Monday, April 28, 2008
Asymmetrical outrage: Reaction to war crimes
War crimes -- even covered up war crimes -- are just not front page news unless the people accused are American or Israeli. For example, where are the screaming editorials, documentaries, demonstrations, and long speeches when the United Nations is the alleged perp?
Is this disparity in the world's reaction because the United Nations has so much more legitimacy than the United States or Israel that people are willing to give it a pass, or so much less that criminality and corruption at the UN are just not newsworthy?
I am in the latter camp, but one of today's sad truths is that most of the world is in the former. Of course, most of the world outside of the Anglosphere and few paradisical European countries is also criminal and corrupt, so it all makes sense.
22 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Apr 28, 09:51:00 AM:
It comes about because the diplomats at the United Nations are accountable to no one but the dictators of their respective countries. In this way it resembles the bureaucracy of the European Union, which has a level of authority beyond the reach of the subjects of the various component countries after the initial buy-in. The UN and EU are kindred spirits, then, and natural allies. But the US government is accountable to the voters under a constitutional framework. So when the US government does something, it is an extension of the will of the populace. And if they do something wrong, the populace is shamed into doing something about it, because we can. But the EU and UN are, as indicated above, accountable to no one. When they perpetrate war crimes, there is nothing to be done.
By 
TigerHawk, at
Mon Apr 28, 10:12:00 AM:
I agree, teresita, but very few non-Americans agree with us. I think we need to recognize that. Most people in the world have no problem with corruption or criminality in the abstract.
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 10:50:00 AM:
I think you err in assuming it is about some kind of fundamentally moral "right and wrong"; or perhaps you are begging the question?
If it serves the Trans-national progressive movement, then of course it will be publicized. Reducing the influence of the capitalist roaders and raising the consciouness of the progressive movement is, of course, the mission of this sort of propaganda (or lack thereof).
Why else is "Abu Graib" the key buzzword that surfaces every time one of these "debates" surfaces. Al Qaeda can murder thousands of Iraqis or Afghans, but the actions of a few members of the US Army at Abu Graib mis-treating a few dozen Iraqi captives trumps all that.
And the UN? They are intended to be the TOOL of the Trans-national progressives in creating a New World Order. The are above criticism.
-David
By Will Conway, at
Mon Apr 28, 11:00:00 AM:
I fall in the boat with you, Tigerhawk, but I tend to doubt people's general feeling toward the former.
Somehow, I think, on our shores we (we is not in reference you or I personally... it's directed more at the relatively ignorant American people as a whole) generally ignore the actions of the shores opposite us. This naturally falls apart when we're talking about Israel, or the Middle East in general because we have a stake in that land (economically and militarily). Basically, I think Americans, rightfully to a degree, tend to pay more attention to issues regarding them, so the UN situation didn't play as big a role in American media.
By Kohath, at
Mon Apr 28, 11:03:00 AM:
It is because the press worldwide hates the US and Israel and likes the United Nations.
They also don't care about war crimes at all and only pretend outrage in select cases for the purposes of political gain.
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 11:20:00 AM:
It's "dog bites man" vs. "man bites dog". And, being western democracies, the US and Israel *should* be held to a higher standard.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Apr 28, 11:31:00 AM:
So, you completely admit to holding a double standard then? Rape, smuggling, and trading humanitarian goods for sex from children (to name a few things that UN 'peacekeeping troops' have been guilty of) is acceptable, even normal, so long as Americans and Israelis aren't involved?
What absolute moral degradation.
By [IMH], at
Mon Apr 28, 11:31:00 AM:
anonymous:
What, because other than the US and Israel, other nations aren't capable of hitting that high standard, and therefore we should forgive them their war crimes?
Lovely way of thinking.
By Darel, at
Mon Apr 28, 11:56:00 AM:
Simple. America is the {insert successful company here} of the world nations. It therefore is the subject of such attacks.
What most of the world seems to forget is that America hasn't changed at all. We have always been as we are now. The only thing that changed is we became outrageously successful and powerful, so now it is "arrogance"
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 12:24:00 PM:
It's called, "Agenda-driven outrage". When Bill Clinton (D)carpet-bombed civilians in Serbia the left was silent; now that Bush (R) has invaded Iraq and freed millions from tyranny they are outraged.
By Unknown, at
Mon Apr 28, 01:10:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, I'm not sure I accept your dichotomy. It's not a matter of legitimacy, so much, as bitter envy. We the people of these United States tend to think of ourselves as the 'good guys.' Just as our domestic system is designed to defend individual liberties and the rights of the minority (ideological as well as demographic), so we also take it upon ourselves to defend liberties abroad. When we see gross oppression, we fight it, where reasonable. And nobody else does.
So underneath, all this anti-Americanism isn't really contempt and hatred, it's shame and envy. They seize upon Abu-Graib not because it's typical, but because it isn't. They grasp at any straw they can to bring us down a notch, to say to the world, "See, those haughty Americans aren't any different from the rest of us!"
Yet we are. And they know it. And they hate us for it.
By Dan, at
Mon Apr 28, 01:36:00 PM:
"And, being western democracies, the US and Israel *should* be held to a higher standard."
What a crock of steaming bovine crap. Nobody has ANY right to hold ANYBODY to a higher moral standard than anybody else.
We just happen to usually hold *ourselves* to a higher standard...but that's because we have a culture that's demonstrably superior to many others.
And it's not such a difficult task to hold yourself to a higher moral standard than what seems to apply to about 90% of the UN membership.
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 01:54:00 PM:
What hasn't been addressed by the comments above is the utter indifference by our mass media to the UN story. I'm not just talking about the "world" media, but our own domestic media. Abu Graib made cover after cover on TimeNewsweekNYTimesWashPostetc and merited headlining story after story on CNNMSNBCABCCBSCNNFOX. Abu Graib was thrust into the domestic and world consciousness by a very active and very outraged media.
Where are they now? How can it be possible that they are ALL indifferent to this story? Where are the interviews with the victims? The children? How can it be that there is a universal editoral opinion among our domestic media that the UN story is "not newsworthy," but a thousand stories about pedophile priests were?
Sheesh, I keep trying to not end up a paranoid nut, but it gets harder every day!
By randian, at
Mon Apr 28, 03:59:00 PM:
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 04:03:00 PM:
I habitually hold others to a higher moral standard than I hold myself so that others inevitably fail while I succeed. As a result, I can consider myself morally superior. Easy.
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 04:04:00 PM:
"And, being western democracies, the US and Israel *should* be held to a higher standard."
What is your opinion of the UN Human Rights Commission, primarily composed of tyrants? Should the UN HRC be listened to when it condemns Israel, and ignores human rights violations by its members?
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 04:21:00 PM:
How about, in part, it doesn't sell papers or garner rewards and accolades for the news organizations and reporters?
Reporting on crimes committed by the US sells. Reporters are praised for their courage and dedication. Crimes committed by the UN? Who cares except rightwingers who want to undermine the institution (so the thinking goes).
Hell, if the NY Times received Abu Ghraib-like photos of UN troops abusing prisoners, would they even run them? Certainly not for 52 straight days.
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 04:22:00 PM:
I congratulate Teresita for a fine post. Well thought out comments are a pleasure to read. If the fear of administrative, non-constitutional state action diverges from the wishes of it's constituent parts is the cause of consternation for observant citizens, could that be why the so-called EU "constitution" failed to pass in so many places?
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 07:08:00 PM:
The rest of the world only seems to care when the US or Israel does something because the honest truth is unless the US or Israel does anything it either doesn't get done or is insignificant.
Other countries that have squandered away their prestige by spending all their time kissing their own asses realize just how irrelevant they are. Name one significant UN action that was successful that wasn't 99% US with only a token representation from the other countries.
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 09:37:00 PM:
What, because other than the US and Israel, other nations aren't capable of hitting that high standard, and therefore we should forgive them their war crimes?
We don't need to forgive their war crimes nor rationalize them, just recognize there is nothing to be done because dictatorships cannot be shamed into stopping abuse. Unless we are prepared to invade every third-world hellhole.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Apr 29, 05:23:00 PM:
And that is why 'international law' is stupid.
By , at
Thu May 01, 09:59:00 AM:
Call it the Spitzer Principle: when a person or entity presents themselves as a shining moral example, it's fun to gloat when they don't measure up to it. The US has for a long time been a (or the) world leader, and has presented itself as a symbol of freedom, democracy, and to a certain extent morality. When we don't live up to that standard, others are bound to enjoy it just like most of us took at least some small pleasure in Spitzer's fall from grace.
Also -- on the domestic front, at least -- local news always dominates. When the Giants win the Super Bowl, that's front page news. If CSKA Moscow wins the Euroleague championship, it's buried deep in the sports section.
