I was watching the diatribe in Washington recently when both Trump and Vance went on a diatribe against Zelensky. It almost sounded like an Indian talk show where they invite a guest, together with a few others who have an opposing view of the main guest, and everyone will target the main guest with barrage of offensive spews. With the thumping of noise, eventually the poor guest will give up arguing and end up looking like an incompetent fool.
What particularly caught my
attention are articles written by Pro Democrats describing how Trump had nailed
the end of global political diplomacy via his uncouth behaviour against his
guest, Zelenskyy at the White House.
But looking deeper into this
entire episode I find it reeks western hypocrisy since the “Great Game”. The
Great Game was an era from the early 19th century where both the British
and Russian empires were turmoiled in strategic rivalry to exert influence in
Central Asia. This parasitic hypocrisy festered exponentially, from colonial expansion
under the guise of civilising missions, to contemporary interventions, camouflaged
as “humanitarian aids”.
This led me to relook at an old
frustration with the modern systems of political diplomacy, particularly within
Western framework.
Western polity
today have come to believe that they own and are the guardian of democracy and hence
they have peddled that Political diplomacy and political correctness to be the pillars
of modern democratic discourse. The purpose of it all is to maintain civility,
avoid unnecessary conflicts, and promote dialogue among nations, communities,
and individuals. But history has taught us bitter lessons, where these very
mechanisms had and can prolong conflicts and exacerbate further problems.
Political
diplomacy often involves negotiation, compromise, and avoidance of
confrontational language. While this can be effective in certain circumstances,
it sometimes delays necessary actions. By focusing on tact, subtlety, and
consensus, difficult issues may be deferred or watered down, never fully
addressed. This is especially true in cases of deep-rooted systemic injustice,
where addressing the "elephant in the room" requires hard choices and
uncomfortable truths.
Case in
point, the Israel-Palestine conflict. It when through decades of negotiations,
peace accords, and UN resolutions, but todate negotiating parties have avoided
direct confrontation with core issues, such occupation, settlements, and state
of displaced populations. So, what we see is, in the name of political tact and
compromise, the powers that be have skirted urgent action, prolonging suffering
and instability instead of addressing systemic injustices with decisive,
uncomfortable solutions.
In the form of political
correctness, which was originally the outcome of cultural sensitivity and
awareness, it prevents political leadership from speaking bluntly about
uncomfortable topics, even when those topics demand urgent attention. For
example, the unwillingness to confront inequalities or histories of
exploitation head-on, out of fear of offending certain groups, may
inadvertently perpetuate the very issues one aims to resolve.
This was evident in South
Africa’s post-apartheid transition. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission
(TRC) prioritized national unity over full accountability, granting amnesty to
many perpetrators of apartheid-era crimes. On one hand this fostered peace, but
on the other it failed to address the more pressing economic inequalities which
stemmed from historical exploitation. Hence the failure to confront this systemic
injustice ended up with wider socio-economic disparity.
Therefore, in times of a transparent
digital connect today, the notion of discreet hidden agenda is no longer viable
nor judicious. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is one good example of how
digital transparency exposes covert political agendas. In 2018, it was revealed
that Cambridge Analytica had harvested data from millions of Facebook users
without consent, using it to influence elections, including the 2016 U.S.
presidential race and the Brexit referendum. This incident highlighted the
erosion of privacy and the need for greater oversight in digital political
strategies, and it goes to show nothing goes without scrutiny of the masses.
It is about time political statesmanship
approaches both global or domestic issues, in a direct, confrontational
approach and break the cycle of evasive diplomacy.
This recalls the philosophy of
pragmatism, propounded by the likes of William James and John Dewy, where they
believe that solutions must be judged by its practical consequences rather than
adherence to abstract principles, case in point political diplomacy and political
correctness. Therefore, a pragmatic approach would cease diplomatic courtesy over
actually solving the problem at hand.
We have seen in history; bold
actions had been necessary evil to halt further sufferings. In the case of slavery
in the American history, the Civil War, which was considered a direct and
violent confrontation that, while tragic, was a necessary response to the
inability of diplomacy to address the problem. At the end of World War II,
negotiations failed under the Potsdam Declaration for Japan to surrender
unconditionally. All diplomacy failed even with USSR onboard the process. The failed
diplomacy to end the Pacific war led the US to go for an atomic strike on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By no means to justify the act, it appears that it was
the only pragmatic way to jolt the Japanese to concede surrender. Hence the
phrase “to catch the bull by its horn” though appears hardnosed would be an
unflinching stance to achieve meaningful solution in global politics.
The "Western political
gentlemanship" which is bounded by a system that has been built upon a façade
of civility, often comes with the risk of maintaining the status quo,
particularly when power structures benefit from the existing situation. The irony
is this construct disguises the truth by using diplomacy as a shield to avoid
confronting uncomfortable baggage that the Western powers carry.
Philosophically, Nietzsche argues
that moral codes and ethical structures can be a form of weakness, hiding the
true will to power. In diplomacy, moralizing or portraying it as the universal
solution, can serve as a cloak to evade addressing the deep-seated power
imbalances that shape international relations or even domestic policies. Interestingly
Western political elites had for time immemorial have engaged in these
practices not out of genuine concern for fairness, but because these systems
serve their interests and uphold a facade of legitimacy.
So, did Trump expose the elephant
in the room? Far too long the leftist media had portrayed Zelensky as the victim
but never once attempted to explore his role in the entire conflict. Putin (not
an angel himself), was a convenient entity to put the entire blame on, and the
media pandered to this gallery.
Hence it will be apt to give a
philosophical twist to expound the limits of politeness and diplomacy. Jean-Paul
Sartre, the existentialist, postulates that individuals and societies often
choose to ignore uncomfortable truths because facing them would demand
responsibility and action. Hence Sartre says, this avoidance is a form of bad
faith or simply put an act of self-deception that shields stakeholders from the
consequences of their own freedom and the responsibility to change things.
Philosophically, acknowledging
the elephant means being willing to confront not just the obvious political
issues at hand but also the willingness to accept accountability for the
historical, structural, and systemic factors that have allowed the conflicting
issues to exist and persist.
Interestingly, this
confrontational style embraces the discomfort of acknowledging that, at times,
the structures of diplomacy and political correctness serve the interests of
the powerful rather than those they purport to protect.
Candor is essential in seeking an
amicable solution to any conflict, particularly in global politics. The need
for honest and openness in confronting political issues, must be a given,
particularly when the current systems of diplomacy and political correctness
seem to either sidestep or perpetuate these problems. While diplomacy and
political correctness have their merits in maintaining peace and civility,
there are times when these mechanisms fail to address the core issues at hand,
and direct action is necessary. This incident underscores a willingness to
confront uncomfortable truths about power dynamics, moving beyond polite
conventions to address systemic issues directly.
The Oval Office meeting between Trump,
Zelenskyy, and JD Vance exemplifies this confrontational approach that
challenges traditional diplomatic norms.
Philosophically, this aligns with
pragmatic, existential, and Nietzschean ideas that urge individuals and
societies to stop hiding behind polite conventions and face the hard truths
that can lead to real change. This, however, comes with a cost, the willingness
to accept discomfort and potentially contentious action.
“Never underestimate the sly of a
person, Trump is not a clown, nor Zelenskyy an angel.”
Cheers.
ravivarmmankkanniappan@1241030320253.0571° N, 101.5911° E
