Obama as Nixon, and Kerry as Kissinger? They just talk and look better!

So, there is the US seemingly flailing over the Syria issue. With Iran, there are problems. North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba have been needling the US for quite a while. And then there are the likes of Russia and Brazil with whom it is a dysfunctional relationship.

Overlay all the recent revelations of the NSA spying operations. And the drone-based killings in far away lands.  Think about the long-running Guantanamo issue.

Add to this the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and the very strange relationship with Pakistan and Egypt.

All set?

Now, try to put together a statement on what America stands for.

Confused?  You can't seem to figure out what exactly is the ideal for which America carrying is the torch?

There is a vast divide between the ideals that we think America represents and the reality of America, right?

This is not new at all. It has always been this way.

In my early years, back in the old country, I was dead set against the US because I could not understand how America could talk all glorious things and act like a jerk.  Which is why my parents were quite shocked when they came to know that I had decided in favor of graduate schooling in the US, with an even larger goal of making America my home.

It is just that I had made my peace with the fact that all the countries act like jerks and that there is no saintly country.

One of my earliest experiences with the disconnect between the American ideal versus the American realpolitik was during the 1971 India-Pakistan wars that led to the birth of an independent Bangladesh.  It was a simple question that my young mind had: if America is all for democracy, then wouldn't America support India instead of supporting Pakistan?

A simple question, a simplistic one, that only kids might have, right?  But, often we overlook those simple bottom-lines.  I suppose as adults we lead lives full of contradictions that we automatically begin to discount the conflict between the ideals and the reality.  How depressing that this is, also, a part of growing older and "wiser!"

All those memories of my growing up years in India seem to have been dusted off by this wonderful book-review essay by Pankaj Mishra, who writes about "Nixon, Kissinger, and the Bangladesh genocide." (sub. reqd.)

It jolts me, yet again, even after all these years, to read about the language that Nixon and Kissinger used, which reflects their attitudes towards the people of the Subcontinent, its leaders, and their priorities. Indira Gandhi was a "bitch," Indians are "such bastards" and "a slippery, treacherous people" and more.

How unfortunate that Kissinger is praised as a statesman, and even Nixon too!  As Shakespeare wrote, "For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men."

It is not only that they made such comments, but made them when the US ambassadors stationed in India and Pakistan were sending them cables that Pakistan was destroying democracy and committing genocide. Mishra offers this Nixon quote from one of the books he reviews:

Biafra stirred up a few Catholics. But, you know, I think Biafra stirred people up more than Pakistan, because Pakistan they're just a bunch of brown goddamn Moslems."

"For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men."

And what was the larger purpose that Nixon and Kissinger were aiming for?  Even as Nixon dismissed Pakistanis as "brown goddamn Moslems" he was using the Pakistani dictator-general Yahya Khan as "the principal intermediary between Beijing and Washington, personally conveying to Chinese leaders the Americans' desire for a closer dialogue."

Nixon and Kissinger are celebrated for opening up to China.  You know, the Asian country of Mao that was a champion for democracy and human rights!  "It is like Nixon going to China" is now a phrase to describe major policy shifts.

"For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men."

In wrapping up the essay, Mishra writes:

[Many] postwar Administrations, Democratic as well as Republican, violated American ideals of democracy and human rights while pursuing what they saw--mostly wrongly--as national interests.

We have this profound image of America as a symbol for democracy and human rights. Time and again, we are reminded that reality has nothing to do with the symbol.

More from Mishra:

Obama was expected to restore an ethical sheen to post-9/11 foreign policy, but he has intensified drone warfare in Yemen and Pakistan, pursued whistle-blowers, and failed to close down Guantanamo.  It is difficult to imagine him risking Israel's security by taking a hard line against the Egyptian generals--especially not while he weighs the appropriate response to Syrian war crimes, copes with the human costs of Iraq occupation and of the intervention in Libya, seeks peace with honor in Afghanistan, re-starts peace talks between Israel and Palestine, and controls the fallout from Edward Snowden's revelations.

Who cares for the millions of real people who get killed, tortured, driven out of their homes, in the process, right?

Aren't you happy that you are also older and "wiser?"

One heck of a good looking foreign minister ... best yet?

What a wonderful transformation over the years ... from the likes of Henry Kissinger to ... no, I am not referring to Hillary Clinton, but Pakistan's foreign minister:

Caption at the source:

The new Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar on arrival in New Delhi, on Tuesday. While leaving Islamabad, she said re-engagement was better than no engagement.

If this doesn't tick you off ....

... then, I don't know what will

That is American realpolitik for you!  Thank Henry Kissinger for making it such a permanent feature of how the US deals with the rest of the world.

So, with the revolution on television, Twitter, and everywhere, has the US changed its policies?  Ahem:

And yet, with Egyptian protestors literally sleeping under the treads of tanks, the flow of U.S. military aid to the regime shows no signs of letting up. Earlier in the crisis there were signs that Congress would oppose the administration's requests for continued aid, but no longer, as the Los Angeles Times reports:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had earlier said "all options are on the table," including aid cuts. But in an interview Tuesday, he said that now "is just not the right time to threaten that."
McCain said he was concerned that a reduction in aid might affect Egypt's willingness to cooperate with Israel.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees foreign aid, declared last week that he would not vote for aid to Egypt, adding that he knew no lawmaker who would.
This week, however, Leahy appeared to soften his position, saying through a spokesman that he would oppose any new aid "until the situation is resolved."
White House officials said earlier in the crisis that they would review the aid if the Mubarak government didn't move promptly toward political reform. But within a few days, officials clarified that they weren't considering cuts to aid.

Kissinger's kiss of death: he approves of Obama and Clinton!

When Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace, the mathematician/satirist Tom Lehrer observed that it signified the highest form of satire. He said, ""It was at that moment that satire died," says Lehrer, "There was nothing more to say after that." (At the end of this post, you can watch one of Lehrer singing one of his satires--on the bomb.)

Kissinger has been the target of Christopher Hitchens--while with a sharp tongue, a satirist he is not. Back in 2002, Hitchens went ballistic with the appointment of Kissinger to the 9/11 inquiry commission, and wrote:

But can Congress and the media be expected to swallow the appointment of a proven coverup artist, a discredited historian, a busted liar, and a man who is wanted in many jurisdictions for the vilest of offenses?

Of course, Hitchens has literally produced a book of criminal charges against Kissinger.

And, I am in the Lehrer and Hitchens camp when it comes to Kissinger.

Which is why I think Kissinger's approval of Hillary Clinton as Obama's potential secretary of state is an insult to Clinton, Obama, and the entire world! FT Reports:

Henry Kissinger, the former senior US statesman, yesterday gave his firm backing to Hillary Clinton as the next US Secretary of State in the forthcoming Democratic administration.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum’s India meeting, Mr Kissinger said ”I believe it would be an outstanding appointment,” if Barack Obama, the president-elect, chose Senator Clinton for the foreign affairs portfolio.
“If it is true [that she is in the running], it shows a number of things, including great courage on the part of the President-Elect. To appoint a very strong personality into a prominent cabinet position requires a great deal of courage.”

I just wish the media would stop reporting Kissinger's blathers.
And, here is Tom Lehrer singing the satire on the bomb: