Financial Times: “ Biden Forced into Saudi Thaw Amid Rising Oil Prices”.The Week: “… the coronavirus pandemic and Russia’s Ukraine invasion forced Biden to set aside concerns…”.New York Post: “… forced Biden to eat crow by visiting Riyadh…”.CNN: “… forced Biden’s reversal on Saudi Arabia…”.The New Arab: “… the global energy crisis has forced Biden to focus on building a relationship with Riyadh…”.Bloomberg: “ Soaring Oil Prices Force Biden to Engage With Saudis He’d Spurned”.Last summer, for instance, when Biden rolled out the red carpet for Saudi dictator and journalist-slayer Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, we were told repeatedly that he was, again, “forced” into doing so (emphases mine): It’s simply taken for granted that US officials’ default position is identical to that of a scrappy, well-meaning humanitarian organization, unless circumstances “force” them to take a different position.įor being such a noble empire, the US is “forced” into such moral compromises quite frequently. That the US would back a country because it is autocratic, as opposed to backing a country despite this fact, never crosses Baker and Mashal’s minds. Biden is being forced to accept the flaws of America’s friends. At a time of confrontation with Russia and an uneasy standoff with China, Mr. Biden has concluded, much as his predecessors did, that he needs India despite concerns over human rights just as he believes he needs Saudi Arabia, the Philippines and other countries that are either outright autocracies or do not fit into the category of ideal democracies. Join thousands of others who rely on our journalism to navigate complex issues, uncover hidden truths, and challenge the status quo with our free newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox twice a week:Īfter much hand-wringing about Modi’s well-documented illiberal policies, the Times breathes a sigh, then asserts-again, without any skepticism or evidence-that the US sincerely cares about “human rights” but simply Has No Choice but to look the other way in this instance: The Times simply states as an agreed-upon fact that President Joe Biden, along with the broader US diplomatic apparatus, have genuinely felt “democracy concerns.” No other major global power enjoys the taken-for-granted presumption of its perpetual, axiomatic concern for democracy-it’s a moral tiara only placed upon the head of The New York Times’ home country. The headline alone is a masterclass in obfuscation: “In Hosting Modi, Biden Pushes Democracy Concerns to the Background.” The term “Democracy Concerns” is not put in scare quotes or otherwise presented as something that ought to invite skepticism, a self-serving claim of internal motive made by the White House that the reader should perhaps take with a grain of salt. It’s simply taken for granted that US officials’ default position is identical to that of a scrappy, well-meaning humanitarian organization, unless circumstances “force” them to take a different position. Take as a recent example an ostensibly straight New York Times report by Peter Baker and Mujib Mashal explaining why the US just rolled out the red carpet for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last month, “despite” India’s increasingly grim human rights record. There’s a subtle but deeply ideological media trope that asserts, with no evidence or explanation, that supporting despotic, human rights-abusing countries-an ongoing and decades-long tradition-is something the US, the most powerful country in the history of earth, is reluctantly “forced” to do.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |