There are rumours
that individuals in eastern Ukraine have looted some of the belongings of the
298 people who died in the Flight MH17 tragedy. If that’s true, it is
despicable.
But they aren’t the
only ones exploiting the dead of this terrible incident. So is pretty much
every politician and media outlet in the West.
From Washington to
London to Brussels, leaders and hacks have spent the past three days milking
the MH17 tragedy, marching the dead to their cause of dividing the world once
more between a fundamentally decent, honest West and a malevolent Russia led by
the epitome of wickedness, Vladimir Putin.
Where some east
Ukrainians are alleged to have exploited the MH17 dead for financial gain,
Western leaders are doing something just as foul, if not worse: they’re
exploiting the dead for moral and political gain.
Taking chutzpah to
new heights, Western leaders are wringing their hands over a tragedy that their
own actions did a great deal to make possible.
The moral script
being foisted on us is that Putin is responsible for what happened to the
Malaysian Airlines flight, which was allegedly shot down by pro-Russian
separatists in the east of Ukraine.
Reading the
hotheaded media coverage and listening to Western politicians’ hyperbolic
speeches, you could be forgiven for thinking Putin had prior knowledge of the
tragedy, and maybe even okayed it.
‘Putin the
terrorist’, scream frontpage headlines. Some accuse the Russian
leader of ‘mass murder’,
implying he not only knew that these 298 souls were going to perish but
intentionally assisted with their perishing.
What we have here is
an attempt to squeeze what looks like a terrible mistake by Russian separatists
into a moral script about murder.
We’re witnessing the
treatment of an error as an act of evil, the transformation of an accident into
an act of malevolency by a wicked regime.
Even worse, the very
Western leaders now treating this tragic mistake as a conscious crime were the
ones who created the space for such chaotic acts to occur, through their
destabilisation of Ukraine and their tipping it over the edge from political
unrest into all-out civil war.
The speed with which
Western politicians and observers turned the MH17 crash site into a soapbox
from which they might proclaim their own decency in contrast with Putin’s
wickedness has been extraordinary.
They didn’t wait for
facts to emerge, or for studies to be carried out, or for the contents of the
airplane’s blackbox recorder to be analysed; instead they rushed in, like
political ghouls, to declare the crash site a murder scene and Putin the
embodiment of everything the West finds foul.
As a consequence of
this speedy, and some might say inhumane, elevation of the narrow needs of our
political elites over any attempt to get to the truth of what occurred during
this tragedy last Thursday, lots of questionable claims have been made about
the terrible events.
So hours after the
jet came down, Western media outlets were claiming that the blackbox recorder
may have been ‘spirited away
to Moscow’ as part of some sinister ‘cover up’. We now know the
blackbox recorder is in Donetsk,
whose leader has said he will only hand the recorder over to the International
Civil Aviation Organisation.
One of the main
claims made about the tragedy – that it was carried out with a ground-to-air
missile supplied to the rebels by Russia – is currently entirely speculative.
As a writer
for the Spectator put it, it simply ‘has not been established’ that the
missiles came from Russia; they might have been ‘looted from Ukrainian army
stocks’.
Most importantly,
the idea that the rebels in the east of Ukraine are Putin’s puppets, doing his
murderous bidding, is called into question by Russia’s failure to come to the
rebels’ aid when they lost two of their cities to west Ukrainians earlier this
month.
As one report
says, following the election of Petro Poroshenko as president of Ukraine it is
possible that Putin is ‘tacitly switching [his] support to Kiev’ and ‘hanging
the rebels out to dry’.
So a great deal is
simply unknown right now, from what missile was used to who actually fired the
missile to the broader question of how much Putin is supporting the rebels or
shifting his political focus elsewhere.
But such potential complexities have not been allowed to stand in the way of the great milking of MH17, the transformation of this messy incident into a simplistic morality tale starring ostentatiously outraged Western politicians on one side and evil Russian politicians holding still-smoking missile launchers on the other.
But such potential complexities have not been allowed to stand in the way of the great milking of MH17, the transformation of this messy incident into a simplistic morality tale starring ostentatiously outraged Western politicians on one side and evil Russian politicians holding still-smoking missile launchers on the other.
The misinformation
about the blackbox recorder coupled with the casual disregard for finding out
the truth about other claims bring to mind the dodgy-dossier era of the early
2000s: just as that was a clear instance of politicians moulding the ‘evidence’
to make it fit a preordained moral script – that Saddam was evil and possessed
WMD – so has the milking of the MH17 tragedy involved the squeezing of a
terrible, still-unclear incident into an already-written script about Putin’s
poisonous influence on world affairs and the need for the West to stand up to him.
So it was that the
foreign minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt,
wrote a piece titled ‘Putin’s credibility lies amid the wreckage of Flight
MH17’. British PM David Cameron
echoed this sentiment in a piece for the UK Sunday Times.
Headlined ‘This is
an outrage made in Moscow’, it cynically combined personal disgust (‘the images
of the burnt-out Malaysian plane will never leave me’) with political
tub-thumping (‘Europe and the West must fundamentally change our approach to
Russia’).
Cameron explicitly
uses the MH17 tragedy to try to reassert the moral and political virtues of the
West by juxtaposing them to the wicked, warped outlook of Putin’s Russia.
His piece captures
perfectly what motors modern-day Russia-bashing: a desire among Western leaders
to make the West feel purposeful once more through posturing against a faraway
leader whom they claim is a source of moral and political instability.
Post-MH17, it is
‘time to make our power, influence and resources count’, said Cameron, to
recognise that ‘our economies are strong and growing in strength’ and ‘Russia
needs us [more than we need Russia]’.
What we have here is
an attempt by a morally at-sea West to magic up the old black-and-white
certainties of the Cold War era, through once again casting Russia as the
villain of world affairs and the West as good, influential, resourceful, powerful
and morally on-message.
Is there not
something a little grotesque in Cameron’s attempt to rebuild Western prestige
on the still-burning debris of Flight MH17?
Yes, a handful of
eastern Ukranians might have searched the crash site for things they could sell,
but Cameron is doing something worse: metaphorically scrabbling about in the
crash site for evidence of Russian evil and, by extension, of British decency
and fair play.
If Western leaders
and observers were just exploiting the MH17 tragedy, that would be bad enough.
But it gets worse.
These same weepers
over MH17 helped to make such a terrible incident a possibility in the first
place. According to Cameron, the MH17 tragedy is a ‘direct result’ of Russia
‘destabilising a sovereign state [and] violating its territorial integrity’.
In truth, our own
leaders did a great deal to propel Ukraine from political unrest into civil
war.
They continually
stirred up tensions in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014, through visiting
the Occupy-style protest camps in Kiev, telling the inhabitants that theirs was
a ‘just cause’, holding high-level talks with opposition leaders and even
advising them on how and when to form a new government that might eventually
replace President Viktor Yanukovich’s.
All of this had the
predictable impact of emboldening the protesters, isolating Yanukovich, and
turning a pretty everyday political conflict into a bloody street battle in
which Yanukovich was eventually ousted and replaced by leaders effectively
handpicked by John Kerry and Angela Merkel.
National divisions
intensified, war ensued, and in war there are always terrible events, including
catastrophic mistakes, like that which occurred on Thursday.
It is simplistic in
the extreme for Cameron to call the MH17 tragedy ‘an outrage made in Moscow’,
considering it occurred as part of a war thoughtlessly provoked in London,
Washington, Berlin.
In Ukraine over the
past nine months, Western leaders effectively sleepwalked their way into a
serious war, thinking little about the consequences their political
interventions in Kiev would have on the integrity of the Ukrainian state.
And now, as their
destabilisation of a European state has terrible consequences not only for the
inhabitants of that state but for others, too, they thoroughly rewrite recent
history, washing their hands of responsibility and pinning the blame entirely
on Putin.
That is, they both
pushed Ukraine into war and now try to make moral gains from some of the
horrors of that war.
International
politics doesn’t get much lower than this.
No comments:
Post a Comment