur Muslims Goes Unacknowledged

“For far too long, Chinese officials have not been held accountable for committing atrocities that likely constitute crimes against humanity,” Rubio said.

The Associated Press reported last month that China was trying to slash birth rates amongst Uyghurs with forced birth control. China denounced the report as fabricated.

Despite Trump’s hardline public remarks about Beijing, former national security adviser John Bolton alleged in his recent book that Trump said Chinese President Xi Jinping should go ahead with building detention camps in Xinjiang and sought Xi’s help to win reelection in November.

Trump said in an interview last month he had held off on tougher sanctions on China over Uyghur human rights due to concerns such measures would have interfered in trade negotiations with Beijing.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had also raised objections to the Treasury sanctions, especially against a Politburo member, out of concerns they could further damage US-China relations, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“The United States is committed to using the full breadth of its financial powers to hold human rights abusers accountable in Xinjiang and across the world,” Mnuchin said in a statement.

Peter Harrell, a former US official and sanctions expert at the Center for a New American Security, said Thursday’s move may signal a continued shift by the Trump administration of “paying more attention to human rights abuses in China … after several years of relative neglect.”

Chen made his mark swiftly after taking the top post in Xinjiang in 2016 when mass “anti-terror” rallies were held in the region’s largest cities involving tens of thousands of paramilitary troops and police. He is widely considered the senior official responsible for the security crackdown in Xinjiang.

United Nations experts and activists estimate more than a million Muslims have been detained in camps in the Xinjiang region.

(Reuters)

The Language of the Uighur Holocaust

Satellite images and clandestine video footage of watchtowers, concrete barracks and barbed-wire perimeters conform to the prison aesthetic described by Jewish Holocaust survivors.

The recent leak of Chinese Communist Party documents to the New York Times offers a chilling glimpse into the 21st century’s largest system of concentration camps.

A million Uighurs and other Muslim minorities are now detained in a Chinese operation that combines the forced labour and re-education of Mao-era laogai with the post-9/11 rhetoric of the “war on terror.” US President Donald Trump’s Muslim ban, border camps crowded with migrant children and America’s global archipelago of so-called black sites detaining terror suspects deserve condemnation. So too do the concentration camps of the world’s newest superpower.

Retina scans, DNA databanks and facial recognition technology are now ubiquitous across China’s Xinjiang province. They are modern-day updates to earlier surveillance technologies like Soviet internal passports.

KGB tactics

Satellite images and clandestine video footage of watchtowers, concrete barracks and barbed-wire perimeters conform to the prison aesthetic described by Holocaust survivor Primo Levi and Russian labour camp detainee Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.

CBC News.

Nighttime roundups resemble KGB tactics, while involuntary medical injections recall the dark history of forced sterilization, from Nazi eugenics to the targeted sterilization of Indigenous women in Canada.

Another haunting parallel is the language Chinese officials use to justify their actions. Speaking of the concentration camps of totalitarian Europe, the late social theorist Zygmunt Bauman, himself a Polish Jew and Holocaust survivor, wrote that “gardening and medicine” have offered “archmetaphors” for the management of unwanted populations.

To cultivate a garden is to ensure the survival of some plants while eliminating others. Gardens require fences, walls and the extermination of weeds. As if to illustrate Bauman’s point, a Chinese official in Kashgar recently informed a crowd of Uighurs:

“You can’t uproot all the weeds hidden among the crops in the field one by one. You need to spray chemicals to kill them all.”

The tenderly pruned gardens of classical China were peaceful retreats for poets and philosophers. By contrast, the association of human beings with noxious weeds and the Chinese Communist Party’s embrace of industrial agricultural metaphors have yielded dystopian results.

Language of disease

More than anything, Chinese statements about Uighur concentration are saturated with the language of disease. Likening Islam to a contagion, an official Communist Party document suggests Uighurs have “been infected by unhealthy thoughts.”

“Freedom is only possible,” it adds, “when the ‘virus’…is eradicated.”

Also read: China’s Suppression of Uighur Muslims Goes Unacknowledged

In an exercise in victim blaming for which cultural theorist Susan Sontag argues medical metaphors are especially conducive, Chinese officials have warned: “If you were careless and caught an infectious virus, like SARS” (a scenario that led to mass medical detention in China in the recent past), then “you’d have to undergo enclosed isolated treatment. Because it’s an infectious illness.”

Chinese officials are thus defending the camps as quarantine cells that will safeguard China from the Uighur epidemic while eliminating religious and cultural pathogens.

The human body has long served as a metaphor for state and society both in Western and Chinese thought. And medical analogies have proven central in the political calculus of extrajudicial detention. With a pseudo-scientific endorsement, policy-makers around the world have classified unwanted populations as parasites or social pathogens that need to be cured, physically isolated or excised completely.

First concentration camps

The first concentration camps in contemporary history, established by Britain during the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), were directly inspired by plague quarantine camps in India and South Africa. The goal was to “cleanse” besieged towns of “disease, crime and poverty” by introducing wartime refugees to sanitary enclosures administered by British
medical officials.

A Boer War concentration camp. Photo: Public domain

The Soviet Union likewise consigned “parasitic classes” to the gulag, while earlier generations in China referred to political prisoners as “convalescents.” Even today, xenophobic voices in America associate Latino migrants with “tremendous infectious disease.”

The biological metaphors revealed by the Chinese government’s recent document leak, however, find their most sinister analogies with Nazi Germany.

“The battle in which we are engaged” against the “Jewish virus,” Hitler proclaimed, “is of the same sort as the battle waged…by Pasteur and Koch. We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew.”

A germaphobe, Hitler imagined fighting “battles against a veritable world sickness, which threatens to infect the German people, a plague that devastates whole peoples.” In this imaginary landscape, Nazi apologists invariably depicted concentration camps as sanitary spaces that isolated Jewish “parasites” in the name of racial hygiene.

The genetic emphasis of Nazi racism ultimately meant “curing” Jews was an impossibility. By Hitler’s logic, outright extermination — or “euthanasia” in sanitized state-speak — was the only recourse. China, by contrast, holds out hope that Uighur camps, or “re-education hospitals”, can cure their “patients” and thus “clean the virus from their brain.”

Yet like cancer, Chinese Communist officials fear, “there is no guarantee the illness will not return.” And just because an inmate has “recovered from the ideological disease doesn’t mean they are permanently cured,” the documents reveal.

The language of disease justified some of the 20th century’s worst crimes. If left unchecked by the international community, China is poised to continue that tradition in the 21st century. And where China leads, others are likely to follow.

Aidan Forth is assistant professor of history, MacEwan University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Primo Levi: The Chemist Who Held A Mirror to the Holocaust

The Italian Jewish chemist wrote invaluable autobiographical accounts of life in Nazi concentration camps and of people displaced after World War II.

As the survivor of the most notorious Nazi concentration camp, Primo Levi feared that no one would believe what he’d seen, how people were humiliated and destroyed in Auschwitz. It was his worst nightmare.

He had survived thanks to chance and luck and wrote down his experiences immediately after returning home to Italy after World War II. It was one of the first literary testimonies to the abysmal inhumanity of the Holocaust. However, there was a problem: Nobody wanted to read about it. He had trouble finding a publishing house that would agree to print it. Eventually, his first memoir, If This Is a Man, was first released in just 1,400 copies.

Today, Levi’s autobiographical book is regarded as one of the most important pieces of literature documenting Nazi atrocities. After initially rejecting the manuscript, the renowned Italian publisher Einaudi finally reprinted it in 1958; the German translation followed three years later. In the end, it took about 15 years after the end of the war for the literary world to recognise the unique value of Levi’s lines.

Levi (1919-1987), who had studied chemistry and had a great passion for literature, combined in his memoirs the analytical perspective of a scientist with that of a literary aficionado. He described himself as becoming a “writer against his will” in order to remove the “burden of gruesome memories.”

In If This Is a Man, later retitled Survival in Auschwitz: The Nazi Assault on Humanity in the US, he described what he had experienced during his 11-month stay in the concentration camp: cold, hunger, sleep deprivation, slave labour, severe physical suffering. The tone of his narration is cool and without commentary. Levi didn’t add any of his own anecdotes. He refrained from expressing his feelings and instead took on the role of the researcher, which was familiar to him. He did not use his account to vent about the horror he felt — he left that to the reader. His restrained style distinguished him from other autobiographical authors writing about the Holocaust and made him sought-after.

The resistance fighter sent to Auschwitz

Levi was born in Turin on July 31, 1919, to a liberal Jewish family. Shortly after he began studying chemistry, the fascist government of the time enacted a race law prohibiting Jewish citizens from studying at state universities.

Levi nevertheless succeeded in completing his studies in 1941, earning a doctorate and distinction — but also with the note that he was “of Jewish race.” In 1943 he joined the resistance, La Resistenza Italiana, and fought in the northwest of Italy. After only a few weeks, he was arrested by the fascist militia.

The Holocaust memorial in Berlin. Photo: Anas Maarawi/Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

“We froze and starved, we were the most defenceless partisans in Piedmont and probably the most naive,” Levi wrote later in one of his books. For fear of being shot directly as a resistance fighter, he confessed his Jewish ancestry and was then deported to Auschwitz in February 1944.

The train transported 650 women, men and children. Only about 120 of them were admitted as prisoners, all others were murdered immediately in gas chambers. At the end of the war, Levi was one of few survivors from his train.

During his time at Auschwitz, he was forced to work as a chemist for the German chemical company IG Farben, which relied on slave labor from concentration camps. The work allowed him to stay indoors and survive the harsh winter. He nonetheless contracted scarlet fever and was transferred to the infirmary area.

Unexpectedly, Levi survived thanks to the illness, since he was left behind shortly before the liberation of Auschwitz and was not taken on the death marches. “The typical prisoner died in the course of a few weeks or months from exhaustion or from diseases caused by hunger and vitamin deficiency,” he wrote in a letter at the end of the 1970s. “Every one of us survivors is a lucky beneficiary.”

Living as a survivor

It took almost nine months for Levi to return home to Turin after the Red Army liberated Auschwitz. He was sent all the way to Minsk. During his journey home, he saw Europe destroyed, which he described in his 1963 sequel to If This Is a Man, titled The Truce. The autobiography was made into a film in 1997 with John Turturro in the lead role. Although it is cheerful in part, it ends with nightmares about the concentration camp.

Back in Turin, Primo Levi worked as a chemist, made a name for himself in ceramic insulation technology and was promoted to managing director of his company. In his spare time, he pursued a second career as a writer, successfully trying his hand at composing narratives, novels and poems, sometimes under a pseudonym.

Also read: As in Life so in His Death, Hubris and Delusion Defined Adolf Hitler

In 1975, he wrote The Periodic Table, a widely acclaimed volume of short stories. He dedicated each of the 21 autobiographical experiences to a chemical element whose properties were part of the narrative. The Imperial College of London voted it the “best popular science book of all time.” Later, it was followed by a novel about Italian partisans in World War II, based on his experiences.

The ‘shame’ of the rescued

Half a year before his death, The Drowned and the Saved was published in 1986. Here, after 40 years, Levi returned to his formative Auschwitz experience and summarised the themes of his life as a survivor. He reflected vividly on remembering the “greatest crime in the history of mankind.”

As in his previous works, it is clear how much he was burdened by the “shame” of surviving and living a happy life. “We, the survivors, are not the real witnesses. This is an uncomfortable insight that I slowly became aware of as I read the memoirs of others and re-read my own after a period of years. We survivors are not only a tiny minority, but also an anomalous minority; we are those who have not touched the deepest point of the abyss because of our neglect of duty, our dexterity, or our happiness. He who touched it could not return to report, or he became mute.”

The book ends with a series of letters he had received from German readers of his first Auschwitz report in the 1960s. They document the repressed and divided sense of guilt of contemporary witnesses.

The end of a nightmare

In the end, Levi’s nightmare didn’t become reality after all. Until his death in 1987 at the age of 67, he was regarded as a writer who fought passionately against fascism and National Socialism. His reports contributed to the investigations against the Auschwitz commander, Rudolf Höss, camp physician Josef Mengele, and Adolf Eichmann, the organiser of the “Final Solution.” He regularly spoke with pupils and wrote articles for newspapers.

The German chemical company IG Farben also paid him compensation for the forced labour he performed in the concentration camp. The sum given to him amounted to approximately €60.

This article first appeared in Deutsche Welle.

What Does It Mean to Be Human? Primo Levi 70 Years On

The imperative issued by Levi’s If This is a Man is that one bear must witness to the inhuman in the human.

The imperative issued by Levi’s If This is a Man is that one bear must witness to the inhuman in the human.

File 20170429 12987 14nwduh

The book provides an account of Primo Levi’s survival in Auschwitz. Credit: Logaritmo/Wikimedia Commons

When he was captured by the Fascist militia in December, 1943, Primo Levi (1919-1987) preferred to declare his status as an “Italian citizen of the Jewish race” than admit to the political activities of which he was suspected, which he supposed would have resulted in torture and certain death. The Conversation

As a Jew, he was consequently sent to a detention camp at Fossoli, which assembled all the various categories of persons no longer welcome in the recently established Fascist Republic. Two months later, following the inspection of a small squad of German SS men, he was loaded onto a train, together with all the other Jewish members of the camp, for expatriation from the Republic altogether.

His destination, he was to learn, was Auschwitz; a name that at the time held no significance for him, but that initially provided a sense of relief, since it at least implied “some place on this earth”.

Of the 650 who departed Fossoli that day, only three would return. Yet Levi’s magnificent testimony of the Lager, Se questo è un uomo (If This is a Man) – which he would compose in the immediate aftermath of the resumption of his life in Turin, and which was first published 70 years ago in 1947, making it one of the earliest eyewitness accounts we have – is far from a heroic description of his “survival in Auschwitz” (as the American title given to his text would have it). Although in an important sense it is also that.

Indeed, what is striking about Levi’s contribution, still today, is the conspicuous absence of a heroic register from its pages, whose appropriateness in this context – which is in large part what Levi teaches us – must surely be as questionable as the temptation to invoke it is strong.

With characteristic, but unsettling irony, it is the word fortune that appears instead in the very first sentence of his text (“It was my good fortune to be deported to Auschwitz only in 1944…”) and that sets the tone for all that follows. In the camp, it is not virtue that governs fortune; it is fortune that governs virtue.

Levi was sent to the detention camp at Fossoli after his capture. Credit: Jacqueline Poggi/Flickr, CC BY-SA

It is the original title of Levi’s book that in truth gives expression to what will be his principal concern. Yet this is easily misunderstood. It is not exactly a question, and certainly not one that solicits an answer. But it is not even a question whose answer would be provided by the text itself, which claims no such privilege.

As we learn from the poem that opens the text, it must be understood instead to contain an implicit imperative: “Consider if this is man…” It is an order, a command (“I command these words to you”); one that is linked, moreover, to an imprecation:

Carve them in your hearts
… Repeat them to your children,
Or may your house fall apart,
May illness impede you,
May your children turn their faces from you.

It is thus an admonition that we (“You who live safe/In your warm houses”) not avert our gaze. But since Levi, remarkably, includes even himself in this category, it functions also as a kind of self-admonition.

For the description of what Levi calls the “ambiguous life of the Lager” alters our understanding of the very structure of witnessing. And it does so by bringing to light the existence of a distinct oppositional pair much less evident in ordinary life: the drowned (i sommersi) and the saved (i salvati).

In Auschwitz, all the ritual humiliations appeared as if designed to hasten the prisoner’s descent to what Levi termed “the bottom”. But this process was especially accelerated in the case of those he called the drowned: “they followed the slope down to the bottom, like streams that run down to the sea”.

These were the prisoners who, for whatever reason (and the reasons were many), never adjusted to the brutal regimen of life in the camp; whose time in the camp was thus consequently very brief; yet whose number was apparently endless.

In the jargon of the camp, these were the Muselmänner, the “Muslims”, whose tenuous existence, even prior to their imminent selection for the gas chamber, already hovered in an indistinct zone between life and death, human and non-human. These, according to Levi, were the ones who had truly seen all the way to the bottom: the ones who (as he would later powerfully record) had truly seen the Gorgon.

With respect to the “anonymous mass” of the drowned, the number of the saved, on the other hand, was comparatively few. Yet, by no means did it consist of the best, and certainly not of the elect. To invoke the guiding hand of providence in the midst of such atrocity was nothing short of abhorrent to Levi.

Primo Levi in the 1950s. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

He is unflinching on precisely this delicate point: with rare exceptions, the saved comprised those who, in one way or another, whether through fortune or astuteness, had managed to gain some position of privilege in the structured hierarchy of the camp.

More often than not, this entailed the renunciation of at least a part of the moral universe that existed outside the camp. Not that the saved, any more than the drowned, are to be judged on this account. As Levi insists, words such as good and evil, just and unjust, quickly cease to have any meaning on this side of the barbed wire.

It was nonetheless his conviction that those who had not fathomed all the way to the bottom could not be the true witnesses. Yet far from invalidating the survivor’s testimony this made it all the more urgent.

According to Levi, it is the saved who must bear witness for the drowned, but also to the drowned. For in him is mirrored what he himself saw.

“Consider if this is a man…”: the imperative issued by Levi’s text is thus not that one should persist in seeing the human in the inhuman. It is more like its opposite: that one bear must witness to the inhuman in the human. And that our humanity in some sense depends on this.

 

Nicholas Heron, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

A Book that Explores the Unjust Abstraction of Disappearance

Hisham Matar’s The Return is a powerful memoir of exile, loss and hope in a fractured world.

Hisham Matar’s The Return is a powerful memoir of exile, loss and hope in a fractured world.

File photo of Hisham Matar. Credit: Flickr/The POlitics and Prose Bookstor CC 2.0

File photo of Hisham Matar. Credit: Flickr/The POlitics and Prose Bookstor CC 2.0

“Joseph Brodsky was right. So were Nabokov and Conrad,” writes Hisham Matar at the start of his latest book, The Return. “They were artists who never returned. Each had tried, in his own way, to cure himself of his country. What you have left behind has dissolved. Return and you will face the absence or the defacement of what you treasured. But Dmitri Shostakovich and Boris Pasternak and Naguib Mahfouz were also right: never leave the homeland. Leave and your connections to the source will be severed. You will be like a dead trunk, hard and hollow.”

In 1979, when he was nine years old, Hisham Matar’s family was forced was forced out of his native Libya and into exile in Egypt, for his father’s dissident activities. Matar grew up in Egypt, and then went to school in England. Meanwhile, his father – Jaballa Matar – continued to agitate against Qaddafi’s regime from exile and ultimately, was kidnapped and disappeared by the Egyptian security forces in 1990. In 1996, Jaballa Matar wrote his family two clandestine letters from Tripoli’s notorious Abu Salim prison. That same year, the regime forces massacred 1276 prisoners at Abu Salim. Jaballa Matar was never heard from again.

The Return is Hisham Matar’s memoir of his long search for the truth behind his father’s disappearance, spanning two decades, and a winding, circuitous route through Cairo, Nairobi, the British Foreign Office, the House of Lords, and ultimately, the Libyan city of Benghazi in 2012, soon after the Libyan revolutionaries have successfully taken it from the

Hisham MatarThe Return: Fathers, Sons and the Land in BetweenPenguin, 2016.

Hisham Matar
The Return: Fathers, Sons and the Land in Between
Random House, 2016.

Gaddafi regime. The persistent, sometimes desperate search, leads him on the one hand to his father’s prison-mates, who heard him recite poetry every night: “… in those dark and silent nights when, as Uncle Mahmoud had put it, ‘the prison fell so quiet you could hear a pin drop or a grown man weep softly to himself’, Father sought refuge in the elegiac Bedouin poetry of the alam. The word means ‘knowledge’ or ‘banner’ or ‘flag’, but has always, to my mind, signified an apprehension gained through loss… I picture him reciting the alam in the same voice he used at home, a voice that seemed to open up a landscape as magically uncertain and borderless as still water welded to the sky…” (p. 58 – 9); it leads him to his own relatives, who were imprisoned by the regime along with his father, and spent decades in jail: “With Uncle Hmad, the young man he was at the point of his arrest and the man he had become seemed to exist in parallel, destined never to meet and yet resonating against one another like two discordant musical notes…” (p. 258); on the other hand, it leads him to powerful political figures of a British establishment such as David Miliband and Pater Mandelson, cozying up to the Libyan regime under the justification of ‘leveraged engagement’ (a term originally coined by Margaret Thatcher to defend her relationship with apartheid South Africa), and to Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, the dictator’s son himself.

The contrast between the powerless and the powerful, between those whom power has deprived of everything and those who exercise power with scant concern for the ones who will suffer its impact, is stark. And if Milan Kundera can write that man’s struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting, then Matar is not too optimistic about the outcome of that struggle:

“So much information is lost and every small loss provokes inexplicable grief. Power must know this. Power must know how fatigued human nature is, and how unready we are to listen, and how willing we are to settle for lies. Power must know that, ultimately, we would rather not know. Power must believe, given how things proceed, that the world was better made for the perpetrator than for those who arrive after the fact, seeking justice or accountability or truth. Power must see such attempts as pathetic, and yet the bereaved, the witness, the investigator and the chronicler cannot but try to make reason of the diabolical mess.” (p. 247)

Through the course of the memoir, Matar attempts to negotiate two complex and fraught relationships: the first is with the homeland, from the perspective of the exile (“Guilt is exile’s eternal companion. It stains every departure.” (p. 105)), and moreover, of an exile whose father was a passionate opponent of the regime, but who finds himself strangely ambivalent to the revolution, when it finally comes:

 “Revolutions have their momentum, and once you join the current it is very difficult to escape the rapids. Revolutions are not solid gates through which nations pass but a force comparable to a storm that sweeps all before it. One of Turgenev’s most affecting characters does not come from his best-known novels. Alexey Dmitrievich Nezhdanov, the hero of Virgin Soil, Turgenev’s last novel, is the illegitimate son of an aristocrat. He is young and trapped between two powerful impulses: a romantic sensibility that makes him ill-suited for absolute certainty, and a revolutionary heart that craves that certainty.” (p. 112)

Readers will recognise immediately the conflicted character of Doctor Zhivago, who is sympathetic to revolutionary certainty, but whose skeptical mind can never be convinced to the degree that is needed. The future of the Russian Revolution, and the present of the Libyan one (occasionally hinted at by Matar during his descriptions of Benghazi) suggest that history might be on Zhivago and Matar’s side.

But much more central to the book is the second relationship, with his disappeared father. Matar contrasts the paradoxically comforting closure of death (“I envy the finality of funerals. I covet the certainty…” (p. 35)) with the lingering agony of the disappearance (“… absence has never seemed empty or passive but rather a busy place, vocal and insistent.” (p. 166)). It is this absence that blocks his attempts to develop any kind of meaningful relationship with the memory of his father. Like Telemachus from Homer’s Odyssey, whose example is constantly on the fringes of Matar’s consciousness, absence, and not knowing, simply does not allow him to reconcile and to move beyond his father’s shadow. Matar writes:

“One of the injustices involved in disappearing a person is a difficult one to describe. It turns the disappeared into an abstraction, and, because the possibility of his existing under the same sun and the same moon is a real one, it makes it hard to retain a clear picture of him. In death the hallmark fades, and not all the memorials in the world can hold back the tide of forgetting. But in life the disappeared changes in ways that are active and elaborate.” (p. 188)

And in fact, there is a curious, inverted relationship between Matar’s public efforts to discover the fate of his father, and his private relationship with him. In an essay on Milan Kundera, Johannes Lichtmann writes that while at a political level, the struggle of memory against forgetting is an attempt to preserve and to remember, at the “existential level” – which is what Kundera was more concerned about – was “man’s struggle to reshape his own past into a livable present.” Forgetting is an essential aspect of that, but absence does not allow for it.

This is not an overtly political memoir, focused as it is on personal experiences of exile and the search for a disappeared father. Neither is it a polemic; Matar’s tone is calm and forensic, reminiscent of the writings of Primo Levi, or of Mourid Barghouti’s great memoir of exile and homecoming, I Saw Ramallah. But of course, politics can hardly be kept out of it. There are a few brief passages where Matar provides a quick history of the colonial Italian’s brutal regime in Libya, and at another stage, about the British establishment’s unwillingness to jeopardise their close relationship with Qaddafi’s regime (let it not be thought, however, that Matar is solely focused on the failings of the West – in one of the most disturbing passages of the book, he recalls how a petition to Nelson Mandela is returned with the words “never ask… such a thing again” (p. 192)); it is here that the calm, almost detached tone, is replaced by a barely-contained anger. These are striking passages, made even more so by their rarity; but even they are not as striking as a politics that is not told, but shown. At one point, Hisham and his family, in separate countries, are watching a football match between Bayern Munich and Glasgow Rangers. Hisham and his mother decide to support Rangers because of the presence of Mark Walters, a black player; the rest of his family are passionate Bayern fans:

“I hung up and went to the local pub, ordered a pint and sat with strangers, watching the match. Twenty-five minutes into the game, Rangers were awarded a penalty. Mark Walters was to take it. I watched him walking back from the ball. I began reciting Surat al-Fatiha. Here was an eighteen-year-old Arab Muslim praying in an English pub for a Scottish team because they had a black player who might or might not have been African, while his Libyan family, exiled in Cairo, were rooting for a German team. Thank God, Mark Walters scored. Two minutes later Bayern Munich equalized. Final score was 3 – 1 in favour of the Germans. It did not matter; it was not the black man’s fault.” (p. 79)

And then soon after, when he calls home:  “Hisham, listen, your cousin is a born Bayern supporter. He started crying the moment your African friend… What’s his name?’ I could hear Mother in the background, saying, ‘Mark Walters’, spoken as if the name belonged to a great philosopher or poet. ‘Izzo screamed the moment this Mark Walters scored.” (p. 80)

That simple incident contains all the political truth that we cannot see. The Return is a powerful memoir of exile, loss and hope, in a fractured world. As Colm Toibin writes, it is destined to become a classic.