The U.S. State Department: Carrying “The White Man’s Burden” or Playing “Wag the Dog”?
By Tesfaye Hailu 04/02/10
After
reviewing my mid-term paper on a course in International Relations, a well
respected professor with years of teaching experience and expertise on Asia and
Middle East geopolitics offered me his valuable critique: “The problem with
your paper is that it tends to regard rights organizations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch as unbiased and just entities with no special
interest whatsoever. And there are people, myself included, who would strongly disagree
with that notion.” And he returned the paper to me, advising me to go back to
the drawing board, and conduct a better “academic and independent” research or,
failing that, to balance it out with views from the other end of the political
spectrum.
Years
later, the U.S. State Department’s human rights report on Ethiopia reminded me
of the professor’s advice and made me think that someone should have returned it
back to the authors with a note for better investigative reporting. However, I
don’t think the State Department is as naive as I was in my university years
when it comes to discerning the true colours of institutions in the “Rights
Business”. In that case, why is the State Department taking reports from these
special interests at face value, and spreading it to the world as gospel truth?
Furthermore, why is it not making any effort to create a level playing field by
providing the Ethiopian government the opportunity to tell its side of the story?
A
friend of mine with whom I was having a discussion on this particular issue had
his own theory. He said that some agenda setters and
decision makers in the West are simply jealous of the development path Ethiopia
is pursuing and the progress it has registered in such a short period of time.
But I begged to differ, arguing that – as impressive and as highly promising its
development is – Ethiopia still has a long way to go before someone in the
economically developed world gets jealous of it. So, he asked for my opinion as
to what else behind the State Department’s reasoning could be. And I came up
with three assumptions:
1) “The White Man’s Burden”
English
poet Rudyard Kipling had “The White Man’s Burden” poem published in 1899 initially
“with the subtitle The United States and the Philippine Islands” to reflect on
the American invasion of the Asian country. The jury is still out on whether Kipling
intended the poem to literally embrace colonialism as “a noble enterprise” or just
as a satire to denounce “Western aspirations to dominate the developing world.”
Whatever
Kipling’s intentions might have been, the term “the white man’s burden” essentially
has become “emblematic of Eurocentric racism”, which
is embedded in the concept of “European supremacy” that is still alive and well.
The rules of engagement certainly have changed. It’s not “the white man’s
burden” anymore, but rather the concern of the “free” or “civilized” world with
donor knows best attitude. No one in his right mind, for instance, uses the
term “savages” and vows to free those apparently “in bondage” in this day and
age. Rather, intentions are concealed and politically correct terms, under the
mantra of justice, human rights and democracy, are the norm in this era of globalization
and new world order.
The
bad news for those who are heavy-laden with the white man’s burden, however, is
that the same Ethiopia that rejected their ancestors’ rescue mission during the
18th., 19th. and
20th.centuries certainly is not going to welcome it in the 21st. century, no
matter how well it’s repackaged and how sophisticatedly it’s marketed.
2) “Wag
the Dog”
In a
1997 political satire movie, “Wag the Dog”, veteran Hollywood actors Robert DeNiro and Dustin Huffman play as Washington spin-doctor
and a Hollywood producer respectively “joining efforts to fabricate a war in
Albania in order to cover-up a presidential sex scandal just two days prior to
an election.”
Of
course there is no direct correlation here as the current real life U.S.
president is not known to be in any personal scandal and there is nearly three
years before the American election is due. But it’s fair to ask what compelled the
U.S. State Department to talk about prisoners in Ethiopia? After all, the U.S.
has no moral authority to raise this particular issue anywhere in the world until
it clears skeletons in its own closet. According to a 2008 research by Becky
Pettit, an associate professor of sociology and Bryan Sykes, a post-doctoral
researcher,
... one in 100 Americans [was] behind bars in 2008, about
2.4 million people [were] incarcerated and nearly 60 percent of young black
males who dropped out of high school have served time in jail ... These effects
are most heavily felt by low-skill black males, and the disproportionately high
incarceration rates among African-Americans suggest the prison system is a key
suspect in these demographic results.
It
would be funny if it weren’t sad that theses huge number of Americans in general
and African-Americans in particular languishing in state as well as federal
jails and penitentiaries are there not just for serious but also silly crimes.
In a “three strikes you are out” law literally taken from a baseball game, a
court in the State of California, for instance, sentenced an African-American by
the name Jerry Dewayne Williams “25 years to life in prison for stealing a
slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children.” And if you think this was
during American confederation, think again. This was in 1995.
Add
to this the recent Guantanamo Bay prison scandal that put the United States in
hot water, one can’t help but wonder if the issue at hand is a case of “misery
loves company” or “wag the dog” at play. Either way, though, as a country that proudly
displays “In God We Trust” slogan on its currency and that confesses to be
guided by Christian values to this very date, perhaps it would be appropriate for
the U.S. to pay attention to the wise words of Jesus Christ – author and
finisher of the Christian faith:
How can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out
of your eye”, when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take
the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck
out of your brother’s eye.
3) “House
Slaves” At Work
When
our ancestors fought against foreign invasion and sacrificed their lives to
keep colonialists at bay, there were some traitors – albeit very small in
number – that shamelessly sided with the enemy by providing information;
serving as guides or raising arms against their own people.
This
is not at all to imply that the United States – or any other Western country,
for that matter – is an enemy of Ethiopia. And our country is certainly not at
war with the world super power. Nonetheless, as the saying goes, history is
repeating itself, as some Ethiopians – like the “Diaspora” agitators and their local
agents (Guddai Asfetsamiwoch)
whom Malcolm-X would have labelled House Slaves – go out of their way and work
day and night to drum up support against their own country by providing
unsubstantiated and false information to special interests such as “Human
Rights Watch”.
Blinded
by hate and/or desperately seeking a shortcut to power, these house slaves have
sold their soul, not to mention their country, to the highest bidder who they
hope would eventually quench their thirst for glory. But the good news is that,
like the ancient enemy collaborators, they are few and far between. Indeed, the
vast majority of Ethiopians are determined to be masters in their own house and
– regardless of which political party or leader is at the helm – they will say
thank you but no thank you to foreign interferers who try to arm-twist them to
political or economic subjugation.
To
sum up, all three assumption discussed above – perhaps in the order that they appear
– could be behind the U.S. State Department’s relentless attack on Ethiopia. Thus,
it’s not just the government’s but every concerned Ethiopian’s duty to speak
up, and say no to such a blatant and unjustifiable intervention.