The Gallup Poll has found that the number of Americans who feel proud of their country has declined to the lowest point in the two decades that Gallup has asked the question. The finding is intriguing since it also seems as if there are many in the US who support President Trump’s policy of “America First”. But the beginning of the decline predates Trump’s election. I hard to determine what is exactly responsible for the decline. Perhaps it is American fatigue of its role in world affairs. Or perhaps it stems from a seeming inability to address long-term problems such as the issue of race or the slow degradation of the nation’s infrastructure. Or it could be grwoing unease over the steady increase of inequality in the US. No matter what the cause, it is an unusual trend in American history and one that needs to be addressed if the legitimacy of the US state is to be sustained. It is unsettling to see that among Americans aged 18-29, only 20% are “extremely proud”.
North Korea has ended its negotiations with the US government on the possible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The negotiations started two years ago, and President Trump at that time believed that his personal relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had defused a very dangerous situation. Despite meeting twice in Singapore and Hanoi, the two never really understood each other. President Trump insisted that North Korea get rid of all its nuclear weapons, offering economic aid as an incentive. Leader Kim insisted that denuclearization included US access to nuclear weapons on the peninsula, ending the security arrangements the US had with South Korea. The North Korean Press Agency, KCNA, issued the following statement by Ri Son Gwon, Minister of Foreign Affairs of DPRK:
“A total shutdown of the northern nuclear test site, repatriation of scores of American POW/MIA remains, special pardon for the convicted felons of U.S. nationality who were held in detention – all these measures taken by our Supreme Leadership are indisputably significant ones of epoch-making resolve.
“Especially, we made a strategic determination whereby we took an initiative for suspending nuclear test and test launch of ICBMs in order to build confidence between the DPRK and the U.S.
“Such being the case, we should now turn to examining what has been done for the last two years by the United States, a party to the agreement, who has very often expressed gratitude for our measures of high determination.
“’No testing, getting remains.’
“’Hostages returned.’
“These are what the master of the White House representing the United States of America reeled off time and time again as a boast.”
The statement goes on:
“In retrospect, all the practices of the present U.S. administration so far are nothing but accumulating its political achievements.
“Never again will we provide the U.S. chief executive with another package to be used for achievements without receiving any returns.
“Nothing is more hypocritical than an empty promise.”
The fact that North Korea has decided to end the talks does not come as a surprise. Over the last few months it has tested a variety of missiles, being careful not to test an intercontinental ballistic missile or to test a nuclear bomb. Those tests were designed to elicit a response from the US to move the negotiations forward but they achieved little. The response of the US to those tests was tepid and non-committal. Significantly, Kim’s sister, Kim Yo Jong, issued her own statement via KCNA which explicitly threatened action against South Korea:
“Getting stronger day by day are the unanimous voices of all our people demanding for surely settling accounts with the riff-raff who dared hurt the absolute prestige of our Supreme Leader representing our country and its great dignity and flied rubbish to the inviolable territory of our side and with those who connived at such hooliganism, whatever may happen.
“The judgment that we should force the betrayers and human scum to pay the dearest price for their crimes and the retaliatory action plans we have made on this basis have become a firm public opinion at home, not part of the work of the field in charge of the affairs with enemy.
“It is necessary to make them keenly feel what they have done and what inviolability they hurt amiss.
“It is better to take a series of retaliatory actions, instead of releasing this kind of statement, which those with bad ears may miscalculate as the ‘one for threatening’ or from which they can make any rubbishy comments on our intention as they please.
“I feel it is high time to surely break with the south Korean authorities.
“We will soon take a next action.
“By exercising my power authorized by the Supreme Leader, our Party and the state, I gave an instruction to the arms of the department in charge of the affairs with enemy to decisively carry out the next action.”
Robert Carlin, writing for 38North, argues that the new North Korean policy is quite deliberate and strategic:
“This announcement builds on the anti-South Korea statements and media campaign that began on June 4 with Kim Yo Jong’s statement—her third so far this year, and her second aimed at South Korea. Kim’s statement was followed by an unusual statement issued by the party’s United Front Department, which in turn was followed up by commentaries in the party newspaper Rodong Sinmun and the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), and an ongoing series of rallies by front groups. This campaign seems too nicely choreographed, and too clearly aimed at the North Korean domestic audience, to believe that Pyongyang was acting on impulse simply in response to a single balloon incident.”
Unfortunately, even if the new policy is deliberate, we still do not know exactly what it means. June 15 will mark the 20th anniversary of the first inter-Korean summit. It may be the occasion for a new missile test or some other demonstration of North Korean capabilities. But, unless it is extremely provocative, it is unlikely that the US will respond in a measured manner. The Trump Administration has not distinguished itself by a measured or coherent foreign policy.
The Trump Administration has imposed sanctions on members of the International Criminal Court (ICC) because it has started to investigate was crimes committed by US troops in Afghanistan. The ICC was created in 2002 and 121 states have ratified the Rome Treaty, but the US never signed the treaty which is its legal basis in international law. Other states, such as China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Turkey, have also not ratified the Treaty. The terms of the treaty are specific: it only has jurisdiction if the state in command of the troops committing a war crime refuses to prosecute them for the crimes. In its history, the ICC has prosecuted a number of cases:
“The court’s first verdict, in March 2012, was against Thomas Lubanga, the leader of a militia in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He was convicted of war crimes relating to the use of children in that country’s conflict and sentenced in July to 14 years.
“The highest profile person to be brought to the ICC is Ivory Coast’s former President Laurent Gbagbo, who was charged in 2011 with murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and ‘other inhumane acts'”.
“Other notable cases included charges of crimes against humanity against Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta, who was indicted in 2011 in connection with post-election ethnic violence in 2007-08, in which 1,200 people died. The ICC dropped the charges against Mr Kenyatta in December 2014.”
There is no question that US troops committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Indeed, some soldiers have been convicted by US Courts Martial for war crimes. Unfortunately, some of those soldiers were pardoned by President Trump.
The sanctions represent yet another retreat by the US from a world order based upon international institutions and laws, a world order that the US supported after the end of World War II. Many of the US allies in Europe are disappointed by the US decision.
North Korea has severed all communications with South Korea and has announced that it will treat South Korea as an “enemy”. The move comes in the wake of a decision by South Korea to send propaganda material to North Korea from North Korean defectors. The materials have been sent previously and they probably came as no surprise to North Korean officials. But, according to NBC News, “The decision carried further significance because it was attributed in part to Kim Yo Jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who has risen in prominence in recent weeks. The blogsite, 38 North, argues that the attribution is significant:
“This announcement builds on the anti-South Korea statements and media campaign that began on June 4 with Kim Yo Jong’s statement—her third so far this year, and her second aimed at South Korea. Kim’s statement was followed by an unusual statement issued by the party’s United Front Department, which in turn was followed up by commentaries in the party newspaper Rodong Sinmun and the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), and an ongoing series of rallies by front groups. This campaign seems too nicely choreographed, and too clearly aimed at the North Korean domestic audience, to believe that Pyongyang was acting on impulse simply in response to a single balloon incident.”
Daniel DePetris, writing for The National Interest, believes that the move represents a significant setback for South Korean President Moon’s peace initiative to the North. But it also represents a setback for the US-North Korean relationship as well:
“At its core, the stoppage of the phone calls is more worrying for what it represents: the near-death of Moon’s signature foreign policy initiative. Time will tell whether the North Koreans are seeking to pressure Seoul into making additional concessions or whether, as seems likely, they’ve made the strategic calculation that engaging with the South is a waste of time as long as Washington holds a veto over South Korea’s policy.”
There has been very little attention given to North Korea by the Trump Administration recently. Since there was little evidence to support any hope for an agreement with North Korea this year, the Trump Administration apparently decided that there was little to gain in terms of the presidential election in November.
The Trump Administration has notified Germany that it plans to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany as part of NATO by 9,500 from the 34,500 permanently assigned. The troops will not necessarily be coming back to the US–many of them will be moved to Poland, another member of NATO. The decision elicited different responses from German politicians: conservative politicians, including members of Chancellor Merkel’s coalition, criticized the move, while left-wing politicians supported the decision. The Pentagon denied that the decision was influenced by the strained relations between President Trump and Chancellor Merkel, but it is hard to avoid that conclusion. Apparently the US did not inform Germany about the move prior to its announcement, and German officials learned of it from media reports.
“Since the formal decision was announced, a number of nuclear experts have also chimed in, warning of the dangers. Open Skies is the second U.S.-Russia arms control regime that the Trump administration has defenestrated in as many years, and experts worry that the landmark New START agreement—which stabilizes the nuclear balance, helps prevent costs from spiraling and enjoys bipartisan support—is next on the chopping block. There is still no clear explanation for why the Trump administration believes withdrawal serves U.S. interests.
“Arms control is a cheaper and safer alternative to military competition as long as compliance can be monitored, but as scholars Andrew J. Coe and Jane Vaynman have noted recently, sensitivities to intrusive monitoring can derail otherwise acceptable agreements. Open Skies is remarkable in that, by expressly facilitating overflights between the two countries, it overcame the ‘intrusive inspection’ barrier that frustrated so many U.S.-Russia arms control efforts throughout the Cold War. Moreover, the U.S. effectively secured the right to monitor compliance with the parameters of Open Skies under provisions in the treaty that guarantee the U.S. the right to physically inspect Russian sensor equipment and any data collected during overflights. The treaty is one of the few remaining avenues for arms control compliance verification that doesn’t rely on ‘national technical means‘—a country’s unilateral ability to spy or observe from afar.
Additionally, NATO has been conducting military drills close to the Russian border which the Russians regard as provocative. Despite President Trump’s urging, the members of the G-7 refused to consider re-inviting Russia to join the group, a slight that will only deepen the mistrust between NATO and Russia. It is difficult for me to find any coherent thread in US policy toward Russia and how it regards its allies.
I will confess that I had never heard of the Insurrection Act of 1807 until this last week. Apparently (and I am not a lawyer) the Act gives the US President the right to send active military troops at the request of a state governor to put down an insurrection. Hawa Allan has written a short essay on the Act for The Baffler. The Act has a sordid history since the primary insurrection that the Congress worried about in 1807 was a slave insurrection. Allan convincingly demonstrates the the Act is integrally wrapped up in the desire of slaveholders to ensure that slaves would always be kept under control and how that dynamic persists to the present day. It has been used on several occasions since that time, the most recent time being the Federal response to the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Allan writes:
“Though hardly common knowledge, the law happens to be the linchpin of several iconic events in African American history. Its invocation is enmeshed with this country’s long history of racial injustice: ‘insurrection’ has been defined, in practice, as either rebellion against slave power or ongoing racial injustice, or as resistance to federal laws mandating civil rights and integration. Radical Republicans attempted to use federal military power to quell white resistance in the South during Reconstruction. In the 1950s and 1960s, federal forces were called in to enforce the desegregation of public schools in Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. But it has also been used to meet urban unrest in the 1960s—in Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
“Though the Act has not been formally invoked since President George H.W. Bush deployed federal troops to Los Angeles in 1992, it has emerged as a legal facet in other more recent events in black history. In 2005, black residents stranded in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans were reimagined by the media and law enforcement with graphic violence—specifically, as rooftop snipers and perpetrators of pedophilic rape. Five years later, in 2010, the New York Times reported in retrospect that it was white vigilantes attacking black hurricane victims who were, in fact, the chief perpetrators of violence. As the Times further reported: ‘The narrative of those early, chaotic days—built largely on rumors and half-baked anecdotes—quickly hardened into a kind of ugly consensus: poor blacks and looters were murdering innocents and terrorizing whoever crossed their path in the dark, unprotected city.'”
The recent statements by former and active military officers opposing the invocation of the Insurrection Act testify to the reluctance of military commanders to use force against fellow citizens, even though the Rules of Engagement for domestic operations are quite strict. Most of the active US military troops have left the protest areas in Washington, DC so it does not appear as if President Trump intends to invoke the Insurrection Act right now. But the protests are likely to continue and much depends on how they will evolve as will the police response to those protests.
I had the sense today that there was a dramatic shift in attitudes toward the Trump Administration occasioned by his decision to deploy active military units to the demonstrations in Washington, DC. Such a move is not technically forbidden by the Constitution which remains obscure on many important issues. But the clear sense throughout US history, that deploying active troops (not National Guard troops) is an act that should be reserved only for the most extreme circumstances. The demonstrations by those who support the Black Lives Matter movement hardly qualify as a national emergency. There has been looting, but the looters are not participants in the protests, but rather organized gangs taking advantage of the chaos in the streets (some of those gangs have brought power tools to assist in their looting). The protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
The breaking point seems to have been the decision to break up the protest in Lafayette Square so that President Trump could walk from the White House to a church and hold up a bible. That particular protest was not accompanied by any looting (there are no businesses near Lafayette Square) and the press reports indicate that there were no assaults upon police officers from the protesters. The decision to break up the demonstration was a decision to deny citizens of the US the right to exercise their First Amendment rights to assemble and speak freely–in other words, to break the law. And the decision to break the law was backed up by the active military forces of the US.
This act was a bridge too far for many. President Trump’s first Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, a highly regarded Marine General, issued a statement which was both forceful and unexpected, since Mattis had always held that he did not think it appropriate for him to criticize the Commander in Chief. His statement was published in The Atlantic:
“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.
“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
“We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate.’ At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
“James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that ‘America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.’ We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.
“Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that ‘The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’’ We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
“We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Park. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s ‘better angels,’ and listen to them, as we work to unite.
“Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.”
Second, Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, published the following letter in The Atlantic:
“It sickened me yesterday to see security personnel—including members of the National Guard—forcibly and violently clear a path through Lafayette Square to accommodate the president’s visit outside St. John’s Church. I have to date been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump’s leadership, but we are at an inflection point, and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.
“Whatever Trump’s goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces.
“There was little good in the stunt.
“While no one should ever condone the violence, vandalism, and looting that has exploded across our city streets, neither should anyone lose sight of the larger and deeper concerns about institutional racism that have ignited this rage.
“As a white man, I cannot claim perfect understanding of the fear and anger that African Americans feel today. But as someone who has been around for a while, I know enough—and I’ve seen enough—to understand that those feelings are real and that they are all too painfully founded.
“We must, as citizens, address head-on the issue of police brutality and sustained injustices against the African American community. We must, as citizens, support and defend the right—indeed, the solemn obligation—to peacefully assemble and to be heard. These are not mutually exclusive pursuits.
“And neither of these pursuits will be made easier or safer by an overly aggressive use of our military, active duty or National Guard. The United States has a long and, to be fair, sometimes troubled history of using the armed forces to enforce domestic laws. The issue for us today is not whether this authority exists, but whether it will be wisely administered.
“I remain confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform. They will serve with skill and with compassion. They will obey lawful orders. But I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief, and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops. Certainly, we have not crossed the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act.
“Furthermore, I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.
“Even in the midst of the carnage we are witnessing, we must endeavor to see American cities and towns as our homes and our neighborhoods. They are not ‘battle spaces‘ to be dominated, and must never become so.
“We must ensure that African Americans—indeed, all Americans—are given the same rights under the Constitution, the same justice under the law, and the same consideration we give to members of our own family. Our fellow citizens are not the enemy, and must never become so.
“Too many foreign and domestic policy choices have become militarized; too many military missions have become politicized.
“This is not the time for stunts. This is the time for leadership.”
Third, the current US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, openly defied US President Trump by repudiating the idea of using active military troops to enforce domestic law. Esper made a straightforward statement quoted in The Military Times:
“‘The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations,’ Esper told reporters Wednesday at the Pentagon. ‘We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.’
It is not clear how long Esper will remain as Defense Secretary. The reports are that President Trump is quite angry about the statement.
Finally, on a more personal note, the son of one of my college roommates served in the Marine Corps and did three tours of duty in Afghanistan. Yesterday, he posted the following note on Facebook:
“Enough. If you’re reading this and you love and respect me, know that I love and respect you too. Especially to those with whom I was lucky enough to serve in harms way, know that it will forever be the greatest honor of my life to call you my brothers and sisters. You are my brothers and sisters still. For a long time I’ve kept my mouth mostly shut around politics. It’s been too difficult to navigate those conversations, especially with people who I love and respect so much, who I know feel differently about the state of the nation and the conduct of our president than I do. So I’ve stayed quiet. I haven’t responded when you’ve praised him or defended him. I haven’t challenged you when you’ve stayed silent. When he disrespected Gold Star mothers. When he disrespected General Mattis, the closest thing to a living saint us Marines may ever have. When he abandoned our allies. When he mocked the disabled. You were silent, and I didn’t challenge you. I treasured our bonds too much to put up with the discomfort of confronting those issues with you. I was a coward. I can’t do that anymore. This is wrong. It’s been wrong for so goddamned long. We are at the point now where we have to decide if we are ready to rebuild some semblance of American goodness and decency- if we are ready to stand for something other than brute strength and ‘I win, you lose’ tribalism. I’m ready for that. I’m so desperately ready for that, and I’m done keeping my mouth shut. If the way that you see the President leading this country right now looks good and right to you, then you need to understand that you and I do not share the same values anymore. If a crowd of lawfully assembled protestors being tear gassed and trampled out of the way so a President can stand in front of a church, hold up a Bible he’s never read, and declare his readiness to deploy military force on American soil against American citizens sounds right to you, then I don’t know how to relate to you anymore. If you are commenting online right now about how eager and ready you are to kill other Americans then you are no friend and no brother of mine. This is wrong.
For me, the statement was a sure sign that President Trump’s decision to try to “dominate” the protesters was a significant political mistake, one from which he will likely never recover.
Simon Tisdall writes for The Guardian and I think highly of his insights. His most recent article examines conflicts that have gone for an extended period of time and asks the question why has it been so difficult to end them? He examines the conflicts in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. His analysis is based on data found in the Armed Conflict Survey 2020(ACS), published by The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). That survey found that “in 21 of 33 of active armed conflicts across the globe, the number of non-state armed groups involved exceeds the number of state groups. More armed groups are operating with a decentralised chain of command and adapting to new challenges by experimenting with new technologies and exploiting business opportunities, obstructing any hopes of reconciliation and resolve.”
Tisdall finds that the great powers fuel the conflicts but are reluctant to insert themselves directly into the violence. That hands-off tactic makes it difficult for the smaller groups, funded by the great powers, to make concessions which are usually necessary to bring about an end to conflict. Tisdall also believes that the international and multilateral institutions have lost power and legitimacy in the wake of the US withdrawal from many organizations:
“A related factor is the collapse of the western-led consensus favouring multilateral, collaborative approaches to international problems. This is matched by the parallel rise of authoritarian and populist regimes that prioritise narrow national interest over perceptions of the common good.
“This trend, a regression to the pre-1914 era of competing European nation-states, undermines the authority of the UN and cooperative regional platforms such as the EU and African Union. Unsupported, UN peace envoys from Syria to Myanmar and peacekeeping operations across Africa struggle to make headway.
“Ineffective international law enforcement, symbolised by the inability of the International Criminal Court to deliver justice to war zones such as Iraq and Ukraine, helps freeze or perpetuate conflicts rather than justly resolve them. Demographic and physical causes also contribute to chronic instability.”
The reversion to a balance of power system likely means that the conflicts will rarely challenge the fundamentals of the international system but will be occasions for the great powers to test each other’s mettle.
The protests in the US are becoming propaganda points for states that the US has criticized for human rights abuses. Iran and China are accusing the US of hypocrisy as the protests target issues of police brutality and discrimination against African-Americans. Iran took the opportunity to take a US press release criticizing Iran for human rights abuses and red-penciled in some comments identifying the problems in the US.
Similarly, China, which has been the target of unrelenting US criticism (except from the President of the US) for its handling of the protests in Hong Kong, accused the US of hypocrisy:
“The riots in the US have lasted just a week, efforts for reaching a peaceful solution have barely been made, yet, Trump and Cotton have blatantly put their chips – sending troops to quell protests – on the table. This could be argued as the most extreme response to disorder among governments across the world.
“Then why did Washington arrogantly and unreasonably accuse other countries of quelling riots? Why did politicians in Washington overbearingly portray the US as the beacon of democracy and human rights? Have they really not anticipated that the US could one day confront the situation as it does today and that their previous big talk could become a slap on their face?
“People see the US falling into disgrace. As the novel coronavirus sweeps across the world, the US ranks No.1 in terms of confirmed cases and deaths. As anti-racist protests surge, the government and Congress should have taken quick action to comfort their people, but have instead exacerbated confrontation and led to the spread of the chaos. What is more irritating is that US political elites have played hypocrisy and barbarism. The hooligan nature of Washington makes it a complete nuisance.”
There have been sympathy protests in many countries in the world, signalling the widespread condemnation of the death of George Floyd and other African-Americans. There does not seem to be any strategy being used by the current US administration to respond to these global criticisms.
One of the wonderful benefits of teaching at a place like Mount Holyoke College is that I get to work with individuals with extraordinary talents. One such person is Jenna Ruddock who just completed her law degree i Washington, DC. She is a gifted photographer and she posted one of her photographs from the demonstration in DC last night which I think captures the uncertainty and agony in which the country currently finds itself.
This is a self photo taken by Jenna after she had been tear gassed. Here is her comment to the photo:
“What it looks like when a country tear gasses its own citizens, including a whole group of journalists.
“Deeply grateful to the protesters who grabbed my arm and led me out because I couldn’t see, and poured milk and saline solution over my eyes, nose, and mouth, being careful not to douse my camera.”
We are indebted to all the journalists like Jenna who are enduring a lot of pain so that we can see the truth. May their courage be sustained.
My post yesterday was about whether the violence we are witnessing in the protests about the treatment of African-Americans in the US is justified. The post made a simple argument: if one is concerned about violence, then it is best to be concerned by all sorts of violence, including the normalized violence of centuries of discrimination. Today’s post will deal with the second objection to violence: that it alienates potential supporters of true change and undermines the message being conveyed by the protests.
Let me first make a personal observation. I have witnessed many protest demonstrations in my life and was deeply involved with some of them, such as the anti-war protests during the Vietnam War. Political protests are energizing and they allow dissent to be made visible in ways that personal beliefs cannot. It is a mistake, however, to think that everyone participating in a protest is there for the same reason. In the Vietnam War protests there were people who joined the demonstrations because they believed it was an opportunity to procure marijuana, or because they hated capitalism, or because they didn’t wish to go to class, or because they saw it as a way to find casual sex. Do not make the mistake of thinking that a large mass of people has a monolithic mind. It might for some fleeting moments, but a protest is a dynamic environment and it is easy to lose sight of why one is there.
Second, and related to the first point, is that there are opportunists in every demonstration. And those opposed to the protests will almost invariably suggest that “outside agitators” have hijacked the protests. The tactic is calculated to undermine the legitimacy of the protests. In the current situation, US President Trump and Attorney General Barr, have singled out “far-left” agents as being the trouble-makers. Mr. Trump today went so far as to designate Antifa as a “terrorist organization”. The designation is only legal for foreign agents, not groups who are domestically based (one need only to think about how such a power could be abused to destroy all legitimate opposition to a government). I am not sure what the phrase “outside agitator” means in the context of a national movement–all American citizens have the same and equal right to dissent.
Third, protests have a very short shelf-life. They can be dramatic episodes. but the demands of daily life overtake the exuberance of the moment. And, for those who do not participate in the demonstration or who might actually be opposed to the demonstration, protests are generally flashes in a pan. Protests are wonderful instruments for learning more about oneself, but they do not have a long-term effect on those who do not participate in the demonstration. When protests are made over a long period of time and there are no effective changes made to respond to the issues raised by the protests, one can legitimately ask the question of whether they are useful politically. That question can certainly be raised in the current situation. There have been a large number of African-Americans who have been killed by police, and each of those tragedies stimulated protests. But there is little to show by way of making the changes necessary to avoid future tragedies.
The Smithsonian magazine ran an article about how the civil rights protests of the 1960s were addressed. Some of those protests were very similar to those we are witnessing today: burnings, lootings, and confrontations with police. The Kerner Commission which investigated the causes of the riots and made suggestions for change. The conclusions in 1968 were clear:
“Pent-up frustrations boiled over in many poor African-American neighborhoods during the mid- to late-1960s, setting off riots that rampaged out of control from block to block. Burning, battering and ransacking property, raging crowds created chaos in which some neighborhood residents and law enforcement operatives endured shockingly random injuries or deaths. Many Americans blamed the riots on outside agitators or young black men, who represented the largest and most visible group of rioters. But, in March 1968, the Kerner Commission turned those assumptions upside-down, declaring white racism—not black anger—turned the key that unlocked urban American turmoil.
“Bad policing practices, a flawed justice system, unscrupulous consumer credit practices, poor or inadequate housing, high unemployment, voter suppression, and other culturally embedded forms of racial discrimination all converged to propel violent upheaval on the streets of African-American neighborhoods in American cities, north and south, east and west. And as black unrest arose, inadequately trained police officers and National Guard troops entered affected neighborhoods, often worsening the violence.
“‘White society,’ the presidentially appointed panel reported, ‘is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.’ The nation, the Kerner Commission warned, was so divided that the United States was poised to fracture into two radically unequal societies—one black, one white.
Very little seems to have changed since 1968. The question is whether violence hastens change or retards it. Violence raises the visibility of protests since the media is more likely to film incidents of violence than incidents of peace. But the violence also allows opponents of the protests to focus on something other than the issues underlying the protests. And many supporters of a cause might be repelled by acts of looting or property damage. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote a rejoinder to this argument in today’s Los Angeles Times:
“So, maybe the black community’s main concern right now isn’t whether protesters are standing three or six feet apart or whether a few desperate souls steal some T-shirts or even set a police station on fire, but whether their sons, husbands, brothers and fathers will be murdered by cops or wannabe cops just for going on a walk, a jog, a drive. Or whether being black means sheltering at home for the rest of their lives because the racism virus infecting the country is more deadly than COVID-19.
“What you should see when you see black protesters in the age of Trump and coronavirus is people pushed to the edge, not because they want bars and nail salons open, but because they want to live. To breathe.
“Worst of all, is that we are expected to justify our outraged behavior every time the cauldron bubbles over. Almost 70 years ago, Langston Hughes asked in his poem “Harlem”: ‘What happens to a dream deferred? /… Maybe it sags / like a heavy load. / Or does it explode?’”
It is hard to imagine how violence can be avoided given the refusal of American institutions to protect the African-American community despite the overwhelming evidence that that community is the victim of both structural and episodic violence. The more reasonable question is whether the American people will refuse to let its vision be diverted from the essential issue, its aspiration to be a nation of true and genuine equality. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood well what the real issue was in 1963 as it remains in 2020:
“In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’
“But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”
World Politics News 