Propaganda value
By James Ruhland
web posted May 10, 2004
Overlooked last week in the uproar of Abu Ghraib was yet
another display of American arrogance. When the government of
Sudan was elected to the UN Human Rights commission, U.S.
representative Sichan Siv said "The United States is perplexed
and dismayed by the decision to put forward Sudan -- a country
that massacres its own African citizens -- for election to the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights" and then walked out of the vote
in yet another display of American unilateralism and contempt for
the international community.
Which only goes to show that unilateralism in the face of the
international community is no vice. It's useful to pair these two
episodes, one that received blanket coverage worldwide and
another that received almost none. It isn't that the abuse of Iraqi
prisoners should not receive attention, but global outrage can be
highly selective. This is because for many what is important is not
so much a principled concern for human rights, but an
opportunity to criticize the United States. They see this issue in
terms of its propaganda value. That is why there are such double
standards – Sudan elected to the UN's Human Rights
Commission in the same week that the world is condemning
America for the behavior of some of our soldiers. The pictures
showing American soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners allows
many both at home and abroad to say what they always wanted
to anyhow, that America is no better than its foes.
Even countries that insist they are America's allies are quick to
believe the worst about our government, while they are full of
understanding for other governments with far worse human rights
records. Overlooked is the fact that the real distinction between
America and countries which receive far less scrutiny is that we
punish people for such behavior that many other governments
reward. The difference between America and its enemies is that
while Palestinians and Islamist terrorists are proud of killing
women and children or decapitating Jewish journalists like Daniel
Pearl, we apologize for the abuse of people by Americans. But
somehow sophisticated world opinion rationalizes the former and
describes those who inspire such attacks as "spiritual leaders" (of
Hamas, for example), but no American apology is ever good
enough.
European governments that are full of outrage over Abu Ghraib
often want America to tone down its condemnation of regimes
that encourage torture as an instrument of control because it
harms dialogue with them, upsets relations or isn't "even-
handed". International condemnation of such regimes is muted or
absent altogether, quite the converse of their overblown fury at
the United States. That really displays a distinction between the
America they can condemn in the most strident terms and the
dictatorial regimes that are coddled by comparison. They know
that harsh criticism of America brings no negative consequences
while governments that are too critical of practices in China or
Iran might lose commercial deals of economic importance, and
media organizations might lose "access" they consider vital. This
is why CNN, to name just one example, ignored savage
violations of human rights in Ba'athist Iraq in order to maintain
their access to officials in that brutal regime, and why France and
Russia turned a blind eye to the same in exchange for lucrative oil
deals. They mute their criticisms of far worse behavior in the
world and show near indifference to the election of a genocidal
regime to the UN's Human Rights commission, while demanding
American deference to that institution's "moral authority". They
engage in moral preening so long as there is nothing really at
stake, because all the criticism aimed at the U.S. government as
uniquely reprehensible is a sign that those making the charges
don't really believe the outlandish accusations. They know they
won't suffer for it the way they would for expressing harsh
condemnation of truly despicable regimes. It is the international
version of Americans who loudly and vocally proclaim that their
dissent is being stifled, knowing they will face none of the things
that routinely happen to dissidents in other countries.
A lot of conservative Americans see this, but the reaction of
some is to minimize the reprehensible nature of what happened at
Abu Ghraib. We need to be careful to avoid responding to the
hypocrisy of all too many of America's critics with hypocrisy of
our own. I've heard some compare it to fraternity hazing, but this
minimizes the abuse. The distinction we need to make is a clear
one: Americans are not perfect, but when wrongdoing occurs,
our nation responds properly. There was no cover up here.
Indeed the Department of Defense "scooped" the media and the
world on this, reporting the investigation of Abu Ghraib in
January, long before it before it became an international
cause celeb. What makes America an easy target is our
faults are publicly scrutinized, revealed to all both at home and
abroad. This is a virtue not a vice as it allows us to correct things
that other nations often bury and hide.
As Donald Rumsfeld said in House testimony, "America is not
what's wrong with the world." But apparently that's not what the
world thinks. Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds wrote that
"there are dark moments, however, when I wonder if the world
doesn't hate us because we hold the moral high ground, and if
many wouldn't breathe a secret sigh of relief if we started living
down to their standards." Such dark moments can lead to
another temptation that lures some conservative Americans,
isolationism. The desire to "come home, America" when faced
with a world that ignores and forgets the good we do to create
benefits they share in at little cost, a world that prefers to
castigate America at every opportunity, a world where even
supposed friends are quicker to criticize than understand.
It is a desire to say "fine" and leave them to their fates can be
strong. Those fates would be dire, but we would have to live in
the resulting world as well. The very behavior of the global
village that we find so repugnant is why we need to remain
engaged. Absent our leadership the hypocritically lax standards
of much of the world would become the governing norm. It is the
efforts of America and its closest allies which creates an
international climate vital not just to the people of other countries
but to ourselves as well. We have to live in no matter and will be
faced with whatever norms of international behavior exist. In the
absence of another nation that would not only fill our international
role but promote the same values we would suffer if we
withdrew. So we must continue to bear the burden and pay the
price – even when that is the contempt of our so-called allies and
friends.
We would be better advised to make a stronger effort at telling
our side of the story to the world, not just on Abu Ghraib but on
every issue. To that end, we should bring back the United States
Information Agency. But small-government conservatives should
understand better than anyone that this is not a job for the
government alone. One of the isolationist reactions to the rest of
the world that is indulged in even by conservatives who favor an
active foreign policy is to tune it out and decide that it is not
worth the effort to try and persuade foreign audiences, that the
effort to engage in debate and counter-argument with them is
pointless. They devote efforts to engage in the battle of ideas at
home but not abroad. It is true that the devoted anti-Americans
are not open to reasoned debate and persuasion, but there are
many in the world whose views of America would be different if
we didn't cede the discussion to the vocal polemicists who
despise us. This is a lesson that too many conservatives who
admire Ronald Reagan seem to have forgotten. The people of
Eastern Europe were endlessly propagandized to hate our
country, but Reagan was unflagging in his efforts to counter this
propaganda and defeat it by engaging in rhetorical battle with our
enemies. That needs to be part of our response here and
conservatives need to emulate his example.
We must also not forget that our integrity is not determined by
their behavior. Sure, the heated outrage of so many of America's
critics is overblown to the point of self-parody. That says a lot
about the type of people they are. But it does not determine the
type of people we are. Only our own reaction to the despicable
acts of a few American soldiers determines that. We show our
respect for the vast majority of America's military personnel, the
ones who serve with honor, by clearly distinguishing them from
the few who dishonor the uniform and the flag. We cannot allow
excuses and rationalizations to stand in the way of justice. This
will show that we mean what we say about the rule of law.
Americans are not perfect and Americans are not either, but we
punish wrongdoing rather than turning a blind eye to it or
excusing it the way so many often do.
James Ruhland writes Porphyrogenitus.net and will
be entering the U.S. Army this week.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com