Lordre: US_State_Department

Showing posts with label US_State_Department. Show all posts

No, a government's word is not evidence

In a normal and healthy polity, one can accept the word of the state as factual. However, as failings mount, it becomes impossible to actually maintain that trust.

If we are determined to be sceptics, then, in all cases, what officials said can only really be evidence of what they have said. It can be reported accurately as the rationale behind their decisions, and whether we adhere to the narrative might be considered evidence of loyalty to the state, at least until evidence emerges that the state is mistaken.

The word of Uncle Sam as ultimate truth

In a verbal duel with journalist Matt Lee of the Associated Press, US State Department spokesperson Ned Price insisted that the US government can be accepted as an honest source of information. Specifically, Ned Price wanted his far-fetched allegations about a Russian false-flag operation in Ukraine, including references to unpublished and undisclosed video evidence, to be reported by the press as facts.

Looking at the journalist as if he was crazy, Price suggested that the words he (Price) was uttering may be printed by Lee onto a piece of paper, and that this paper can then be given as evidence. When told that he had presented no evidence, a flustered Price went on to claim that not believing his classified US sources would be tantamount to adoration towards Russian propaganda.

Obvious baloney

Not only is there valid reason to doubt Ned Price's honesty, but there are clear indications he and his organisation were lying.

Explicit references by Price to video media, accompanied by no release of such video media, indicate deliberate dishonesty of the same type most of us already know as "clickbait". An honest source that could only give its word would not speak words about a video. Such a source would instead admit that it can only give its word, hand on heart. To speak otherwise, and make reference to specific undisclosed video, is a tactical move aiming to deceive, like offering a preview of a video to an audience, only to then provide a narrating voice throughout the actual file.

This reference to video evidence that won't be released is clearly intended with cynicism. The aim is to mislead those who glance headlines in our busy age into mistakenly thinking video evidence exists that they just don't have time to look at. Without a video, someone wants you to react as if there is a video. Ask yourself, is such a tactic typical of authentic behaviour, or is it in fact deliberate dishonesty and manipulation, in keeping with the character of liars?

Flipflopping on command

As soon as the CIA deems something to be acceptable, all American institutions and journalistic outfits immediately start saying it is acceptable, ultimately making reference to it being the CIA's wish. Wikipedia cites US intelligence officials as arbiters of fact, ignoring any need for independent confirmation. For them, it is America first, and all other countries' points of view are rejected as disinformation. Fact-checkers then rely on this US-aligned source to distinguish fact from falsehood, which is then used to inform labelling on social media platforms.

In the case of the Wuhan lab leak theory, which is still unconfirmed, it was originally labelled as false while the CIA did not agree with it. As soon as US intelligence officials began stating that it was credible, the label was lifted by international media and social media platforms and the story was considered credible.

Are liars reliable sources?

Unfortunately, the CIA and NSA have a clearly established record of telling lies, as in the case of the Iraq War and mass collection of Americans' data. The targets of these lies are often the American public and even elected officials, as the CIA tries to disseminate whatever it finds expedient or in its interests for you to believe.

Ned Price formerly worked for the CIA, as did many of the venerated and undisputed heroes of current American foreign policy. Sordid organisations with dark pasts, committed to lies and omission, devoted to the prosecution, defamation and torture of journalists, are presented to Americans as windows into all truth about the reality they inhabit.

There are signs that Russia and America are taking sides in the conflict in Ethiopia. But who is worse than the other?

Throughout the Tigray crisis, Russia has been supportive of the Ethiopian government managing its own internal affairs. On the opposing side, the American State Department maintains a list of condemnations of the same regime's handling of its affairs.

The Tigray Region's people have genuine grievances against the government of Ethiopia, and increased autonomy may be the solution. However, with separatist rebels seizing core territories from the central government and threatening to march on the capital Addis Ababa, it is clear that something is not right with what should be a very much local conflict for the rights of a region.

While the United States has expressed disapproval of the rebels' advances, it is also clear that the US is no friend of the Ethiopian regime anymore, having applied sanctions against it. As always, the sincerity of US intentions with regard to human rights and their sanctions in response to abuses should be doubted. The US staunchly backs notorious human rights-abusing regimes nearby, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

It should also be considered that Ethiopia was a US ally since the fall of the former Soviet-backed Derg regime in the country. It had sought to maintain policies favourable to the US, including good relations with Israel, and was more reliable to the US than the uncooperative regimes of adjacent Eritrea and Sudan. Why America might choose to undermine its own ally and convince it to move into the Russian and Chinese camp, giving Moscow a new ally at no cost, is difficult to understand.

One may compare the possible battle for Ethiopia with the far more severe but now frozen conflict in Syria, where the US also placed sanctions on the central government. In Syria, however, the US went a step further and directly armed rebels in the country. This turned out to be a mistake, as the rebels were not really on the brink of victory and were later pushed back by the central government with Russian assistance from 2015 despite receiving their own aid from the United States.

Ethiopia may have irritated the US by growing closer to China rather than Russia, but Russia stands out as more vocal and more passionate than its economic powerhouse ally when it comes to war and conflict. Russia, not China, wants its place on modern battlefields with the US, and it seems to want to be on the opposing team to America.

Russia’s position on conflicts is usually just the UN’s position

By and large, Russian and Chinese positions on foreign policy are not radical or revisionist in nature. In almost every case, Russian and Chinese demands align entirely with the United Nations. Despite the unfavourable coverage of Russian foreign policy in the Western press, it is the United States rather than Russia that more often seems to ignore international law and the consensus of the United Nations.

The US routinely declares governments to be illegitimate and announces a new regime, as it did with Venezuela. This is a violation of the norms of international law and undermines any sincere hopes for a rules-based order, which requires not wantonly interfering in other states and instead going to recognised international bodies with one's concerns. One country's government, whether Western or not, cannot simply act as a kingmaker by declaring part of the world under new management, faxing out communiques for the press to reprint obediently and tell everybody the news.

China and (with some exceptions) Russia are fierce defenders of international law. They back up regimes not because they like them or approve of their human rights record, but because they are the recognised government and guarantor of stability in a country. In their view, regime change is reckless and irresponsible and promotes chaos, as observed in Iraq and Libya. It is an obligation in international relations that you recognise the sovereignty of another state, even if it is the not the kind of state you would establish yourself.

Surely, you might then say, Russia is at a disadvantage to America. Russia is stuck defending old regimes, while America gets to topple them with sanctions and every other tool in its toolbox? Surely, every government in the world will flip gradually to the side of America? This is the thinking that seems to guide aggressive American foreign policy, but the Russians see things differently.

Russia, and possibly America too, may not have the resources or requisite influence to overthrow all the world's governments and set up new ones. Russia does tend to go for lower-cost strategies or wait for the other side to become tired, whereas America tends to throw money at problems. All things being considered, the Russian approach seems to be working better.

Russia winning allies effortlessly while the US struggles to retain them

While America failed to turn Syria into a friendly country despite pouring significant funds and ten years of its time into the effort, Russia won a major ally with very little effort and less time just by shoring up the Syrian regime in its time of need (it even profited from weapons sales and acquired a large military base). While America devises sanctions to pressure its former long-time ally Turkey to do its bidding, Russia simply doesn't do that and therefore is a more appealing partner to Turkey.

Russia is able to appeal to America's allies to change sides based on the mere fact that America is so unappealing as an ally. America doesn't want the outcomes other countries want; it wants what America wants and has no tolerance for the interests of others. By just tolerating other regimes and their goals (what has been called a multipolar world in Russian foreign policy advocacy), Russia is able to steadily ally with everyone at very little cost, whereas America has to enter a costly confrontation with each government in the world.

While the US may decide to overthrow the government of Ethiopia, and may see Tigrayan rebels as possible servants in a new regime, such a step would not convert more of the world or even this one country to America's cause. The Russians and Chinese are not going to help the Ethiopian government oppress the Tigray Region and create a spectacle for Americans. They will simply pursue a peaceful settlement in the country. Tigrayan fighters, if they really received American backing and were victorious, would eventually just desire a peaceful homeland rather than to act as agents of destruction against some regime, and the Americans would begin to hate them.

Pages