View from America

By M. R. Josse GAITHERSBURG, MD: There is never a dearth of interesting news and views to cover in this weekly column from the U.S. of A. Truth be told, there is usually so much stuff to report/comment on that the problem for yours truly usually boils down to is what to toss and what not to. Without further ado, let me refer to a major news story in today’s Washington Post (25 October) – so lengthy that it is near impossible to read through at one go – that provides the reader with the bitter taste and foul miasma of the profane taunts that President Joe Biden is receiving in the heart of Trump-land a year before the nation goes through the mid-term elections grinder. A small sampling will, I believe, be edifying, if not elevating. Here goes: “Last Wednesday, when the president visited Scranton, Pa., he was greeted at the corner of Biden Street by a woman holding a handmade ‘F…Joe Biden’ sign, with the American flag as the vowel in the offending word. And, back in Boise, Id., Rod Johnson, a retired gunsmith, hung a blue flag from the roof of his home that reads ‘F...Biden’. Underneath, in smaller letters, he added, ‘And f---you for voting for him.’ ” OBJECT OF HATRED The Post reportage clarifies: “It’s clear that after nine months in office, Biden – or at least what he represents – is increasingly becoming an object of hatred to many Trump supporters. The vitriol partly reflects Trump’s own repeated baseless claims that Biden is a usurper, depriving him of his rightful claim to the presidency, and partly stems from Biden actions that Republicans deplore, from his spending plans to his immigration policies. “Yet the anger also demonstrates how a political party or cause often needs an enemy, a target of vilification that can unite its adherents – and, in this case, one refracted through the harshness, norm-breaking and vulgarity of the Trump era.”

American President Joe Biden. Photo: Internet

What also piqued my interest – in quite a different way - was a news story in the same newspaper days earlier that informed that the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon have officially concluded that climate change will exacerbate long-standing threats to global security. Together, the Post says, the reports show a deepening concern within the U. S. security establishment that the shifts unleashed by climate change can reshape U.S. strategic interests, offer new opportunities to rivals such as China, and increase instability in nuclear states such as North Korea and Pakistan. One is informed that the Pentagon report in particular marks a shift on how the U.S. military establishment is incorporating climate issues into its security strategy. On the other hand, the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on climate, a first-of-its-kind document by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, builds on other grim warnings from national security officials about how a changing climate could upend societies and topple governments. Notably, the NIE identifies 11 countries of being particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change: Afghanistan, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iraq, Myanmar, North Korea, Nicaragua and Pakistan. Though Nepal is not mentioned anywhere in the news story, it would be a splendid idea, I believe, for our over-the-horizon-thinkers - if such a breed exits in our fabled land – to visualize how climate change could impact on Nepal, be it with respect to drastic changes in rainfall patterns, increasing ice-melt flows or the growing threat of glaciers bursting dams and so forth. Incidentally, methinks it would not be entirely wasted effort for those steeped in such arcane matters back home to begin to ruminate about such an unthinkable as a ‘water war’ between China and India, in the context of climate change – or even against the backdrop of India going whole hog with the United States and her allies in their coordinated effort to contain or thwart the rise of China. Such a ‘war’ can be visualized, I’d say, with respect to the waters of the mighty Yalutsangpo/Brahmaputra, not to mention umpteen other rivers that flow from China’s Tibet to Nepal and thence to India’s Bihar and Uttar Pradesh provinces. TAIWAN, AGAIN Taiwan has, once more, focused public attention, this time sparked by Biden’s remarks at a CNN forum last week when he appeared to respond affirmatively to host Anderson Cooper’s query: “Are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacked” (Taiwan)? Biden’s brief response: “Yes. We have a commitment” – prompted immediate responses from Beijing and Taipei. The following day, however, the White House was quick to clarify that “there is no change in our policy.” Most analysts, as per the Post, believe that Biden misspoke. What the brouhaha underlined, I aver, are two key strands of America’s China policy: extreme wariness to actually go to war with China over Taiwan and the salience of her long-standing policy of ‘strategic restraint’. With regard to the former, it is instructive that U.S. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, speaking after a NATO conclave in Brussels, affirmed that the United States remained committed to the one-China policy and had no wish for conflict. In his words, “Nobody wants to see cross-Strait issues come to blows – certainly not President Biden, and there is no reason that it should.” As the Post story reminded, despite widespread speculation and pressure from some lawmakers to rethink ‘strategic restraint’, U.S. officials have repeatedly said there has been no change in policy. While on the Taiwan theme it will be germane to recall that respected commentators, such as Richard Haass, former Director, Policy Planning, U.S. State Department, believe that President Xi Jinping of China, unlike the late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, is impatient to grab Taiwan as soon as possible. Haass has publicly called upon the United States to concert with the E.U. and NATO powers in “signaling that the United States is serious about defending Taiwan.” Before moving on, I would add this bit of gratuitous advice to Indian foreign policy pundits: in view of Austin’s clear-cut announcement, they should exhibit Chanakyan sagacity in not naively assuming that America will always be there to support/protect her in any offensive moves by Delhi against Beijing. COLIN POWELL Colin Powell’s recent demise spawned a flood of commentary and reminiscences, overwhelmingly positive, many which made their way into print. The Post in an editorial, entitled ‘Mr. Powell’s enduring impact’, reviewed his remarkable career, both as a soldier and statesman, observing, inter alia: that he helped shape history itself; witnessed the United States’ triumph over the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the American victory in the 1991 Gulf War; and the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Colin Powell

It acknowledged that Powell was true to himself, and to the values of his country, when in recent years, he broke with the Republican Party and denounced the wanton figure, Donald Trump, who has taken over.  As he spoke of himself in an interview, long ago: “Powell was a problem-solver. He was taught as a soldier to solve problems. So he has views but was not an ideologue. He has passion, but he’s not a fanatic.” Post Columnist Kathleen Parker remarked: “Powell was everything we admire in a human being: a military man of conscience, courage, honesty, erudition, loyalty and gentlemanly demeanor. In fact, in February 2003 he was the most trusted man in the United States, according to the Pew Research Center. If Powell said it, it had to be true.” I particularly enjoyed Post Columnist David Von Drehle’s piece: ‘What if Colin Powell had run for president in 1996?’ These are some telling excerpts from that write-up. “Powell’s mixed record as secretary of state during the planning and launch of the 2003 Iraq war has slightly obscured the supernova that he was in the 1990s. For a time, Powell was the most broadly appealing political candidate since the man he resembled in all but his complexion, Dwight D. Eisenhower… “Running on competence, character and centrism – plus the historic chance to elect the first Black president – Powell would have given Clinton the toughest race of his career….I’m not saying Powell would have made a great president. Greatness is not elemental; it is an alloy of personality plus preparation plus circumstances, revealed only when events catalyze the combination…History is made by tidal forces, like demography and geography and technology. But it is shaped by individuals. Therefore we ask: What if?” Incidentally, as U.S. Secretary of State, Powell visited Kathmandu on a brief but significant visit – during the gory Maoist insurgency, at which time, if memory serves me right, he visited Army H/Q and received a briefing on the state of play of the insurgency. It paved the way for Deuba, then PM too, to pay an official visit to the White House and for the flow of some arms assistance to Nepal. INDIA AND PAKISTAN Two front-page stories in today’s Post scream for attention. The first – a very lengthy 6-column banner headlined item entitled ‘Lack of safety protocols fueled hate, violence in India’ – details how Facebook “left its largest global market (India) vulnerable to hate speech.” It tells of myriad chilling instances where Facebook, not long before India’s general election in February 2019, began to be “flooded with pro-Modi propaganda and anti-Muslim hate speech.” It makes for difficult reading, as the following excerpts should indicate. “300 dogs died now say long live India, death to Pakistan” one post said, over a background of laughing emoji faces. “These are Pakistani dogs”, said the translated caption of one photo of dead bodies lined up on stretchers, hosted in the News Feed….At about the same time, in a dorm room in northern India…a Kashmiri student named Junaid told the Post, he watched as his real Facebook page flooded with hateful messages. One said Kashmiris were “traitors who deserved to be shot.” Junaid…recalled huddling in a room one evening as groups of marched outside chanting ‘death to Kashmiris’. The phone buzzed with news of students from Kashmir being beaten in the streets – along with more violent Facebook messages. The Post news item is much too long to be quickly summarized here. Let me therefore just quote one more   excerpt: “A case study about harmful networks in India shows that pages and groups of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, an influential Hindu-nationalist group associated with the BJP, promoted fear mongering anti-Muslim narratives with violent intent. A number of posts compared Muslims to ‘pigs’ and cited misinformation claiming the Koran calls for men to rape female family members.” The other front-pager – much less shocking – is headlined: ‘Pakistan is aiding the Taliban in ISIS fight’. The story, from Kabul written by a trio of reporters, is a very long one, too, and not very easily digested. However, its core can be fairly accurately summarized as: “Pakistan appears to be one of the few foreign governments directly aiding the Taliban in the Islamic State fight, amid concerns from the United States and other countries that Afghanistan could once again become a haven for militants to carry out attacks on international targets if the Taliban is unable to contain them.” ART OF REPORTING To wrap up this week’s offering, I wish now to refer to excellent advice from Drehle, in his column entitled: ‘Journalists should ask questions – not think that they have all the answers’ What makes a good reporter, he says, is not knowledge. It’s hunger for knowledge: curiosity, open-mindedness, independence and a willingness to think anew. The good reporter wakes up each day ready to be surprised, ready to see a new thing, or an old thing cast in a new light… A journalist who admits uncertainty and owns up to mistakes is ultimately more trusted, not less so. It is not the journalist’s job to tell the people what to think. The job is to question, to learn to share those learnings – as well as their limits. Touche!