The Banality of Feigned Indignation: Some Belated Thoughts in Honor of Desmond Tutu

Apparently the Dalai Lama and China are going through a rough patch. The Dalai Lama’s objection to Chinese rule seems to stem from his vigorous insistence on quirky ideas like religion, peace, and human rights, meanwhile China responds with equal vehemence that wrinkly old men ought to wear more clothing when they travel around and therefore, for the sake of his health, they try to keep him relatively contained to his home country. Or something like that.

So when Archbishop Desmond Tutu invited the Dalai Lama to South Africa to give a lecture in honor of the Archbishop’s 80^th birthday, nobody was surprised when China was displeased with the proposition. Nobody was surprised when China leveraged its position as South Africa’s premiere trading partner to manipulate the government of South Africa into holding the visa up in bureaucratic red tape. And nobody was surprised when South Africa’s ruling African National Congress South (ANC) explained, with a resigned shrug of the shoulders, that the paperwork was not in order, and for that reason and no other reason, the entry of the Dalai Lama into South Africa was rejected. Where the nonplussed demeanors ceased, however, was halfway through a press conference in South Africa with Archbishop Tutu himself reacting to South Africa’s obsequious submission to Beijing.

With all of the fervor and emotional of the black preacher that he is, Archbishop Tutu tapped into a reservoir of the brand of righteous anger that does not make for polite conversation: “Wake me up and tell me this is actually happening here. It's quite unbelievable. The discourtesy they have shown to the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama!” Tutu’s words recalled the strident condemnation of a Hebrew prophet as he gave notice of the downfall of the ANC: “Let the ANC know they have a large majority. Well, Mubarak had a large majority, Gaddafi had a large majority. I am warning you: watch out. Watch out.” The mere text of his comments do not convey a fraction of the force with which the Archbishop extemporaneously delivered them, and the reason for that is simple: he was angry. Sincerely, vehemently, passionately angry.

Contrast this response with that of the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, to one of China’s other exploits on the same day. That Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria has made a habit of engaging in systemic and egregious violations of human rights is a fact as incontrovertible as it is obvious. That the exigencies of geopolitics and the expenditure of resources in several different deserts have castrated the west and presented us from seriously intervening in Syria is a regrettable but undeniable development. Nevertheless, in a sham substitute for real action, the United States joined together with this week to sponsor a resolution in the United Nations condemning Syria for its gleeful mockery of justice and hitherto uninhibited bloodshed.

As expected, China and Russia vetoed the resolution, citing concerns about the precedent of foreign nations impinging upon the internal affairs of other sovereign nations. The blatant hypocrisy in such a claim, especially when compared against China’s direct pressuring of South Africa to bar the Dalai Lama from entry, is so patently ludicrous as to obviate serious response. This author, for one, refuses even to entertain the suggestion that China and Russia’s actions are animated by anything but the most Machiavellian calculations of self-interest. The real reason for the veto is no mystery even to the uninitiated. While the rest of the world is looking on in horror at the events unfolding on the streets of Syria, China and Russia are taking notes as to the most effective way to quash opposition. They have jointly vetoed the resolution because any international opprobrium for the Syrian security forces is a preemptive excoriation of China and Russia’s own policies in Tibet, Kashgar, Taiwan, and Chechnya.

And here is an additional atrocity on top of the Syrian murders: certain Security Council members are responding to massive human rights violations in a way that is deliberately calculated to ensure their own ability to commit the exact same sort of acts in the future. Out of the fifteen member nations of the Security Council, only nine voted to condemn Syria while four abstained (Lebanon, India, Brazil, and South Africa) and two (Russia and China) used their veto powers.

Faced with this insidious mockery of justice, the tepidity of the United States’ Ambassador to the UN’s comments is breathtaking. She commented (and here there is no need to watch the video; Ambassador Rice’s remarks were as unpassionate as could be imagined: “The United States is outraged that this council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security.” Really now? Have we really become suddenly indignant at the processes and members of the United Nations? Of course not. That I am completing this essay some days after the events described herein give me the benefit of history (at least about ten days’ worth of it), and that history, quite sadly, has proven to be enough to show that the comments both of Ambassador Rice and of Desmond Tutu have quickly been forgotten by the press, and if by the mainstream press, then undoubtedly by “America” itself as well. Consequently, the simple critique of Ambassador Rice’s comments is this: the United States simply is not outraged. Far from it. The accuracy of the resolution in condemning the attacks was that detail which was most quickly jettisoned when it became expedient to do so, as is shown by the fact that the language of the resolution was diluted three times in order to avoid the veto that eventually was used.

It is no secret that diplomacy not infrequently requires us to tie our own tongues, but the danger is that we become too accustomed to our self-censure and begin to respond to the international scene perfunctorily as a caricature of our own selves. That’s why, for example, Admiral Mullen’s recent comments about the true nature of Pakistan’s ISI were striking and refreshing, and also why the strength of those comments has been undermined and eviscerated by the Obama administration. Reports are continuing to surface about Pakistani duplicity. But this is not an essay about Pakistan; it is about the abhorrently acceptable practice of feigned indignation that impresses and convinces nobody at all. So in summation: if we are indignant, let us say so. If we are not, let us play our cards face up on the table. In the case of Syria, imagine the difference in rhetorical tone a meeting of the UN Security Council would take were Ambassador Rice to stand up in those chambers and say emphatically: “No, the United States is not indignant. In fact, we are not even surprised. Russia and China have proven time and again that they are willing to sacrifice the human rights of vast swaths of their populaces in order to ensure the solidity of the ruling regime. So when protestors are dispersed with live ammunition and flattened by tanks, why should Russia and China’s complicity with Syria surprise us? It does not one bit. And in the words of Archbishop Tutu: ‘Watch out. Watch out.’”