The New York Times' Dynamic Duo
by Matthew Riemer
Dissident Voice
January 25, 2003
Nicholas Kristof
and Thomas Friedman comprise a dynamic duo at America's favorite newspaper
capable of the most amazing lies, half-truths, and historical dishonesty heard
this side of the Arabian Peninsula. Their condescending mix of blue-collar
common sense and off the cuff, guy-you'd-meet-at-the-local-bar editorials
continually tow the state line of America and capitalism "good,"
everything else "bad."
Their work is
also consistent in its complete lack of any kind of serious analysis
contextualized within historical fact. Far from being the scholarly centrists
their publisher fancies them to be, they are instead right-wing ideologues of
the first order.
They, too, share
the idea that one's international travels predispose one to be well informed
about global ills and armed with solutions -- democracy, capitalism -- and
always go out of their way to point out their worldliness.
In his latest
column ("Sealing the well"), Friedman opens with, "I attended
Friday's noon prayers at Cairo's Al Azhar, the most important mosque in
Islam." And later he observes, "But when you sit in a room at the
U.S. ambassador's house with 30 bright young Egyptian entrepreneurs, mostly
U.S.-educated, and this issue [Arab anger towards America] is practically all
they want to talk about -- or you meet with American Studies students at Cairo
University and they tell you that many students in their class refused to play
a simulation game of the U.S. Congress for fear of being tainted -- you feel
that there has to be something authentic in their anger about this open
wound."
So Friedman is
fortunate enough to get to visit Cairo whenever he wants and hang out at the
U.S. ambassador's house and express amazement at how a lot of Arabs hate
America. And does visiting "the most important mosque in Islam" make
him an authority on Islam?
Recently,
("'The Greatest of Great Men'") Kristof said, "As one of the few
Americans who have traveled around both North Korea and Iraq, I believe the
problem is far deeper than just a muddle of our priorities."
Are Kristof and
Friedman actually romantics who cling to this rather outdated, adolescent
notion that travel, and travel alone, will afford them some kind of Kerouacian
enlightenment?
Shall I begin
all future articles on Chechnya by stating that, "I'm one of the few
Americans who's traveled to Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, Yalta, and
Helsinki"?
We should judge
one's words and logic not by their credentials and number of foreign countries
they've visited but by, quite radically, their words and logic.
In the
aforementioned article, Friedman tops off his compelling analysis with a
stirring epiphany.
While admitting
that "The [Bush] administration's refusal to apply any creative
imagination to defusing this conflict [Israel/Palestine], and even belittling
it while calling Ariel Sharon 'a man of peace,' has embittered the Arab
public," he concludes by saying, "I am convinced that much of the
anger over U.S. policy is really a cry for help from people who know what they
have to do -- to democratize, liberalize their economies -- and who know that
they will be lost for another 50 years if they don't."
What?
Arab anger
towards American foreign policy is a "cry for help"?
Might he mean
something like, "Help us, America, instead of hurting us"?
Or is he
actually ignoring or ignorant of the numerous travesties carried out by British
and U.S. policy since WWI: the extensive partitioning of the region into
artificial nation-states which defied religious, ethnic, and geographical
differences established over centuries; the CIA overthrow of the Mosadiq
government in Iran only to install a successful dictator for a quarter century;
the utter and despicable bankruptcy of U.S. policy towards Palestine
highlighted by absolute rejectionism at every turn; inhumane sanctions
maintained by the U.S. for the past 12 years which have transformed the Iraqi
people from one of the most prosperous Arab societies into the most destitute?
One can only
stare in amazement at the words of Thomas Friedman and wonder what the man
truly thinks. Here is an individual who has been a political commentator for
years and traveled all over the Middle East and this is all he can come up
with? You'd at least think he could apologize for empire in a more creative
way, say, by throwing in some names and references that only one in a few
hundred readers would know to sound fancy.
Kristof, though
generally less battered than Friedman, is typically no better. This is the
infamous writer who penned "How bombing saves Afghan lives" back in
the fall of 2001. What was most disheartening was that in no way had he meant
the title in any sense but literally. And today he carries on in the same
tradition.
In his column of
December 27, 2002, "A Toast to Moral Clarity," he wonders aloud about
the fact that "terrorism" is a relative term, but that we still must
arrive at the conclusion that there are really "terrorists" out
there. So who's a "terrorist" then?
Kristof says,
"But ultimately terror's potential for becoming the methodology of every desperate
organization makes it doubly important that we do all we can to delegitimize it
-- which is why I ultimately come down strongly in favor of President Bush's
campaign for moral clarity."
Kristof never
defines "moral clarity," so we don't really know what he's talking
about. Furthermore, we can only speculate what George W. Bush perceives it to
be, though Kristof comes down strongly in favor of it.
He adds:
"Ideally, any private group should know that if it kills civilians, it
will become a pariah and discredit its own cause. The next Savimbi, Begin or
Arafat should know that violence against civilians will not propel him into a
presidential mansion, but into infamy."
Like Friedman,
one must wonder if Kristof has any concept of history beyond his own narrow
interpretations and definitions. Is his inclusion of the word
"private" meant to mean that "public" groups (national
armed forces) can kill civilians without becoming discredited? Is he aware how
much war inherently involves civilians on all levels? He also oddly enough
includes Arafat in his list of "terrorists," but not Ariel Sharon.
He even says,
"Perhaps it is hopelessly naïve to seek to make terrorism a universal
taboo; perhaps a nuanced moral clarity is a contradiction in terms. Yet there
is a precedent: After World War I, leading countries delegitimized the use of
poison gas."
Again, we must
wonder about what Kristof neglects to mention: the fact that depleted uranium
(DU) was used in munitions extensively by the U.S. in Iraq, Kosovo and
Afghanistan. Once more, what about the sanctions levied against the people of
Iraq. Are not these as insidious as a little poisonous gas?
Kristof has
drawn a very clear line in the sand by his fairly conspicuous omissions.
Neither the U.S. nor Israel engages in "terrorism," but the
Palestinians do. Private groups who kill civilians are "terrorists,"
but governments who ostensibly conduct widespread chemical warfare using
radioactive material of horrifying potential are guided by "moral
clarity."
While really not
taken seriously by analysts and historians, Kristof and Friedman are still
dangerous because of the number of people they reach with the New York Times as
their medium. Because of this, it is occasionally worth paying attention to
what they say and how they say it to better understand how the American public
is being bludgeoned to death by such drivel.
Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of
topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He
studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former
Soviet Union in 1990. He is a columnist and editor with Yellow Times.org, where this article first appeared.
Matthew lives in the United States, and encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org