… And why commentators left them unexamined.
The perspective of a few days affords time for understanding.
Let’s rewind. I suppose by now you must be aware that US President Joe Biden, during a speech delivered at Warsaw a week ago, let this allegedly unscripted pearl slip:
To avoid misunderstandings, this is what he said in black and white: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power”.
I don’t know whether it’s obvious to you why that caused commotion. But commotion it did cause:
 |
| (source) |
The fact it ruffled feathers is undeniable. Exhibit A: the immediate worldwide coverage by the media.
But there’s much more: NATO’s more gung ho members couldn’t hide their approval; more thoughtful foreign leaders distanced themselves from Biden’s statement; Biden’s domestic critics expressed their dismay. The Biden Administration promptly issued clarifications: it’s all a misunderstanding; the President never called for regime change – they said. Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “I think the President … made the point last night that, quite simply, President Putin cannot be empowered to wage war or engage in aggression against Ukraine or anyone else.” So, that’s what “This man cannot remain in power” really means, according to the Biden Administration.
(Ironically, in itself those “clarifications” indicate that a call for regime change is a reasonable interpretation).
The Kremlin, whose stance on this is ultimately the most relevant did not sound convinced and replied that “the President of Russia is elected by Russians” – which, by comparison with the American statements actually manages to sound dignified.
Finally Biden himself had to speak. So, what was that all about? He said it – he admitted. And it was a call for regime change. But he didn’t really, really, really mean it – cross my heart and wish to die.
Well, errare humanum est. He got carried away by the emotion of the moment, I suppose. Even reasonable, thoughtful people at times make mistakes; when they do they eat humble pie and apologise. You know, to dispel misunderstandings.
So, to dispel misunderstandings, Biden made … no apologies.
 |
| (source) |
----------
Okay, but what’s the big deal? Why would “regime change” cause such ruckus among people in positions of authority? After all, commentators of all shapes and colours are very relaxed about regime change. In fact, not a single commentator I’ve seen has bothered to explain why that comment made such a big impact.
Let’s take Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom (Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia), for no other reason that her piece is representative of this kind of discussion and appears in The Conversation: a reputable comment outlet.
She is not squeamish about mentioning regime change. In fact, she takes it for granted as the possible – if unlikely in her opinion – result of the “harsh sanctions imposed upon Russia” and upon its notorious oligarchs, among other things – notwithstanding Biden’s unapologetic negative and the earlier denials by White House officials.
Not that she is particularly optimistic about the regime that could result from the possible change: there’s no guarantee new regimes are any better than old regimes.
Still, the risk may be worth taking, for she finds regime change ultimately desirable: “if there is no coup, Russia’s path will unfortunately involve even more severe repression of its population and continuing devastation in Ukraine”.
It’s only when it comes to the term “assassination” that Sundstrom becomes surprisingly shy: not a peep in her piece about this form of regime change. She also avoids other possible outcomes of regime change: civil war and failed states, for instance.
Let me put it this way: “regime change” as a policy is a comfortable, sanitised way of referring to subversion. Euphemisms, like “preemptive strike” (instead of war of aggression) and “collateral damage” (instead of civilian victims), all have that virtue (I’d add to that list “assassination” instead of murder). This may make the Western public (on whose behalf regime change is usually done) feel good.
Euphemisms and half-assed “unapologetic apologies” may be less successful with those on the receiving end of regime change.
----------
Among other things, because it’s not like Biden’s comment was entirely unprecedented.
Just a month ago, US Senator Lindsey Graham (once one of President Donald J. Trump’s allies) made reference to assassination (perhaps more to his taste):
 |
| (source) |
Although lots of people (particularly Graham’s Democratic adversaries) jumped up and down with that tweet, Graham himself was following even earlier precedents. Off the top of my head, the earliest one I can remember was tele-evangelist (!) Pat Robertson asking for Hugo Chávez’s head in a silver platter. That was back in … 2005, people! Calls for extreme solutions like assassination or regime change ain’t a new thing.
To ask for those things is almost the birth-right of any red-blooded American. Ask Julian Assange if you don’t believe me (you can’t ask Osama bin Laden).
(Homicidal violence against bad people is okay. So Twitter did not remove Graham’s tweet. Twitter and Facebook are humanity’s self-appointed judges.)
----------
Which brings us to why Joe Biden’s remarks are a dangerous big deal.
I has nothing to do with moral considerations.
It isn’t either because Biden, with a single unguarded comment, confirmed Russians’ accusations about NATO and America’s real intentions towards Russia. Frankly, that adds nothing to the discussion. The Russians already knew it and nobody in the English-speaking world gives a shit about that. Who here cares about regime change in, say, Libya or Syria?
No. That is a dangerous big deal because it is one thing for the POTUS to threaten the local chieftain of some God-forsaken place; another thing is for the POTUS to threaten a man who can actually do something about that threat. That had never happened, not even during the Cold War: both sides were rational enough to know that was a dangerous game. That’s what’s new and unprecedented in Biden’s call for regime change.
Commentators, however, found that needed no comment (!?)
----------
A Little Boy did this:
 |
| Hiroshima aftermath, short after 6 August 1945 (8:15 am) [A] |
The first nuclear weapon used in wartime, Little Boy was a fission bomb with a modest estimated yield of 15 thousand tonnes of TNT.
Today the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia number in the thousands of nuclear warheads … each. And boys are no longer little. After 76 years and seven months of technological development they have grown: many of those warheads have yields hundreds of times greater than Little Boy’s.
----------
What still needs explanation is the lack of comment on that episode.
----------
Allow me a digression. According to the Daily Mail, Vladimir Putin and his high command are currently based on nuclear bunkers in western Siberia and the Ural Mountains.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds ominous to me. I am not a journalist, but I think it’s potentially newsworthy.
But, are those reports reliable? Frankly, beats me. Journos working for traditional western media (including the ABC) always remind us that they monopolise the truth, while whatever reports come from Moscow, because they come from Moscow, are fake news. I don’t know, however, whether that trustworthiness extends to British tabloids.
At any event, traditional western media has not reported this. I checked. If fact-checkers debunked it, I couldn’t find their fact-checks. Which means that either it’s obviously fake news or journos didn’t report it because … well … it came from Moscow. You know, if you report news coming from the Kremlin you are playing into their hands. You don’t want to do that, do you? Thus, self-censorship.
----------
Would self-censorship explain why commentators left Biden’s potentially apocalyptic foot-in-mouth singularly free of comment? You know, if you elaborate on disturbing things about the good guys, you are playing into the Kremlin’s hands?
Image Credits:
[A] “Hiroshima Aftermath, cropped version with writing of Paul Tibbets. Short after 6 August 1945 (8:15 a.m. – the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima …)”. Author: U.S. Navy Public Affairs Resources Website. File in the public domain.
No comments:
Post a Comment