Friday, February 24, 2012

Hard to Fathom

Trey Smith

Each year, the U.S. State Department, as required by law, issues a “Human Rights Report” which details abuses by other countries. To call it an exercise in hypocrisy is to understate the case: it is almost impossible to find any tyrannical power denounced by the State Department which the U.S. Government (and its closest allies) do not regularly exercise itself. Indeed, it’s often impossible to imagine how the authors of these reports can refrain from cackling mischievously over the glaring ironies of what they are denouncing (my all-time favorite example is discussed in the update here).

In 2010, the State Department included a long section on the oppressive detention practices of China. The “principal human rights problems” of the tyrannical Chinese government include “a lack of due process in judicial proceedings” and “the use of administrative detention.” Indeed, “arbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems. The law grants police broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges.” Can one even find the words to condemn these Chinese monsters?
~ from Khader Adnan and Now-Normalized Western Justice by Glenn Greenwald ~
If you haven't noticed, it is this kind of information that gives rise to my frequent and vehement denunciations of my own government. While ALL governments are hypocrites, it is hard to fathom that any nation on the face of the earth is more hypocritical than our very own.

We criticize others for the kinds of things we routinely do and our leaders don't bat as much as an eyelash at the, shall I say, irony.

Just take a look at one contemporary issue. Our leaders are all up in arms because Iran is pursuing nuclear power and, potentially, nuclear weapons. We might have a wobbly leg to stand on IF we ourselves were trying to curtail -- better yet, end -- our use of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

But we are doing nothing of the sort! We possess the second most nuclear warheads (slightly behind Russia) in the world and we happen to be the only nation to drop nuclear bombs during a war. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, we have utilized depleted uranium in the various bombs and missiles that we have rained down on these countries. We are the poster child for the irresponsible threat and use of nuclear weapons.

So, why do we get to decide which nations can possess nuclear technology and which ones cannot? Personally, I would like to see ALL nations agree to eschew nukes and to phase out nuclear energy, but that prospect -- particularly in the US -- is unlikely. So, if we have the right to jeopardize the health and safety of the entire world, why shouldn't Iran have the same right as well?

10 comments:

  1. Getting rid of nuclear weapons won't stop rogue regimes from trying to develop them. In fact, I argue getting rid of our nuclear arsenal will make us less safe, because we would lose the protection of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, then utilizing your calculus, the US should welcome the addition of Iran to the world of nukes. It should strengthen MAD!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Because Iran and North Korea are run by crackpots and idiots? I would trust even the weirdest president we could elect more than Kim Jong Un and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with nuclear weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But why would they do that when they can use our fear of nuclear weapons as an excuse to start another war?

    Lucky for Baroness, Hawaii wouldn't be a very popular target. When you live just outside New York on the other hand...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually there was a moment just a couple years ago, when Kim Jung Il was suggesting that Hawaii was a perfect target. Although we are pretty well defended with PACOM and sophisticated early warning and tracking facilities. Nuclear subs are in and out of here all the time; not just powered, but armed.

    We still remember Pearl Harbor. Vividly. Which is why Hawaii wasn't that astonished at 9/11. Hawaii is still a strategic target, and might be construed as a convenient little sacrifice by someone who wanted to make a point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Baroness,

    Ahmadinejad is a crackpot? You should read some of the stuff Glenn Greenwald has reported lately.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, okay, maybe not a crackpot. How about...flaky lame duck leader of an Islamic theocracy that would like nothing more than to wipe Israel off the map. Who needs a shave.

    And Kim Jong Un probably hasn't had time to prove that he's a crackpot in Mao-Redux land, but odds are strong in his favor.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As I've heard it, the leader of Israel "would like nothing more than to wipe Iran off the map." So, they seem to be even.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, not speaking for myself exactly (your point is well taken), but the US has traditionally been on Israel's side. Loyalty counts for something. And also to the point, who is on North Korea's side?

    The US and China, as the two big powers today, have a great responsibility to moderate and keep these various "little guys" in check. It's a scary and dynamic world, on both fronts. While China appears to be coming out of its long period of weirdness, with new younger leadership coming up, I worry that our own leadership is clueless.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.