One of the best occurrences in science for making a new discovery, is to stumble on a glitch which tells you that what you thought was the correct hypothesis isn’t so. This sort of incidence immediately tells you what it is that you need to probe and where you should look. After you do that, you come up with a new hypothesis that encompasses the existing one or supplants it entirely.
Something similar can happen in the
humanities where an idea that someone has expressed, jars you so profoundly,
you determine there is more to it than meets the eye. And so, you probe deeper
into the matter till you get to the bottom of it, and gather enough to describe
a hitherto unknown reality about the culture that spawned the jarring idea in
the first place.
If you are lucky, that scenario will play
itself out within the context of an ongoing public debate, and the idea that
jars you will be expressed in a written article where you can find clues that will
help you understand more of what’s behind the idea. This, in effect, is what will
likely happen when you read the piece that came under the title: “A US-China
inflection point,” and the subtitle: “Facing Xi, Biden stays mum over COVID-19
accountability.” The piece is actually an editorial of the Washington Times, and
was published on November 18, 2021.
There are, in fact, two jarring ideas, which
are somewhat related, in that editorial. One is big and saying something
serious about the American culture. The other is smaller, but also saying
something about the culture. Here is what the editors of the Washington Post have
said that ought to jar people who might be attentive to this kind of cultural
matters:
“The leaders of the world’s dueling
superpowers faced off by video conference. President Joe Biden had his chance
to confront the man responsible for his nation’s catastrophic release
of COVID-19 upon the world. Instead, he held his tongue. The world now
knows who’s boss: President Xi Jinping”.
What is odd and jarring about that passage is
the image that the editors have in their imagination about two giants facing
each other and holding swords in their hands. They are prepared to engage in a
duel, but not actually doing it because the one named America—that’s supposed
to make the first move—has chickened out, thus forfeited this round of the
contest to China.
But in a real-life situation, what normally happens
is that no matter how deep the differences between two superpowers, their
leaders do not face off like do athletes in a hockey or a soccer game where the
goalie stands alone and tries to stop a puck or ball, kicked by the shooter of
the opposing team. Instead, leaders of powerful nations are conscious at every
moment, of the fact that they can make a faux pas that will result in the
creation of bad blood between them and their rivals. And they know this is
something that has the potential to escalate to a serious incident, including
war.
In addition to that, and contrary to what the
editors believe, the world does not play the role of an audience watching a
hockey or a soccer game to see who will hold his tongue or who will blink. Like
says an old African proverb: “When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.”
And no country in the world has leaders—who are trying to make life better for
their people—looking forward to being entertained by the spectacle of the two superpowers
tempting fate and risking the wellbeing of the planet if not its very existence.
The editors of the Washington Times should
perish the thought that there exist political or diplomatic bosses and
subordinates in this world; politicians who might be prepared to play games that
have the potential to claim lives and ruin nations.
Unfortunately, however, like rival teenaged
gangs bumping into each other in a shopping mall, each believing it has the
duty to settle an old score with the other gang, the editors of the Washington
Times let it be known that they believe in the following:
“The courage to confront is a moral duty that
Mr. Biden avoided with his feckless attempt to sweep the
pandemic under the rug. It is as though countless recurrences of human
suffering are insufficient to remind each generation that, as Edmund Burke once
observed, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing’”.
Unlike the gangs who might have smashed the
widows of stores to get their hands on things they can use to hit their opponents,
Joe Biden saw no utility in “confronting” the Chinese leader, and risk much to
accomplish nothing more than produce the minute of joy that will warm the
hearts of frivolous editors.
This brings us to the way that the editors of
the Washington Times ended their piece. It is, in fact, the second jarring
point that was mentioned earlier.
Oblivious of the reality that a mild sort of
reproach was informally exchanged between America and China concerning the
human rights record of the two countries, the editors of the Times mentioned
that Biden repeated that reproach when he faced Xi Jinping. They then proceeded
to say the following:
“NBA star Enes Kanter has garnered greater
attention for the issue by wearing game sneakers inscribed with ‘free China’”.
As curious as it seems, do the editors of the Washington Times see that method of protest as being a feasible weapon that Superpower America should use on a regular basis to hit China?