SPECIAL FROM FAIR—[Fairness & Acuracy in Reporting]
Posted on 08/22/2012 by Peter Hart
There’s nothing quite like the demise of a U.S-allied dictator to get the Paper of Record talking about the “clash” between U.S. “ideals” and the actual policies the country carries out.
Zenawi: Our man in the Horn of Africa. RIP
Today’s New York Times (8/22/12) carries the headline “Ethiopian Leader’s Death Highlights Gap Between U.S. Interests and Ideals,” under which Jeffrey Gettleman lays out the case that the United States kept Ethiopian leader Meles Zenawi, who died early this week, in the “good guy” column despite our normally idealistic approach to world affairs.
Gettleman writes that Zenawi extracted prized intelligence, serious diplomatic support and millions of dollars in aid from the United States in exchange for his cooperation against militants in the volatile Horn of Africa, an area of prime concern for Washington.
But he was notoriously repressive, undermining President Obama’s maxim that “Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.”
But, Gettlemen explains:
Despite being one of the United States’ closest allies on the continent, Mr. Meles repeatedly jailed dissidents and journalists, intimidated opponents and their supporters to win mind-bogglingly one-sided elections, and oversaw brutal campaigns in restive areas of the country where the Ethiopian military has raped and killed many civilians.
The real trick is the first word: “Despite.” Readers are supposed to see these as unusual characteristics for a leader backed by the United States, which of course would much rather the world be governed by those who respect international law and human rights.
That supposed commitment is difficult to locate. After his death, Gettleman reports, Hillary Clinton praised his “personal commitment” to lifting Ethiopia’s economy and “his role in promoting peace and security in the region.” But she made no mention of his rights record and gave only a veiled reference to supporting “democracy and human rights” in Ethiopia.
Gettleman deserves some sort of award for this passage:
Ethiopia is hardly alone in raising difficult questions on how the United States should balance interests and principles.
Saudi Arabia is an obvious example, a country where women are deprived of many rights and there is almost no religious freedom. Still, it remains one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East for a simple reason: oil.
In Africa, the United States cooperates with several governments that are essentially one-party states, dominated by a single man, despite a commitment to promoting democracy.
One could spend considerable time compiling a list of the tyrants, dictators and human rights abusers the United States has supported, from Suharto in Indonesia to Mubarak in Egypt. Or consider the Reagan-era policies of Latin America, which saw the United States supporting strongmen and fielding armies to overthrow governments we didn’t care for.
Elite institutions like the Times need to maintain the comfortable fiction that the United States has a unique and laudable commitment to spreading democracy and human rights. Most people with a passing knowledge of U.S. history would know that there are too many exceptions to this rule to make it a rule at all. Thus, every now and then, an article like this is written to demonstrate that there is in fact some awareness that the United States does not practice what it preaches. An effective propaganda system requires these small openings.
Let’s keep this award-winning site going!
| Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts. |
|---|
| Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year. |
Use PayPal via the button below.
THANK YOU.
One Response to “NY Times and the Myth of ‘U.S. Ideals’”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
EDITED FOR PRESENTATION ON TGP
9 original responses to NY Times and the Myth of ‘U.S. Ideals’
Doug Latimer says:
08/22/2012 at 1:32 pm
When you can’t ignore the present
You obscure the past
Steve says:
08/22/2012 at 2:43 pm
Good post, although “supporting strongmen” hardly begins to capture the Carter/Reagan era policy towards El Salvador, which involved throwing weapons to death squads killing thousands every month for several years. And the Obama era policy in Latin America also involves “supporting strongmen” who overthrew democratically elected leaders in Honduras and Paraguay.
Glenn says:
08/22/2012 at 3:04 pm
America is a concept in much the same way that God is a concept. Could people look at the concept of America, with all the emotion invested in it as being powerful, wise, just and merciful on one day, and then be confronted with facts that prove the contrary the next day, then embrace the refutation of that concept, and then take that refutation in stride, calmly beginning then, the search for a new way to understand America?
Is it possible to be a theist one day and, by the simple acquisition of one more fact, become an atheist the next day? I say a group conversion is not possible though it is possible for an individual.
So whenever facts challenge the concept, be it the concept of God or the concept of America, the inclination is to say, “I still believe,” whether from honesty or from fear of being stoned by an infuriated mob. It is to be rehabilitated, to ask for forgiveness, before leaving the public view.
It is to bow before the concept of money, that pervasive totalitarian authority that demands veneration, that demands one recede from its presence facing it, walking backwards, as if departing the presence of a monarch.
It is to say, as one would of a king: America, as a concept, is dead; long live America.
Padre says:
08/22/2012 at 9:19 pm
I guess I have to side with Molly Ivins on this: it just means we have to get off our ass and take it away from these people. But it isn’t’ going to happen if we all sit around, whining and moaning about ‘how terrible it is’.
Our forefathers didn’t the advantage we have; we still have process and a real government in place, we the people just need to stand up and take it back. Start talking with your neighbors, challenge the ‘status quo’; I can recall a time 20 years ago when “corporate welfare” was not ‘heard of’ in the media, though it was rampant then. Some small radio station kept the message going and today in these area I see constant reference to “corporate welfare”.
The unions stood by the current Occupant of the Governor’s office Sacramento, and there was a little more change. Sometimes we lost a battle, Steve walker is the best example. But we have lost the war yet.
PEASEHEAD says:
08/23/2012 at 5:47 pm
What “ideals?” During the age of decolonization which followed WWII, the United States did everything in its power to thwart or undermine liberation movements, and to support White minority governments throughout Africa. The United States only supports African “leaders” who put its interests and those of Western multinationals ahead of those of the people who live in Africa. The United States has been involved in Africa as long as it (the United States) has been a nation. Unfortunately, 99% of its involvement has been negative, self-serving, and destructive for Africans and their societies. This comes as no surprise considering that it has always viewed Africa through a racist prism as a backwards and hopeless place where Whites go to take what they want. One should never forget that its first serious involvement in Africa was as a major participant in the slave trade. That has set the tone for all of its “involvements” ever since.
Ted Cloak says:
08/24/2012 at 7:27 pm
What you all said. That said, consider what our nice middle-class American lives would be like if (1) we weren’t the empire of all empires, and if (2) the Democrats didn’t win elections now and then to keep a little of the rapine products trickling down to us. (We may be about to find out.)
PEASEHEAD says:
08/25/2012 at 7:44 am
There are quite a few nations without empires whose citizens live quite well. There are also several imperial nation-states like ours in which the majority of the benefits accrue to a very small percentage of the population. One would be hard put to say that our large prison population benefits from how well our empire does overseas. There is also a lot of real and endemic destitution in large regions of this country. There always has been. Whether they are empires or not, cultures, or at least their leadership class, allocate resources to produce the kind of society they want. Ours is the dog-eat-dog model of civilization. As the American empire inevitably fades we can choose to remain a dog-eat-dog society or we can try something else.