Connect with us

Americas

Three Days of Hatred and Mayhem: Musings on the Value of Life, Human Rights, Freedom and Justice

Published

on

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.

Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Who benefits more from the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva?

Published

on

With the Putin-Biden summit in Geneva around the corner, the question is who actually benefits more from the meeting in the small Swiss town.

Mainstream media and right-wing foreign policy thinkers alike have argued that a joint press conference would “elevate” President Putin to the level of the American President.

Ivana Strander, the Jeane Kirkpatrick fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, argued that the upcoming Geneva summit is actually “a gift” to Putin.

In a CNN story, Kaitlan Collins and Kevin Liptak mention that “officials who have been involved in arranging past US meetings with Putin say the Russian side often pushes for a joint press conference, hoping to elevate Putin’s stature by having him appear alongside the American leader”.

Whether as a subconscious bias or an actual reflection of attitudes, prevalent is the idea that coming close to the US President is a privilege that other leaders can only dream about. But who gains more from the upcoming summit?

In fact, it is the American President who is vying for other leaders’ approval and acceptance once again after a humiliating period – not the other way around. American is emerging from Trumpism, which revealed the other, ugly face of America. Trumpism is not gone and the other face of America is still there.

This week, US President Joe Biden is eager to show the world that America is “back”. In meetings with the G7, NATO countries’ top leaders, the NATO Secretary General, the Queen of England, and President Putin in the same week, Biden is asking the world to forget the last four years. And he is not doing this from the position of power or superiority. That’s why assuming that other heads of state, be it Putin or anyone else really, can only gain by coming close to the superiority of the American President is a misplaced and misguided. The US President is asking the international community to take America back – not the other way around.

President Putin doesn’t need the US President’s acceptance – Putin already got that. That happened back in 2018, in Helsinki, when President Trump sided with Putin over the US government’s own intelligence agencies, by rejecting the idea of Russia’s meddling in the US presidential elections. Trump slapped across the face and humiliated the US intelligence community in front of the whole world. Ever since, the US intelligence community has tried to figure out ways to prove Trump wrong and show him otherwise. And they have gone to incredible lengths, only so that they can get their pay pack of a sort, and prove Trump wrong. So, Putin already got what he wanted. He doesn’t need more “elevation”.

What’s also striking is that in Geneva, the UN is absolutely missing from the action. Geneva is the home of numerous UN agencies and international organizations, and not one is actually involved, which speaks volumes to questions of relevance. It is the Swiss government from Bern which is organizing the Summit. The UN is nowhere to be seen which is also indicative of the current Biden priorities.

If Trump was about “America First”, then Biden is about “America is still number one, right?”. But as the United Kingdom learned the hard way recently, it is sometimes best for a declining power to perhaps elegantly realize that the rest of the world no longer wants to dance to its tune, or at least not to its tune only. Discussions about how much Putin gains from coming close to the presence of the US President are misguided. In trying to climb back on the international stage on crotches and covered up in bruises, America is not in a position to look down on other big powers. And as regards who benefits more from the Summit, it seems like one side is there with a clear request asking for something. My understanding is that it is Biden who wants Putin to hand cyber criminals over to him. Putin still hasn’t said what he wants from Biden, in return.

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump’s legacy hangs over human rights talk at upcoming Biden-Putin Geneva summit

Published

on

biden-syria
Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Two days after the NATO Summit in Brussels on Monday, US President Joe Biden will be in Geneva to hold a much anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders are meeting at the shores of Lake Geneva at a villa in Parc la Grange – a place I know very well and actually called home for a long time. The park itself will be closed to the public for 10 days until Friday.

A big chunk of the lakeside part of the city will be closed off, too. Barb wire and beefed up security measures have already been put in place to secure the historic summit. The otherwise small city will be buzzing with media, delegations and curious onlookers.

I will be there too, keeping the readers of Modern Diplomacy updated with what’s taking place on the ground with photos, videos and regular dispatches from the Biden-Putin meeting.

The two Presidents will first and foremost touch on nuclear security. As an interlude to their meeting, the NATO Summit on Monday will tackle, among other things “Russian aggression”, in the words of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Last week, Stoltenberg said that he “told President Biden that Allies welcome the US decision, together with Russia, to extend the New START Treaty, limiting strategic weapons, and long-range nuclear weapons”. To extend the treaty is an important first step for Stoltenberg. This will be the obvious link between the two summits.

But Biden also has to bring up human rights issues, such as the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny and Putin’s support for the jailing of Belarusian activists by Lukashenko. Human rights have to be high on the agenda at the Geneva Summit. And indeed, Biden has confirmed officially that pressing Putin on human rights will be a priority for the American side.

Biden and Putin are not fans of each other, to say the least. Both have made that clear in unusually tough rhetoric in the past. Over the years, Biden has said on numerous occasions that he has told Putin to his face that he doesn’t “have a soul”. Putin’s retort was that the men “understand each other”.

Right at the beginning of his Presidency, earlier this year, Biden also dropped the bomb calling President Putin a “killer” for ordering the assassination of political opponents. The Russian president responded to the “killer” comment on Russian television by saying that “it takes one to know one”. Putin also wished Biden good health, alluding to the US President’s age and mental condition which becomes a subject of criticism from time to time.

Understandably, Putin and Biden are not expected to hold a joint press conference next week. But we weren’t expecting that, anyways.

For me, this Summit has a special meaning. In the context of repression against political opponents and critical media voices, President Biden needs to demonstrate that the US President and the US government are actually different from Putin – if they are any different from Putin.

This week, we were reminded of Trump’s legacy and the damage he left behind. One of Trump’s lasting imprints was revealed: Trump had the Department of Justice put under surveillance Trump’s political opponents. Among them House Democrats, including Congressman Adam Shiff, who was one of the key figures that led Trump’s first impeachment that showed that Trump exerted pressure on Ukrainian authorities to go after Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

In the context of Trump’s impact, President Biden needs to show that there has to be zero tolerance towards the cover up by the US government of politically motivated attacks against voices critical of the US government. If President Biden wants to demonstrate that the US government is any different from Putin’s Russia, Secretary of State Blinken and FBI director Chris Wray have to go. Biden has to show that he won’t tolerate the cover up of attacks on political critics and the media, and won’t spare those that stand in the way of criminal justice in such instances.

Biden is stuck in the 2000s when it comes to Eastern Europe, as I argued last week but he needs to wake up. President Biden and the US government still haven’t dealt effectively with Trump’s harmful impact on things that the US really likes to toot its horn about, such as human rights and freedom. Whether the upcoming Geneva Summit will shed light on that remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Americas

Will Geneva Be Any Different Than Helsinki?

Published

on

Joe Biden
Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Any meeting between the leaders of Russia and the U.S. is inevitably an important international event. At some point in history, such summits decided the fate of the entire world, and the world held its collective breath as it followed Kremlin-White House talks on strategic arms or the two sides seeking agreements on urgent regional problems or any political signals coming from the superpower capitals prior to another round of negotiations.

The bipolar era has long been gone, and the Russia-U.S. relations are no longer the principal axis of international politics, although the suspense over bilateral summits remains. As before, the two countries are engaged in “top-down” interaction. Summits give the initial impetus to Moscow and Washington’s cumbersome bureaucratic machines, then diplomats, military personnel and officials start their assiduous work on specific issues, collaboration between the two countries’ private sectors and civil society perks up, the media gradually soften their rhetoric, bilateral projects in culture, education and science are gradually resumed.

Still, there are annoying exceptions to this general rule. In particular, the latest full-fledged Russia–U.S. summit in Helsinki in July 2018 failed to trigger improvements in bilateral relations. On the contrary, Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in Finland’s capital aroused massive resentment among the anti-Russian Washington establishment. Ultimately, on returning home, the U.S. President had to offer awkward apologies to his supporters and opponents alike, and relations between the two countries continued to rapidly deteriorate after the summit.

Surely, nobody is willing to see another Helsinki scenario in June 2021, this time in Geneva. Yet, do we have good reason to hope for a different outcome this time? To answer this question, let us compare Donald Trump and Joseph Biden’s approaches to Russia-U.S. summits and to bilateral relations at large.

First of all, in Helsinki, Trump very much wanted the Russian leader to like him. The Republican President avoided publicly criticizing his Russian counterpart and was quite generous with his compliments to him, which inevitably caused not only annoyance but pure outrage in Washington and in Trump’s own Administration. Joe Biden has known Vladimir Putin for many years; he does not set himself the task of getting the Russian leader to like him. As far as one can tell, the two politicians do not have any special liking for each other, with this more than reserved attitude unlikely to change following their meeting in Geneva.

Additionally, in Helsinki, Trump wanted, as was his wont, to score an impressive foreign policy victory of his own. He believed he was quite capable of doing better than Barack Obama with his “reset” and of somehow “hitting it off” with Putin, thereby transforming Russia if not into a U.S. ally, then at least into its strategic partner. Apparently, Biden has no such plans. The new American President clearly sees that Moscow-Washington relations will remain those of rivalry in the near future and will involve direct confrontation in some instances. The Kremlin and the White House have widely diverging ideas about today’s world: about what is legitimate and what is illegitimate, what is fair and what is unfair, where the world is heading and what the impending world order should be like. So, we are not talking about a transition from strategic confrontation to strategic partnership, we are talking about a possible reduction in the risks and costs of this necessarily costly and lengthy confrontation.

Finally, Trump simply had much more time to prepare for the Helsinki summit than Biden has had to prepare for Geneva. Trump travelled to Finland eighteen months after coming to power. Biden is planning to meet with Putin in less than five months since his inauguration. Preparations for the Geneva summit have to be made in haste, so the expectations concerning the impending summit’s outcome are less.

These differences between Biden and Trump suggest that there is no reason to expect a particularly successful summit. Even so, we should not forget the entire spectrum of other special features of the Biden Administration’s current style of foreign policy. They allow us to be cautiously optimistic about the June summit.

First, Donald Trump never put too much store by arms control, since he arrogantly believed the U.S. capable of winning any race with either Moscow or Beijing. So, his presidential tenure saw nearly total destruction of this crucial dimension of the bilateral relations, with all its attendant negative consequences for other aspects of Russia-U.S. interaction and for global strategic stability.

In contrast, Biden remains a staunch supporter of arms control, as he has already confirmed by his decision to prolong the bilateral New START. There are grounds for hoping that Geneva will see the two leaders to at least start discussing a new agenda in this area, including militarization of outer space, cyberspace, hypersonic weapons, prompt global strike potential, lethal autonomous weapons etc. The dialogue on arms control beyond the New START does not promise any quick solutions, as it will be difficult for both parties. Yet, the sooner it starts, the better it is going to be for both countries and for the international community as a whole.

Second, Trump never liked multilateral formats, believing them to be unproductive. Apparently, he sincerely believed that he could single-handedly resolve any burning international problems, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to North Korea’s nuclear missile programme.

Biden does not seem to harbor such illusions. He has repeatedly emphasized the importance of multilateralism, and he clearly understands that collaboration with Russia is necessary on many regional conflicts and crises. Consequently, Geneva talks may see the two leaders engage in a dialogue on Afghanistan, on the Iranian nuclear deal, on North Korea, or even on Syria. It is not at all obvious that Biden will succeed in reaching agreement with Putin immediately on all or any of these issues, but the very possibility of them discussed at the summit should be welcomed.

Third, Trump was not particularly fond of career diplomats and, apparently, attached little value to the diplomatic dimension of foreign policy. The Russia-U.S. “embassy war” had started before Trump—but not only did Trump fail to stop it, he boosted it to an unprecedented scale and urgency.

Sadly, the “embassy war” continues after Trump, too. Yet President Biden, with his tremendous foreign policy experience, understands diplomatic work better and appreciates it. Practical results of the Geneva summit could include a restoration of the diplomatic missions in Washington and Moscow to their full-fledged status and a rebuilding of the networks of consular offices, which have been completely destroyed in recent years. Amid the problems of big politics, consular services may not seem crucial but, for most ordinary Russians and Americans, regaining the opportunity for recourse to rapid and efficient consular services would outweigh many other potential achievements of the Geneva summit.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending