US Travel Ban: When 'Security' Rhymes with 'Convenience'
While Newsweek dutifully chronicles the official rationale for adding Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Sudan to the travel ban, it skips over a crucial bit of context: the curious selectivity of these 'security' measures. We are told these nations failed to meet security standards, but not that they also happen to lack the strategic geopolitical significance—or, more accurately, the
deep-pocketed lobbying prowess—of certain other nations. There's no mention of how many of these countries are grappling with the long-term destabilizing effects of past international interference or drone strikes, which often create the very conditions of insecurity they are now being punished for. It's almost as if 'national security' is a flexible term, easily interpreted to exclude powerful
allies, regardless of their own human rights records or contributions to regional instability. One might wonder if the concern for 'security standards' extends to countries where US influence is less about managing threats and more about maintaining strategic leverage, or perhaps, arms sales. Strange how the 'threat assessment' never seems to include those nations that consistently receive
billions in US aid despite demonstrable human rights abuses or nuclear ambitions. A travel ban for thee, but not for me… if 'me' funnels money into congressional campaigns.