by Ahmed E. Souaiaia*
Although human rights abuses occurred and continue to occur in time of peace, committing human rights crimes is more certain in armed conflict. In war, both sides are likely to commit human rights crimes in a premeditated way or in reaction to battle outcomes. Those removed from the battle fields, especially professional journalists and researchers, are expected to provide measured and consistent narratives about the war to explain why such a primitive and violent system of settling disputes, which is supposed to be a last resort, was deployed there and now.
In war, lives and livelihoods are destroyed. Even those far from the war zone will experience such loss. The war in Ukraine is a representative case study. While the war is, thus far, limited to the geography of Ukraine involving just two countries, about 40 nations states are directly involved in providing material support to the Ukrainian side, and nearly all countries are providing political support, openly or silently, to one side or another. The governments of each of these countries must explain to the people they rule over and the people of the world why they are or are not providing such support. The US administration, which is going through economic challenges at home, is committing about $50 billion to support Ukraine during this conflict. Government officials, then, must explain the reason for doing so. Such explanations will filter through national media outlets whose editorial staff must process it and break it down for public consumption. The media is not limited to processing government-provided information; they often initiate their own narratives by editorializing about events and even making recommendations to government officials on best ways to present information. Case in point is the opinion piece authored by the influential columnist of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, who advised White House officials to “Talk Less”.
Why is this significant? It is so because it reveals the often-overlooked distinction between “motivation” and “justification” of consequential actions, especially the ones impacting human rights.
Motivation is the force that moves a person, in this case, political leaders of a nation, to do something. If made public or figured out, it usually signals intent. Intent is a crucial element should the actions raise legal questions. For this reason, motivation is rarely declared or publicly shared.
Justification, on the other hand, is the public-facing explanation of one’s actions and choices. It is related to motivation in that the “justification” could be secondary or tertiary motive, or even made-up motive, when the primary justification, motivation that is, is something else. For example, the US and EU governments have condemned Russia’s military operation in Ukraine as a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. They even used alleged Russia’s war crimes (Biden already invoked genocide charges) to justify their military support to Ukraine. However, as Friedman pointed out, it would seem that the US officials are motivated by their desire to weaken Russia. Friedman thinks that publicly stating that motive is a bad idea. Friedman’s piece is a textbook example supporting my proposition that fact-driven knowledge should pay close attention to signaled motivations and stated justifications and must understand the difference between motivation and justification. To elaborate further, let’s review Friedman’s article.
*****
To hook his readers (perhaps he had government officials only as his intended audience in this case) Thomas Friedman started by criticizing some statements made by officials in the administration of US President Joe Biden, warning of the dangerous repercussions that may result from them. He explained that that a statement made by US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, while in Poland near the border with Ukraine, “caught my attention – and must have caught the attention of the Russian president.” Vladimir Putin – when he declared that the goal of the US war in Ukraine was no longer merely to help Ukraine regain its sovereignty, but to weaken Russia as well.
Friedman wondered whether this statement came after a meeting of the National Security Council headed by President Joe Biden, during which it was decided – after carefully evaluating all the consequences – that it is in the interest of the United States and can severely weaken the Russian army to the extent that it loses the ability to project its strength again in the near term or forever, and if Washington can do so without risking a nuclear response from the humiliated Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Explaining his objection to the statement, Friedman declared, “Without a doubt, I hope this war will end with the Russian army being severely weakened and Putin out of power. But I would never say that publicly if I were in command of the country”. He went on to warn that too much talk may create a gap between the ends and the means, and may lead to major unintended repercussions.
Friedman pointed out that many statements, such as those made by the Secretary of Defense, were issued by officials in the Biden administration, and the administration later sought to avoid the matter by providing a different interpretation of these statements, as happened shortly after Austin’s statement, as CNN reported. According to CNN, a spokesperson for the National Security Council said the defense secretary’s comments reflected the United States’ goals, specifically its goal to “make this invasion a major strategic failure for Russia.”
Friedman commented that the speaker’s made-up explanation was an attempt to cover up the statements, since forcing Russia to withdraw from Ukraine is very different from “declaring that we want to see it (that is, Russia) too weak” to invade any other country.
Friedman also highlighted another example of the US administration’s “erroneous” statements in his opinion. In March, in a speech in Poland, Biden described Putin as “a dictator determined to rebuild an empire, and he will never be able to erase the people’s love for freedom… This man cannot remain in power.”
Friedman said that the White House tried to cover up what came in Biden’s statement by asserting that the president “was not talking about Putin’s authority in Russia, or changing the Russian regime,” but was indicating that “Putin cannot be allowed to exercise his authority over his neighbors or the region.”
According to Friedman, the goal of the United States in Ukraine was clear, and should remain so, which is to help the Ukrainians fight against the Russian invasion, and to sit down to the negotiating table when they feel the time is right, so that they can restore sovereignty over their country, and America can claim that no country can easily devour a neighboring country, and any other goals in addition to that means looking for trouble.
Friedman enumerated the damage that US officials’ statements regarding regime change in Moscow and the prolongation of the war to exhaust the Russian army, pointing out that such goals may transform the crisis from a conflict between Putin and the rest of the world into a conflict between Putin and America.
Friedman pointed out that many countries of the world adopt a neutral position in this war, and despite their sympathy with the Ukrainians, they will not want to see America or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bully anyone, even if it is Putin.
Friedman concluded by signaling his preferences, citing a comment by Nader Mousavizadeh, founder and CEO of Macro Advisory Partners – a geostrategic consulting firm – in which he said that the war in Ukraine gave the US administration an opportunity to demonstrate the unique ability of the United States to form a global coalition of many countries to confront tyrannical aggression; As well as its ability to use sanctions as a highly effective economic weapon in the face of that aggression, indicating that the dollar’s dominance over the global economy is what enables it to do so.
Mousavizadeh added that if America can continue to employ these two advantages effectively, “this will contribute to strengthening its power and position in the world in the long run and will serve as a very strong deterrent message to both Russia and China.”
____________________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA is a member of the faculty at the University of Iowa with joint appointment in International Studies, Religious Studies, and College of Law. Opinions are the author’s, speaking on matters of public interest, not speaking for the university or any other organization with which he might be affiliated.