On Tuesday the 5th of July in Baton Rouge, Lousiana, Alton Sterling, a black man selling videos in front of a hardware-store, was pinned down to the ground by two policemen and then killed in cold blood. The next day, on Wednesday the 6th of July in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, another killing by a policeman ensued; that of Philando Castile who, in the presence of his girlfriend and her terrified four year old girl, was killed inside his car while trying to retrieve his driving license. Both outrageous incidents were live streamed and subsequently shown in the news on national TV, and widely announced by the media.
This was subsequent to a series of similar incidents the nation has witnessed in the last three or four years, where many of the victims were unarmed, or were actually walking away when they were shot. Some seem to have been killed simply because they dared to talk back to the officer, who responded violently. Some of those officers were indicted and even tried and prosecuted but few, if any, have been punished, pointing to some kind of problem in a justice system where blacks are three times more likely to be incarcerated or killed than the rest of the population, and this despite the fact that we have a black President occupying the White House. Some wise men, of the ilk of a Donald Trump, would say, it is because of it.
Then on Wednesday night July 7th, while a peaceful march and demonstration on the above incidents was going on in downtown Dallas (only a few blocks away from where President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963) a barrage of shots from a sniper with an assault weapon rang out bringing down three policemen immediately. The shooting and counter-shooting, all shown live on national TV, went on all night. It was like watching a crime reality show. At the end there were five policemen dead and seven severely wounded. These three incidents can only be characterized as mayhem and lawlessness pure and simple, executed with guns, which of course are innocent, necessary, and beneficial for self-defense as the NRA continues to insist.
Just as it happened with the phenomenon of mass incarceration (we are now the preeminent country for number of incarcerated citizens, mostly black), a reality show is soon to appear on Fox News dubbed Murder Police: a police animated series described as “the thin blue line that separates civilization from chaos.” What the heck, if we make light of the whole issue, make it humorous, perhaps it does not have to be seriously debated and discussed and we can carry on with our normal routine lives dedicated to making money, sports, and amusements galore.
Predictably, this tragedy was promptly followed by words of commiseration and sympathy from pundits and “experts” alike, memorial prayers, improvised monuments and flowers, vigils and eulogies by clerics and religiously inclined people, crocodile tears galore from sentimentalists and utopians alike, eulogies, political comments by politicians urging healing and reconciliation; what can only be characterized as a confused circus scene, pointing to a nation that seems to have lost its moral compass and its very identity. Much more rare are the voices of reasonableness and common sense; those advocating a serious analysis followed by a rational dialogue and a logical prognosis on this urgent matter which has to do mostly with civil and human rights. They exist but few pay attention to them.
I’d like to offer a reflection or two of my own on this matter. Not that I too have much hope of being listened to. Many better men than I have been crying in the desert lately and have been frustrated and stymied; but at least I will later on be able to tell my grandchildren that I was not one of those who saw what was going on and said nothing, and did nothing. To be sure, a writer’s pen may not be as powerful as a gun but it has been known to be persuasive at times and to have more lasting effects. At least so we may continue hoping, for the alternative is to give up in despair.
The first thing to observe and reflect upon in this event in Dallas, it seems to me, is the identity of the shooter. His name is Micah Johnson and he was 25 years old. One would expect him to be a criminal type with a long police wrap-sheet. But low and behold he had no criminal record. In fact he was a decorated veteran of the US army who served in the army reserve for six years (2009-2015), went to Afghanistan for two years and earned a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, among other awards. Moreover, he did not live in a crime infested underprivileged part of Dallas but in an upper scale suburb (20 miles away for the center of Dallas): Misquite. Now, this seems far from the “unhinged psychopath” portrayed in the media. In fact, branding someone a psychopath or unhinged, absolves a journalist or a politician or a sociologist, even a novelist, from having to do some hard thinking and research on a perpetrator’s background to determine his precise motivation.
I remember a young student in one of my beginner philosophy classes, who made an intriguing comment on the ethics of war under discussion, and how intentionality can make all the difference, that one’s intention in going to war should never be that of killing for the sake of killing but that of defending one’s country, preventing a greater evil, protecting vulnerable people, or even more nobly, to defend democracy, or freedom. His comment was this: “but professor, when I was trained in the marines I was told that to be a good marine I had to become a perfect killing machine.” I must confess that I was taken aback by the comment.
Thinking about it, it would make sense to assume that Micah Johnson too was trained to be a perfect killing machine. It is safe to assume it since he more than proved it: he took on by himself an entire police department and managed to kill five of them and wound seven others; all facilitated of course by the fact that lethal arms suitable for a war battle are readily available in the US with the blessing of the NRA and the politicians beholden to it for their election.
But let us continue with the speculation: we train a perfect killing machine and then send him half-way across the world to fight for freedom and democracy, quite often ending with the sacrifice of his life. This “killing machine” then comes home expecting to enjoy the fruits of the values he fought for: freedom and democracy and prosperity. Instead, to his great surprise, he finds himself treated as a second class citizen, deprived of civil and human rights, respect and dignity by a justice system which is biased and divisive. He concludes that he was tricked: he went to fight to get for others around the world what he himself lacks at home.
The question arises: what would we do, were we in the same situation; would we be angry? The question is not asked to condone the violence of the misguided disturbed young man, which remains despicable and reprehensible, but as an attempt to understand his motives. Why did he think that, in his own twisted way, he was doing justice? Was it because he saw no justice being administered and so misguidedly took things in his own hands? To simply say that he was unhinged and leave it at that, is just too easy and solves absolutely nothing.
There is a final thought to contemplate and it is this: the young man, after having been cornered and afforded the opportunity to surrender by the police, was not finally killed by a man pitting the skills of one warrior against those of another, but by a robotic bomb who literally blew him up and destroyed him as a physical human being. In war one would call such an operation “overkill.” One kills, not with a precise bullet skillfully aimed and delivered, but by dropping a surprise bomb on the individual.
And of course, just as guns remain innocent and neutral, the robot also remains innocent and neutral, possessing no ethical conscience and feeling no guilt or regrets. No need to put it on a trial and prosecute it. The perfect killing machine, the robo-bomb, has just performed its job, the job of a killing machine. He does not even know that it is just a robot doing the same thing that some human beings also do, willingly or reluctantly, at times feeling guilt, or hatred or resentment, and at times feeling nothing because they have already dehumanized themselves.
Plenty of food for thought here, but I suspect that the inanities and the boring specious arguments will go on in the media; those seem to be more entertaining, require less thinking and gather better ratings.
Mexico in the Trump Era: Trying to Deal with and Overcome Social Dominance
My work with Social Dominance Theory focuses on explaining the most obvious legitimizing myths in maintaining a negative atmosphere between America and Mexico. When it comes to this tension-filled relationnship, there are two varieties of legitimizing myths: hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths, which promote greater degrees of social inequality, and hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths, which promote greater social equality. Depending on the issue or commodity involved, Mexico is faced with both types of challenges when it comes to SDO conflicts with America. (Pratto, Felicia, James Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle. 1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, no. 4: 741-763.)
Ideologies that promote or maintain group inequality are the tools that legitimize discrimination. To work smoothly, these ideologies must be widely accepted within a society, appearing as self-apparent truths. Hence, we call them hierarchy-legitimizing myths. (Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes Felicia Pratto, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle, 1994, 741)There is substantial evidence that social dominance orientation (SDO) has several consistent attributes: (a) it can be measured reliably, (b) it is stable over time, (c) it is higher among men than among women, (d) it is higher among those who support hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and is lower among those who support hierarchy-attenuating ideologies, (e) it is higher among those who support hierarchy-enhancing policies and lower among those who support hierarchy-attenuating policies, (f) it is higher among those who choose hierarchy-enhancing social roles and lower among those who choose hierarchy-attenuating social roles, and (g) it serves to orient new social and political attitudes. (Pratto, Felicia, James Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle,1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, no. 4: 741-763)
In general, America stakes great pride in its reputation for steadiness, reliability, commitment to a positive-sum global order in which all countries that play by the rules can prosper, soft power, identification with the advancement of democratic values, and an image as a dependable ally and country committed to solving the world’s toughest problems.In the past two years, however, the U.S. policy towards Mexico has changed from this course and is now leaning toward support of hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths. This contributes to normalizing group-based inequality, which helps to destabilize partnerships. A particularly ugly hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth was the campaign rhetoric uttered by now President Donald Trump, who labeled certain Mexicans as rapists, criminals, and “bad hombres.” This rhetoric still degrades and negatively impacts the latest immigration debates in the United States.
On January 23, 2017,Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum Regarding the Mexico City Policy: I hereby revoke the Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2009, for the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning), and reinstate the Presidential Memorandum of January 22, 2001. Along with his earlier ugly verbalization, this order reinstates and dramatically expands the “Mexico City Policy” adopted under previous Republican administrations since 1984. This policy is also widely known as the “Global Gag Rule” due to the restrictions it places on how non-state organizations use their own non-US government private funds.
On February 7, 2017, the US State Department released a “six-month review” of the implementation of this policy, even though it admitted that six months was not nearly enough time to truly assess any effective change. Among the policies meant to be enforced: hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths that would make it more likely that Mexican asylum seekers would demonstrate credible fear about returning to their home. Add on to this environment the blunt imagery of building a ‘wall’ along the southern U.S. border with Mexico and it is obvious that current American foreign policy is utilizing these hierarchy-enhancing myths to create an atmosphere where Mexicans are meant to feel subordinate if not outright inferior to Americans. This was only intensified by the failed attempt to achieve a policy compromise on immigration earlier this year where approximately 800,000 ‘Dreamers’ (children of illegal immigrants born in America and having no negative criminal record whatsoever) would be allowed to legally remain in the United States. The White House and Republicans in the U.S. Congress could not ultimately create the compromise they themselves said they were hoping to achieve. Indeed, some of the leading figures on Trump’s team who voiced opposition to strengthening innovations in border security were ultimately fired, creating an administrative environment where people openly felt they had to follow the groupthink or be let go. As a predictable response to all of these political inconsistencies and outright open hostilities, Mexico can theoretically exercise multiple opportunities to establish and maintain closer relations with American economic and political competitors, most notably Russia.
To the detriment of harmonious international relations, the current American policies toward Mexico have comingled human social injustice with the threatened cancellation of The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was originally intended for increased commerce and trade and meant to be a positive for all of North America. NAFTA was originally signed by Mexico, Canada, and the United States in 1994 and has led to greater North American economic/financial integration and stability. The extensive U.S.-Mexican border area, an increasingly efficient supply-chain management industry, and millions of Mexican migrants now living in the United States (legally and illegally), have all contributed to Mexico’s growing positive integration with the U.S. economy. At present, America is Mexico’s largest global trading partner. Mexico is America’s third-largest, behind China and Canada. Mexico supplies approximately one third of America’s crude oil. Thus, Mexico works diligently with many vital U.S. trade/business interests that are have historically been enthusiastically supported by most Republicans. These should be potential negotiation strong points for Mexico, reminding the American Congress that it would not just be Mexico to suffer should relations between the two nations continue to worsen.
Mexico can and must respond to these threats by attempting to redefine its own national interests and economic options with the United States. The dominance of the U.S. in its own regional neighborhood is difficult to overcome. But the current administration, and its continued use of hierarchy-enhancing social dominance position, is clearly a trend Mexico cannot support and must strive to actively undermine. Of the two varieties of legitimizing myths discussed earlier, it is the hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths, which promote a sense of social equality have to be embedded within any and all political gestures coming out of Mexico City toward Washington. If Mexico does not find a willing or cooperative partner just to its north when it comes to this benevolent policy, then it will have little choice but to pursue its own Mexican version of hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths, casting America in a much less flattering light and seeking to establish Mexico’s own form of social dominance vis-à-vis Americans in general. The fact that this will seem almost implausible to most Americans simply illustrates just how deep the implied assumption of social dominance and inequality has become to Mexico’s neighbor to the north.
Tom Cotton: What’s the Reason for AIPAC’s $ 4.5 Million Support for the Young Senator?
In recent months, news sources in the United States have reported the possibility of the appointment of the young Arkansas senator, Tom Cotton, as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the US National Security Advisor. 40-year-old Cotton is considered the youngest American senator, and, of course, many of the active Israeli lobbies in the United States count on his role-making in American political-security equations. In April 2015, the New York Times admitted that the Zionist lobbies’ financial support for Tom Cotton was much higher than that for other Republican senators. The New York Times has announced that the amount of this financial assistance was around $ 2 million.This is while some informed sources in the US say the AIPAC lobby has spent $ 4.5 million for Tom Cotton to insure his winning against “Mark Pryor” in the 2014 Senate elections.
In August 2013, Tom Cotton, with AIPAC’s green light and support, entered the political scene against former Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor. In the meanwhile, some prominent personalities and politicians in the Republican Party of America, such as “Marco Rubio” and “Mitt Romney”, by the order of AIPAC leaders, had also fully supported Tom Cotton.
Eventually, Cotton won 56.5% of the vote (against 40 percent of Pryor vote), and thus defeating his rival, entered the Senate. However, the main question is, what’s the reason for this huge, unnatural support of Zionist lobbies, AIPAC in particular, for Tom Cotton? In other words, what capacity did these organizations and lobbies see in Tom Cotton, that they have been willing to use their full power to help him enter the US Senate? Is AIPAC’s goal of such widespread support merely Cotton’s gaining the Arkansas seat in the Senate? The answer to this question is negative.
A security analyst in the United States who didn’t want his name to be revealed told our reporter:
“Given the young age of Cotton compared with other American politicians, and his commitment to Tel Aviv, the Israeli authorities have tried to use him as an influential factor in US domestic security and foreign policy. AIPAC has always named Cotton as a trend-making agent in its calculations. This Zionist lobby’s recent attempts for Cotton’s presence as the CIA Director can also be analyzed in the same vein.”
This analyst added:
“It is likely that the AIPAC lobby would ask Cotton not to run for the Senate in the congressional elections in 2018, so that he can be employed by the US government as the National Security Advisor, or CIA Director in Trump’s government.”
In January 2015, Tom Cotton played an important role in leading and managing the anti-JCPOA movement in the US Senate in the midst of nuclear talks between Iran and the members of the P15+ 1. On March 8, 2015, Senator Cotton wrote and sent a letter to Iranian leaders. In this letter, it was insisted that any nuclear deal without the approval of the US Congress would only be valid until the end of Obama’s presidency in 2017, and the next president may easily cancel it. Another 46 Republican senators also signed the letter.
The existing evidences suggests that such a letter was ordered by the direct order of the AIPAC lobby, and was designed to negatively influence the negotiation process. However, Tom Cotton’s commitment to the AIPAC lobby, and beyond that to Israel, is much more than that.
Accordingly, Cotton is consulting AIPAC before making any decision in the field of US domestic and foreign policy, and asks for the views of the lobby’s leaders. Even in cases which AIPAC doesn’t express its views on critical issues to American senators, Cotton has the duty to indirectly impose AIPAC’s stances on senators and even on key members of the House of Representatives. It is not without a reason that Tom Cotton is named as the main AIPAC piece in the Senate. For the thorough financial and political support of AIPAC leaders and Israeli authorities, Cotton has turned into Tel Aviv’s agent in the Senate (in the current period), and generally in the political scene of the United States.
Decoding Pompeo’s words at US senate
The CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who is nominee for Secretary of State, has recently mentioned meaningful words in his hearing at the Senate on Iran and the nuclear deal. In his words, he acknowledged that Iran was not after nuclear weapons even before the nuclear deal, nor will be in the future.
On the other hand, he has announced that he is seeking to fix and correct the nuclear deal with Iran! This is while the US President Donald Trump is scheduled to announce his final decision on Iran’s nuclear deal by May 12. “I want to fix this deal,” Pompeo said. “That’s the objective. I think that’s in the best interest of [the United States].”
At his recent Senate hearing, Pompeo has emphasized that as CIA Director, he didn’t find any evidences that Iran has violated the nuclear deal. At the same time, he believes that Tehran can’t expand its program shortly after the US withdrawal from the nuclear accord. He emphasized that his goal is to correct the nuclear deal with Iran. Pompeo said:
“If there’s no chance that we can fix it, I will recommend to the president (Trump) that we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal,” he said. “Even after May 12, there’s still much diplomatic work to be done.”
A simple decoding of Pompeo’s remarks suggests that, despite the opposition to the nuclear accord, he is trying to deal differently with this issue as the future US Secretary of State. Some analysts also believe that Pompeo has adopted such an approach to face the US Senators’ relative opposition to the White House’s withdrawal from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).
In any case, according to Pompeo, Donald Trump may not make a final decision on the nuclear deal with Iran on May 12, and he will continue to consult with his European allies on what he calls “fixing the flaws of the JCPOA”.
Pompeo’s remarks indicate that the White House hasn’t come to a determined and clear decision on how to deal with the JCPOA yet. On the other hand, numerous consultations by representatives of the four countries, the United States, France, Britain and Germany, continues in silence.
Western sources have argued that these countries are consulting on the three controversial issue, namely “the Sunset clauses”, “limiting Iran’s missile power” and “extensive inspections of Iran’s military sites”. These sources claimed that the only remaining disagreement between the four countries is over deletion of the so-called Sunset clauses from the nuclear deal, and thus putting permanent limitations on Iran’s nuclear program.
Pompeo is currently the CIA director, and ironically, he was one of the foremost critics of the Iran nuclear deal when he served as a House Republican from Kansas. Trump fired Secretary of State “Rex Tillerson” over the raised disagreements, and picked Pompeo as his successor in March, just two months before the deadline on May 12 to decide whether to bring back sanctions that former President of the United States waived when the JCPOA was first implemented.
Before this, many Western politicians and analysts saw the nomination of Mike Pompeo for secretary of state by Trump as a sign of Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Beyond that, John Bolton’s appointment as US national security advisor also sent a clear message to the international system that Trump is about to pull out of the nuclear deal with Iran.
John Bolton is now silent about the fate of the JCPOA! The silence seems very meaningful at the current time. It’s obvious that John Bolton is one of the main opponents of the nuclear deal with Iran, and he doesn’t even believe in negotiating with the European Troika on maintaining the JCPOA.
The important question, however, is whether Bolton’s silence reflects the continuing paradoxical and vague approach of the US towards the JCPOA? Or did Trump ask him to be silent in this regard and wait for the final results of their talks with Europe?
American senators still don’t have a clear picture of Trump’s final decision about the JCPOA. Meanwhile, some Republican senators like “Rand Paul” and “Jeff Flake” are worried about the costs and consequences of Trump’s decision to refuse joining other members of P5+1.
Most US senators tried not to mention the nuclear deal with Iran in their speeches during recent weeks. This is while some senators such as “Tom Cotton” and “Ted Cruz” strongly encourage Donald Trump’s government to pull out of the nuclear deal with Iran.
First published at our partner Mehr News Agency
Mexico in the Trump Era: Trying to Deal with and Overcome Social Dominance
My work with Social Dominance Theory focuses on explaining the most obvious legitimizing myths in maintaining a negative atmosphere between...
Reducing Carbon Emissions, Let Soil and Trees Do the Dirty Work
By now, most of us are familiar with the role forests play in absorbing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases...
Algerian controversy over Salafism puts government control of religion on the spot
A controversy in Algeria over the growing popularity of Saudi-inspired Salafi scholars spotlights the risk governments run in a region in...
Strong outbound tourism demand from both traditional and emerging markets in 2017
Virtually all source markets reported higher tourism spending in 2017, reflecting continued strong demand for international tourism across all world...
A European approach on Artificial Intelligence
The EU Commission is proposing a European approach to make the most out of the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence...
Pakistani Gwadar Port: A double-edged sword for Iran
Authors: Vahid Pourtajrishi & Elaheh Shirvani Gwadar port is located in the province of Baluchistan in Pakistan and on the...
Will the EU split into the East and the West?
On March 1, 2018 the European Parliament has adopted a resolution initiating a disciplinary procedure against Poland. Warsaw is accused...
Tech2 days ago
The Ethical and Legal Issues of Artificial Intelligence
Newsdesk2 days ago
Bangladesh: World Bank Increases Support for Clean, Renewable Energy
Newsdesk2 days ago
Mher Sahakyan on “Belt & Road from the Perspective of China’s National Security”
Middle East2 days ago
A Mohammedan Game of Thrones: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Fight for Regional Hegemony
Newsdesk2 days ago
New Funding for Mindanao Trust Fund to Strengthen Peace and Development in Southern Philippines
Americas3 days ago
Decoding Pompeo’s words at US senate
Tech3 days ago
Busting the Blockchain Hype: How to Tell if Distributed Ledger Technology is Right for You
South Asia13 hours ago
Pakistani Gwadar Port: A double-edged sword for Iran