OESTERHOUDT STRIKES
I found some untroubled moments to watch the news this afternoon. Once in a while I like to know what FOX News has to say about the world, if for no other reason than to assemble new ideas for satire. I must actually hear crazy arguments before I can properly mock them. You can't do impressions without listening to your subject first.
FOX started its 7 PM broadcast with "Three Top Stories." The first involved a Muslim terror suspect who allegedly scoured beauty salons throughout New York buying up hydrogen peroxide. The newscaster said that hydrogen peroxide is a "key ingredient in explosives." FOX showed FBI men leading a young, Arab-looking man away in handcuffs.
In the second story, FOX informed me about a "terror imam from Brooklyn." He allegedly knew about the young man's plot, then lied to the police about it. FOX told me that he was being held on a $1.5 million bond for conspiracy. It also told me that authorities charged this "terror imam" with sexual abuse in 1992. I didn't see the connection between sexual abuse and international terrorism, but it sure made the "terror imam" look like a villain. After all, terrorists are bad, and so are sexual predators. But terrorist sexual predators are worse than both: A sum is always more than its component parts.
Finally, FOX interrupted its broadcast to alert me that officials in Dallas arrested a "young Muslim man" for attempting to car bomb a government building. They did not have any pictures to show. They just showed the man's long, Arab-looking name underneath a menacing-looking silhouette. FOX told me that they "would bring me more on this story as soon as they could."
Why were these the top stories? Did 9/11 just happen or something? Is it still October 2001? Does the whole Muslim fear-mongering thing still have traction among FOX viewers? Michael Moore famously mocked FOX for its relentless fixation on "evil Arabs" and vague, terrifying plots in 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11." It was funny then, even relatively soon after 9/11. But now it's been eight years; Bush's fear-mongering has decayed beyond passe. Any assertion that bloodthirsty Muslims lurk among us now seems pathetically old-fashioned, even hackneyed. It's not 2001 anymore; there's no more Anthrax in the air. People are more worried about Medicaid now than Osama bin Laden. And for good reason: Because health care in America affects many, many more Americans than any terrorist ever will.
But for some reason FOX didn't get the memo or check the calendar. On FOX, it's still a brave battle between proud Americans and evil Muslims with long names and skull caps. Black is still black and white is still white. Hey, I guess it sells; Rupert Murdoch doesn't dish stuff that doesn't sell, truth or fashion be damned.
This is not the only funny thing I saw on the news tonight. I also saw coverage about all the world leaders at the United Nations this week. Leaving all media bias aside (ie, United States and Israel = good; Iran and Libya = bad), I just have to say how silly "collective security" really is. Woodrow Wilson started the League of Nations back in 1920. He wanted Nations to get together and respectfully solve differences without war or acrimony. It didn't work. Franklin Roosevelt tried to do the same when he conceived the United Nations in 1945. There have not been any world wars since then, but just one look at history shows that there has not been too much world peace since the United Nations started hosting world leaders.
But I am not writing about diplomacy. I am writing about the utter foolishness of U.N. speeches. No one listens to them for their substance. No one even really hopes to change minds or solve problems with them. Rather, people listen to them solely for theatrical value. After all, it's all-too predictable what happens, and it is all very staged. For example, Moammar Ghadaffi got up yesterday and railed against Israel, capitalism and the United States for over 90 minutes. As if on cue, the U.S. and Israeli delegations theatrically walked out. They did the same thing when Iran's Ahmedinijad got up and made similar points. Today, Israel's Prime Minister got up and spoke. Libya's and Iran's delegations theatrically walked out. Then the Prime Minister denounced every delegation that did not walk out on Libya's and Iran's speeches the day before.
So is this international diplomacy? Is this genuine dialogue? No--it is classic theater: Simple, emotional, sensational, uncomplicated. The orators speak in grand, emotional tones. They play to the audience. Their rhetoric delights some and outrages others. It is intentional. Delighted delegations applaud; outraged ones visibly walk out. Then later orators chastise delegates who did not walk out on speeches the orators did not like.
Funny stuff. But the sad part is that after all the fun and games, the world's differences remain starkly unchanged.
Showing posts with label Diplomacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diplomacy. Show all posts
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thursday, September 18, 2008
REFLECTIONS ON THE GEORGIA CRISIS
AN ESSAY
Written August 14, 2008
I have grown accustomed to absurd statements issuing from the Bush Administration. But yesterday’s gaffe bears mention for its sheer hypocrisy. Sadly, it underscores the damage Bush has done to America’s international credibility; the damage is so severe, in fact, that America is virtually disqualified from invoking international law.
While Bush watched swimmers at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing, Russia launched an attack on its southern neighbor, Georgia—a new American ally and aid recipient. The conflict arose over a Georgian province called South Ossetia, which is ethnically Russian and has strong ties with Moscow. Georgia moved to expel Russian peacekeepers from South Ossetia, leading to a Russian intervention and encroachment onto Georgian territory. After several bloody days and numerous casualties through Russian air and artillery bombardment, Georgia called for a cease-fire. Russia agreed, but the atmosphere remained tense. Russian troops continued to advance into Georgia. After returning to Washington, President Bush demanded that Russia “adhere to the cease-fire agreement with Georgia.” Meanwhile, U.S. aid arrived at the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice gave a statement announcing the Bush Administration’s approach to the crisis. In a direct rebuke to Russia, she said: “If Russia wants to play on the world stage, it must play by the rules.”
The outrageousness of this statement should be lost on no one who knows recent American foreign policy. Today, America is the last country on earth that should feel entitled to assert international law. Bush and his Administration have repeatedly shown that they do not care about “rules,” whether international (Treaties and the United Nations) or domestic (The Constitution). It is therefore extremely hypocritical for Bush now to insist that Russia refrain from an invasion. After all, America did not “play by the rules” in 2003 when it invaded Iraq on false pretenses and without approval from the United Nations. Similarly, America did not play by its own constitutional rules when it held citizens and foreign nationals without charge at Guantanamo Bay, wiretapped phone calls without warrant or probable cause and authorized its executive agents to hand prisoners over to foreign allies to circumvent domestic bans on torture. Furthermore, Bush’s Administration showed contempt for the rules of international law. The Administration actually requested that lawyers seize upon linguistic ambiguities in treaties such as the Protocol Against Torture and the Geneva Convention (to both of which the United States is a signatory) to maintain disingenuous arguments that its practices did not amount to torture. This, in turn, led to the grotesque spectacle of American “jurists” actually debating whether forcibly suspending a person on a declining board with cellophane over his head and pouring water down his face “intentionally inflicts serious pain.” These barely legal methods have earned America a reputation for dishonesty and lawlessness on the world stage. They have undermined America’s credibility on matters of international principle and render her attempt to hold Russia to “the rules” laughable. Russia must now be wondering: “How can the world’s most facetious rulebreaker now insist that we play by the rules?”
America’s take-no-prisoners approach in the War on Terror has created dangerous international precedent. If America plays fast and loose with international law and faces no consequence, should it surprise us that other powerful countries may wish to do the same without fear? Whether it knows it or not, America has a responsibility—as the world’s preeminent economic and military power—to adhere to principle, if for no other reason than to take the moral high ground over more unscrupulous world powers. America has always prided itself as the world’s beacon for democracy, freedom, justice and right, even if its own history reveals a checkered record on these issues. Yet America’s recent contempt for international rules has badly tarnished whatever reputation it may have had as the “White Knight” of world powers. When our public officials speak now about “international rules” on the “world stage,” their words ring hollow and warped.
This is the price Nations must pay for obtaining results “by any means.” While such an approach may guarantee victory in one confrontation, it stains the Nation’s image for all time, weakening any attempt to assert principles that it ignored in other circumstances. Such damage can only heal with time and conscientious, genuine effort. Of course, a Nation may take the haughty road and admit no fault, pressing onward as if it did nothing wrong. But to press on without acknowledging unjust conduct is a hallmark of tyranny, for nothing will deter that Nation from resorting to the same conduct—or worse conduct—when the next crisis arises. And what is tyranny, if not the raw assertion of power in conscious disregard of established rules?
Written August 14, 2008
I have grown accustomed to absurd statements issuing from the Bush Administration. But yesterday’s gaffe bears mention for its sheer hypocrisy. Sadly, it underscores the damage Bush has done to America’s international credibility; the damage is so severe, in fact, that America is virtually disqualified from invoking international law.
While Bush watched swimmers at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing, Russia launched an attack on its southern neighbor, Georgia—a new American ally and aid recipient. The conflict arose over a Georgian province called South Ossetia, which is ethnically Russian and has strong ties with Moscow. Georgia moved to expel Russian peacekeepers from South Ossetia, leading to a Russian intervention and encroachment onto Georgian territory. After several bloody days and numerous casualties through Russian air and artillery bombardment, Georgia called for a cease-fire. Russia agreed, but the atmosphere remained tense. Russian troops continued to advance into Georgia. After returning to Washington, President Bush demanded that Russia “adhere to the cease-fire agreement with Georgia.” Meanwhile, U.S. aid arrived at the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice gave a statement announcing the Bush Administration’s approach to the crisis. In a direct rebuke to Russia, she said: “If Russia wants to play on the world stage, it must play by the rules.”
The outrageousness of this statement should be lost on no one who knows recent American foreign policy. Today, America is the last country on earth that should feel entitled to assert international law. Bush and his Administration have repeatedly shown that they do not care about “rules,” whether international (Treaties and the United Nations) or domestic (The Constitution). It is therefore extremely hypocritical for Bush now to insist that Russia refrain from an invasion. After all, America did not “play by the rules” in 2003 when it invaded Iraq on false pretenses and without approval from the United Nations. Similarly, America did not play by its own constitutional rules when it held citizens and foreign nationals without charge at Guantanamo Bay, wiretapped phone calls without warrant or probable cause and authorized its executive agents to hand prisoners over to foreign allies to circumvent domestic bans on torture. Furthermore, Bush’s Administration showed contempt for the rules of international law. The Administration actually requested that lawyers seize upon linguistic ambiguities in treaties such as the Protocol Against Torture and the Geneva Convention (to both of which the United States is a signatory) to maintain disingenuous arguments that its practices did not amount to torture. This, in turn, led to the grotesque spectacle of American “jurists” actually debating whether forcibly suspending a person on a declining board with cellophane over his head and pouring water down his face “intentionally inflicts serious pain.” These barely legal methods have earned America a reputation for dishonesty and lawlessness on the world stage. They have undermined America’s credibility on matters of international principle and render her attempt to hold Russia to “the rules” laughable. Russia must now be wondering: “How can the world’s most facetious rulebreaker now insist that we play by the rules?”
America’s take-no-prisoners approach in the War on Terror has created dangerous international precedent. If America plays fast and loose with international law and faces no consequence, should it surprise us that other powerful countries may wish to do the same without fear? Whether it knows it or not, America has a responsibility—as the world’s preeminent economic and military power—to adhere to principle, if for no other reason than to take the moral high ground over more unscrupulous world powers. America has always prided itself as the world’s beacon for democracy, freedom, justice and right, even if its own history reveals a checkered record on these issues. Yet America’s recent contempt for international rules has badly tarnished whatever reputation it may have had as the “White Knight” of world powers. When our public officials speak now about “international rules” on the “world stage,” their words ring hollow and warped.
This is the price Nations must pay for obtaining results “by any means.” While such an approach may guarantee victory in one confrontation, it stains the Nation’s image for all time, weakening any attempt to assert principles that it ignored in other circumstances. Such damage can only heal with time and conscientious, genuine effort. Of course, a Nation may take the haughty road and admit no fault, pressing onward as if it did nothing wrong. But to press on without acknowledging unjust conduct is a hallmark of tyranny, for nothing will deter that Nation from resorting to the same conduct—or worse conduct—when the next crisis arises. And what is tyranny, if not the raw assertion of power in conscious disregard of established rules?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)