By Husam Dughman
If George Orwell were alive today, he would in all likelihood be horrified to discover that he was wrong about his assumption that doublethink existed only in totalitarian societies. Supposedly democratic countries, too, seem to suffer from that strange malaise, something which certain parts of the world such as MENA (the Middle East and North Africa), Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and much of Asia have known for a long time, though not everybody in those regions has heard of Orwell’s neologism. More recently, the Russian-Ukraine conflict has laid bare a shockingly huge amount of doublethink in the words and actions of otherwise sober, sensible, and educated people. One salient example can be observed when numerous people in Western countries talk about the incompetence of the Soviet military machine and its failure to quickly overcome Ukraine, with its much smaller population and far weaker military might, and at the same time, those very people express the fear that Russia is going to take over the West.
All over Western countries, and most particularly in the mass media, we are flooded practically every day with a barrage of emotional outbursts aimed at crucifying Putin and presenting him as the devil incarnate. We are (mis)led into believing that not since Adolf Hitler has the world seen such a horrific monster, such a ruthless war criminal, such an unscrupulous demon. Recently, George W. Bush effectively portrayed Putin as Hitler when he referred to Zelensky as the 21st century’s Winston Churchill. Bush seemed to be unaware that in many parts of the world, especially in MENA, he and Tony Blair are considered war criminals for having launched an unjustified, illegal, and brutal invasion of Iraq in 2003, all on the basis of allegations which were not corroborated by any credible evidence and which have since been discredited as completely unfounded, namely that Iraq was in bed with Al-Qaeda and that it was developing weapons of mass destruction.
Another American who has been seen as a war criminal is Henry Kissinger; his perceived involvement in crimes perpetrated in Cambodia, Vietnam, East Timor, Chile, and Argentina has given rise to much vilification from various quarters, not the least of which was a book entitled The Trial of Henry Kissinger by British/ American writer Christopher Hitchens. It is, moreover, suspected that Henry Kissinger was the architect of Qaddafi’s military coup d’état which overthrew the constitutional government of King Idris in Libya back in 1969. If that was the case, then that would be yet another very good reason to view Kissinger as a war criminal, considering the destruction Qaddafi wreaked on Libya and its people over several decades.
Americans by and large do not appear to comprehend that in MENA, successive American administrations since Truman’s have been regarded as criminals. While the pan-Arabists may have berated the US for its unstinted support of Israel against the Palestinians, and while the Islamists may have excoriated the US for its military presence on what they see as holy lands in Saudi Arabia, not to mention America’s Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, liberals in MENA have contemptuously disparaged and denounced America’s extensive support for dictatorships at the expense of constitutional governments, especially in their part of the world. Those liberals have frequently pointed out how the US had actively encouraged and supported the overthrow of constitutional governments by (what turned out to be) military dictatorships: In Syria in 1949, in Egypt in 1952, in Iraq in 1958, and in Libya in 1969. People of MENA have often posed the rhetorical question that if we call Saddam Hussein, Nasser, Qaddafi, and their ilk despots and criminals for their tyranny and extensive violations of human rights, what then do we call those who had in fact helped them to power? Surely, they argue, aiding and abetting criminals is itself a criminal act. Therefore, they conclude, American administrations since Truman’s have been co-conspirators and accomplices in the savage crimes those aforementioned dictators committed against their own people. The fact that the US has frequently talked about its support for the spread of constitutionalism and of respect for human rights does not appear to square with the facts on the ground. Doublethink? Again? Or could it be cognitive dissonance, instead?
If we ask ourselves: Who is killing Ukrainians and destroying parts of Ukraine? The answer is: Russia. If, however, we ask ourselves: Who is responsible for the short-sighted and misguided policies that caused Russia to attack Ukraine, then the answer is: The US. In 1990, American Secretary of State James Baker reportedly told Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs Eduard Shevardnadze that in the post-Cold War era, NATO would be more of a political, rather than a military, organization. He also assured Shevardnadze that NATO would not move eastwards. Furthermore, Baker- apparently at the behest of George H W Bush- promised Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that in return for Soviet permission for the reunification of Germany, NATO would not move “one inch to the east”. The German Chancellor Helmut Kohl made similar comments to Gorbachev, assuring him that he fully understood Soviet security concerns.
To be sure, the US initially respected its promises to Gorbachev. George H W Bush did not expand NATO eastwards. Clinton continued that tradition, but only for several years. Starting from 1996, Clinton began to change course by going out of his way to court ex-communist countries in an attempt to get them to join NATO. He extended an invitation to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1997, and they duly joined NATO in 1999. It is unclear why Clinton changed course, but it is not inconceivable that he did so in order to win votes in the upcoming elections of November 1996 from Americans of Eastern European backgrounds. That was a “fateful error” indeed.
In February 1997, the American veteran diplomat and scholar George Kennan wrote an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “A Fateful Error” in which he lambasted NATO’s expansion eastwards. Kennan argued that “The view [not only his, but that shared by numerous Americans with Russian expertise], bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.” What Kennan rightly described as a fateful error need not and would not have been made if only the US had been conscious of Russia’s history, its legitimate security concerns, and its deep desire to be treated with respect. Above all, the US would not have been so dismissive, so reckless, and so callous in its reaction to Russia’s justified security concerns if it had simply borne in mind its own instantaneous and decisive reaction to the placement by the Soviet Union of ballistic missiles in Cuba in 1962. If Americans had the right not to be threatened by the presence of nearby ballistic missiles back in 1962, why do Russians not have that same right in 2022?
Only someone who has fallen victim to doublethink or cognitive dissonance will fail to provide a sensible answer to that question. Are you with us, Mr. Orwell?
………………………………………………………………………………….
Husam Dughman is a Libyan Canadian political scientist, religious thinker, linguist, and an expert on immigrants and refugees. He received his formal education in Libya and the UK. Mr. Dughman later worked as a university professor of political science in Libya. Due to confrontations with the Qaddafi regime, he resigned from his university position and subsequently worked in legal translation. Mr. Dughman has been working with new immigrant and refugee services in both Canada and the US since 2006.
Husam Dughman has published a book entitled Tête-à-tête with Muhammad. He has also written numerous articles on politics and religion. He has just completed the full manuscript of a book which he hopes to have published in the near future. The new book is an in-depth examination of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and the non-religious school of thought.
