List of Bookmarks
To attempt to use secular rationality as the predominant analytic tool by which to comprehend geo-political events may be to commit an error.
On a visit to Oxford a few weeks ago, Josep Borrell, the EUâs High Representative, (Walter Münchau writes), made an interesting remark: âDiplomacy is the art of managing double standardsâ. Münchau illustrated its inherent hypocrisy by contrasting the enthusiasm with which EU leaders supported the ICCâs decision to seek an arrest warrant against Putin last year, and âyet not to accept it â when it hits a member of your teamâ (i.e. Netanyahu).
The most egregious example of such double âthinkingâ concerns its correlate â the western âmanagementâ of created realities. A double standard â a ânarrativeâ of us âwinningâ â is crafted, and then set against a narrative of âthem failingâ.
A resort to the manufacture of narratives of winning (instead of actually doing the winning) may seem rather clever, but the uncertainty it causes can have unforeseen potentially disastrous consequences. For instance, President Macronâs deliberately obfuscated threats to send NATO forces to serve in Ukraine â which only contributed to Russia preparing for a wider war against all NATO, accelerating its offensive operations.
Instead of deterring â as likely intended by Macron â it brought about a more determined adversary, with Putin warning that Russia would kill any NATO âinvadersâ. It was not so clever, after allâ¦
Take as a more substantive example President Putinâs response to a press query during his visit to Uzbekistan: âThese representatives of NATO countries, especially in Europe, ⦠firstly provoked us in the Donbas; led us by the nose for eight years, deliberately deceived us into supposing they [the West] wanted going to resolve things peacefully â notwithstanding their seemingly contrarian attempt to force the situation âtowards peaceâ â through armed means.
âThen they deceived us during the negotiation processâ, Putin continued, âhaving, a priori decided in secret to defeat Russia on the battlefield â and thereby to inflict a strategic defeat on it. This constant escalation can lead to serious consequences (Putin probably refers to a ratchetting missile exchange ending â even â with nuclear weapons). If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the United States behave in view of our strategic arms parity? Do they want a global conflict? Itâs hard to say⦠Letâs see what happens nextâ, he concluded. (This is a paraphrase of what was a long and extensive question and answer session by President Putin).
Naturally, some in the West will say that this is just a Russian âstoryâ â and that the West has acted reasonably throughout, in response to Moscowâs actions.
âRational thinkingâ and reasonableness pretentiously are taken to be the defining qualities of the West (inherited from Plato and Aristotle). However, to attempt to use secular rationality as the predominant analytic tool by which to comprehend geo-political events may be to commit an error. For such a limited instrument forces a brutal amputation of the deeper dynamics of history and context â which risks yielding distorted analysis and flawed policy responses.
Just to be clear: What has this deceptive diplomacy achieved? It has resulted in Moscowâs complete distrust of European leaders and the wish to have nothing further to do with them.
Is it ârationalâ to leave actors such as Putin wondering whether indeed Russia faces a West determined to âinflict a strategic defeatâ on it, or whether Washington just wants to craft a âwinning narrativeâ ahead of November?
Putin pointed out (at the press conference) that Ukraine-based high-precision long-range weapons, (such ATACMS) are prepared on the basis of âspace intelligence and reconnaissanceâ, which then is translated automatically into the appropriate target missile settings (with the operatives possibly not even understanding what co-ordinates they are entering as the target).
This complex task of readying a high-precision missile, however, is being prepared not by Ukrainian servicemen, but by representatives of NATO countries, Putin underlined.
Putin is saying: âYou â Europeans, who supply and operate such weapons â are already at war with Russiaâ. Trying to âmanage these double standardsâ wonât work; you cannot claim on the one hand, that once your munitions are transported, they magically become âUkrainianâ, whilst ânarratingâ too that NATO â its surveillance assets; its ISR technicians, and its missile handlers â do not translate into âwar with Russiaâ.
In his explicit answers, Putin gave the West a clear warning: These representatives of NATO countries â especially in Europe; especially in small countries â should be aware âof that with which they are playingâ.
Yet, in Europe the idea of striking deep inside Russia is presented as being entirely rational â in spite of knowing that such strikes into Russia will not change the course of the war. Plainly put, Putin effectively is saying Russia can only interpret western statements and actions as an intent for wider war.
The same âdouble narrativesâ may be said to hold for Israel too. Netanyahu and his government, on the one hand, are cast as a messianic entity, pursuing a Biblical apocalypse. Whereas, the West claims it is simply pursuing its own rational understanding of what is in Israelâs true interest â i.e. a two-state solution.
It may be uncomfortable to say it, but Netanyahuâs ânon-secular, non-rationalistâ zeitgeist probably reflects a plurality of opinion today in Israel. In other words, like it or not â and almost all the world does not â it nonetheless is authentic. It is what it is â and there is little point therefore to crafting strictly secular policies that simply ignore this reality (unless there is the will forcibly to change that reality radically â i.e. imposing a Palestinian state by force).
The reality is that a trial of strength is coming in the Middle East. And in its wake â with one or the other parties exhausted â a political current, or a shift in zeitgeist (were Israel to reconsider special rights for one population group over another living on shared land), might open a more productive path to a âsolutionâ, one way or another.
Again, the insistence on a secular, materialist optic invites a misreading of the ground, and may make matters worse (by cornering Israel into the massive escalation on whose brink we stand).
When Gantz â regarded as a possible, more reasonable alternative to Netanyahu, calls for an early election, he is calling for it , writes Roger Alpher in Haaretz, âto renew the contract between the people and the government and to mobilise for a second war of independence. Under the new vision, Israel is at the start of a long, blood-soaked war for survivalâ.
âGantz isnât a secular person; his mentality is religious ⦠When he accuses Netanyahu of bringing ulterior motives into âthe holy of holiesâ, as he put it â i.e., defence considerations â heâs expressing his religious belief in the nationâs faith. The state is holy, the state before anything elseâ.
âHis differences of opinion with Netanyahu are blurring a broad consensus â including Yair Golan, Bezalel Smotrich, Yair Lapid, Avigdor Lieberman, Naftali Bennett, Yossi Cohen and the Likud party with or without Netanyahu â that the war is the thing. The Israeli public is a hero because of the war. Itâs at its best during its wars: A nation has no greater spiritual elevation than a love of sacrifice in âcarrying the stretcher,â as Israelis put itâ.
Plainly put, Gantz â like Netanyahu â is not in the western, liberal secular camp.
And here is where Josep Borrellâs âmanagement of double standardsâ meme enters into the equation: Can Europe or the U.S. continue to tolerate such an âunreasonableâ Zionist world view, with all its adverse implications for an increasingly volatile U.S. hegemony?
Well, there is a certain ârationalityâ to the Netanyahu vision, but it is not one rooted in our mechanistic ontology.
Perhaps too, Netanyahuâs Biblical references to Amalek (the people King Saul was ordered to annihilate), touch on raw western nerves: Wasnât the Scientific Enlightenment supposed to have ended that âotherâ ontology? Does it remind the West of its own colonial âsinsâ?
Professor Michael Vlahos, who taught war and strategy at Johns Hopkins University and the U.S. Naval War College, and was Director of the Centre of Foreign Studies at the State Department, contends that America too is âa religionâ consumed by the eternally recurring apocalypse, and that war is its âcleansing ritualâ:
âThe Foundersâour âcreatorsââhad imagined more than a nation ⦠They had also drafted the story arc of a divinely heroic journey, centring the U.S. as the culmination (to be) of History. This is Americaâs sacred narrative. Since its founding, the United States has pursued, with burning religious fervour, a higher calling to redeem humanity, punish the wicked, and christen a golden millennium on earth.
âWhile France, Britain, Germany, and Russia stalked the world in search of new colonies and conquests, America has steadfastly hewed to its unique vision of divine mission as âGodâs New Israelâ.
âThus, among all the revolutions unleashed by Modernity, the United States declares itself â in its own scripture â to be the trailblazer and pathfinder of humanity. America is the exceptional nation â the singular, the pure-of-heart, the baptizer, and redeemer of all peoples despised and downtrodden: The âlast, best hope of earthâ.
President Biden said this catechism precisely at West Point on 25 May 2024:
âThanks to the U.S. Armed Forces, weâre doing what only America can do as the indispensable nation ⦠the worldâs only superpower, and the leading democracy in the world: The U.S. standing up to tyrantsâ worldwide: It is âprotecting freedom and opennessâ.
âWeâre standing against a man [Putin] who Iâve known well for many years, a brutal tyrant. We may not â we â and we will not â we will not walk awayâ.
This is the catechism of the âAmerican Civil Religionâ; Professor Vlahos explains:
âIn the worldâs eyes, all this may seem like a ritual of self-serving vanity, yet the Civil Religion is the national article of faith for Americans. It is Holy Writ, which takes rhetorical form through what Americans take to be History.
âAmerican Civil Religion is inextricably linked with the Reformation, Calvinist Christianity, and the bloody history of Protestantism, with Americaâs sacred narrative shaped and christened through the countryâs first and second Great Awakenings. Although its scriptural reading became secular in the Progressive era â the American religion still remained tethered to its formative roots. Indeed, even our contemporary âChurch of Wokeâ cannot escape its original Calvinist Christian tubersâ.
âSince 2014, a rapidly-growing new sectââThe Church of Wokeââhas sought to transform and fully possess the American civil religion, to reign as the successor faith. Ironically, the fervour of its evangelism channels the post-millennialism of the First Great Awakening, whose messianism was codified in Novus Ordo Seclorum (New Order of the Ages)â.
What is the point here? Hubert Védrine, a former French Foreign Minister and Secretary-General of the French presidency under President Mitterrand says that the West (that is to say, embracing Europe, too) â the âdescendants of [Latin] Christendomâ â is âconsumed in the spirit of proselytismâ.
âThat Saint Paulâs âgo and evangelize all nationsâ has become âgo and spread human rights to all the worldâ ⦠And that this proselytism is extremely deep in our DNA: âEven the very least religious, totally atheist â they still have this in mind, [even though] they donât know where it comes fromâ.
Is this the raw nerve? âThe U.S. as the New Israelâ â in Professor Vlahosâ telling â that cannot be looked directly in the eye? Yet if we look in the mirror, is this what we see?
âThis is by far the most profound and important question facing the Westâ, says Védrine.
âIs it capable to âaccept alterity â one that can live with others and accept them for who they are ⦠a West that is not proselytizing, and not interventionist?â, he asks.
To which he retorts: âThereâs no choiceâ. Absolutely not â
âWe are not going to become the bosses of âthe world thatâs comingâ. So we are forced to think beyond; we are forced to envision a new relationship for the future between the Western world and the famous global Southâ.
âAnd what happens if we canât get to accept this? Then weâll continue being marginalized â increasingly cut from the rest of the world â and increasingly despised for our misplaced sense of superiorityâ.
(Novus Ordo Seclorum is Latin â âa new order of the agesâ. The phrase is one of two Latin mottos on the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States. The other motto â Annuit cÅptis â translates as âHe favors (or has favored) our undertakingsâ).