Killing me Softly…

The killing of any human being is and should be labeled, an abject, horrible, despicable crime. Since Cain and Abel, at the dawn of time, there has not been any other way to describe the taking of someone’s life in a deliberate and premeditated act. The killing of thousands is an atrocity and the killing of millions is a genocide. Our language has evolved with volumes, but the atrocity remains unchanged.

There is another twist to this rather obvious and fault-free thinking about killing, and it resides in who is doing it. Whether it is an individual or a State, a person or a government. And then, what type of government: a democracy or a dictatorship, and where in the global pecking order is it ranked, at the top or bottom?

With individuals, personal motives are usually recounted to understand the reasons behind a murder. Whereas with States and governments, interests and national security rationales are used to explain such acts. Governments are so much more overwhelming than individuals that even their killings are viewed with some sort of acceptance and even understanding. Especially if a war is afoot, or a combat is ongoing, or a battle is raging. With individuals only one poignant motive gets a pass: self-defense. However, States also use such approach with the notions of preemptive strike, of proactive defense of the homeland, and of ensuring the safety and security of citizens, at all costs. Ever wondered what the term 'at all costs' really means in this context? Never mind.

The killing by a State is a mitigated affair and not all killings by all States are treated equally. On the one hand, killing by a winning State (North vs. South during the American Civil War, the Allies vs. the Axis in World I and II to take only few examples) is not only justified but glorified, in all of its methods whether dropping a nuclear bomb (called endearingly a ‘device’) on a civilian population, or carpet bombing an entire city, or spraying Mustard Gas or some other new/old trick for killing fellow humans. On the other hand, losers do not have their killings justified nor their dead honored. All of their combat actions, even if in self-defense, are viewed with scorn, contemptuousness and dismay. The winners at Waterloo were revered and their military tactics taught for generations at war academies, but not the losers even if both were engaged in the same senseless, empirical war. Dead Japanese soldiers defending Okinawa were not given the same weigh in history as the GIs battling in the Pacific theater. I think you get the gist of it.

So, if you are a State you need no motives but rather cold, rational interests to absolve your killing, and if you were a State you’d better be on the winning side for your murders to be viewed as the mere price for victory. Although that is not always true. The North Vietnamese won a war, but their actions were still vilified by Hollywood and accepted as conventional wisdom by popcorn-munching viewers all other the world. The nationalists in Algeria won the war of independence but there are no movies celebrating their feat. Is it an emerging market thing, versus developed markets? Without getting into any racial or ethnic arguments, who can kill with impunity and who cannot, remains the principal question.

This dilemma has come to the fore with the horrible murder of Jamal Khashogi. Rewind few months before such tragic event and zoom in on the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal a former Soviet spy, and his daughter Yulia, in Salisbury by agents from the Russian GRU service. Go back a few years to the actual killing of Alexander Litvinenko in London, by the same Russian spy agency and the murder and cover-up of Sergei Magnitsky, a tax accountant, in a Moscow prison.  In the aftermaths of these tragic events, why no one is questioning whether Putin should attend the G20 or address the UN General Assembly or be afforded the diplomatic cover and courtesy of a head of State?

The killing of any human being is and should be labeled, an abject, horrible, despicable crime. Since Cain and Abel, at the dawn of time, there has not been any other way to describe the taking of someone’s life in a deliberate and premeditated act. The killing of thousands is an atrocity and the killing of millions is a genocide. Our language has evolved with volumes, but the atrocity remains unchanged.

There is another twist to this rather obvious and fault-free thinking about killing, and it resides in who is doing it. Whether it is an individual or a State, a person or a government. And then, what type of government: a democracy or a dictatorship, and where in the global pecking order is it ranked, at the top or bottom?

With individuals, personal motives are usually recounted to understand the reasons behind a murder. Whereas with States and governments, interests and national security rationales are used to explain such acts. Governments are so much more overwhelming than individuals that even their killings are viewed with some sort of acceptance and even understanding. Especially if a war is afoot, or a combat is ongoing, or a battle is raging. With individuals only one poignant motive gets a pass: self-defense. However, States also use such approach with the notions of preemptive strike, of proactive defense of the homeland, and of ensuring the safety and security of citizens, at all costs. Ever wondered what the term ‘at all costs’ really means in this context? Never mind.

The killing by a State is a mitigated affair and not all killings by all States are treated equally. On the one hand, killing by a winning State (North vs. South during the American Civil War, the Allies vs. the Axis in World I and II to take only few examples) is not only justified but glorified, in all of its methods whether dropping a nuclear bomb (called endearingly a ‘device’) on a civilian population, or carpet bombing an entire city, or spraying Mustard Gas or some other new/old trick for killing fellow humans. On the other hand, losers do not have their killings justified nor their dead honored. All of their combat actions, even if in self-defense, are viewed with scorn, contemptuousness and dismay. The winners at Waterloo were revered and their military tactics taught for generations at war academies, but not the losers even if both were engaged in the same senseless, empirical war. Dead Japanese soldiers defending Okinawa were not given the same weigh in history as the GIs battling in the Pacific theater. I think you get the gist of it.

So, if you are a State you need no motives but rather cold, rational interests to absolve your killing, and if you were a State you’d better be on the winning side for your murders to be viewed as the mere price for victory. Although that is not always true. The North Vietnamese won a war, but their actions were still vilified by Hollywood and accepted as conventional wisdom by popcorn-munching viewers all other the world. The nationalists in Algeria won the war of independence but there are no movies celebrating their feat. Is it an emerging market thing, versus developed markets? Without getting into any racial or ethnic arguments, who can kill with impunity and who cannot, remains the principal question.

This dilemma has come to the fore with the horrible murder of Jamal Khashogi. Rewind few months before such tragic event and zoom in on the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal a former Soviet spy, and his daughter Yulia, in Salisbury by agents from the Russian GRU service. Go back a few years to the actual killing of Alexander Litvinenko in London, by the same Russian spy agency and the murder and cover-up of Sergei Magnitsky, a tax accountant, in a Moscow prison.  In the aftermaths of these tragic events, why no one is questioning whether Putin should attend the G20 or address the UN General Assembly or be afforded the diplomatic cover and courtesy of a head of State? Because Russia is too powerful to be messed with, so is China who is cracking down horribly on the Uighur Muslim minority without a soul making a noise on-or-off the air. These are no orphan examples, unfortunately, as many other States murder in the name of national security within and outside their borders. Take for instance Israel, Iran and North Korea.

This is not an apology piece for the wicked murder of Jamal Khashoggi, far from it. May those who perpetrated this horrid act be brought to justice and pay a dear price for their heinous crime. This is a swipe at the double standards that the global media, the world intelligentsia, the US Congress and UK parliament, the human rights organizations, the pundits, the 8 o’clock news anchors, and the people gathering at Davos and at the G20, for treating some murders ‘tolerable’ and others ‘less so’, when all should be condemned with equal vigor and indignation.