What do we do when the highest officials in the land are corrupt?
On the international scene, especially major world powers, but also tin-pot dictators, settle for plausible deniability, (1) rather than the truth. A plausible explanation, for me, is one that could be true, all conditions being the same, but which isn’t. And we know it.
You’ve seen this scene in countless movies – two spies confront each other. One is our spy and the other is a cut-out for our current enemy – usually R-r-r-russia! or China.
The Rrrrussian! (by the way, my ancestors came from Rrrrussia!/Ukraine) with a straight face but not a hint of relaxation, counters the American allegation with a plausibly-deniable – not truthful – and crisp explanation. No one believes him or her. Everyone knows it’s a chess game.
The other side’s spy – and ours – simply want to do whatever they want to do while keeping matters out of the UN Security Council or whatever world court or forum will listen to the allegeations … if any of these councils have any real relevance today. Relevance seems to have passed to the world leaders themselves, Trump leading the way.
If they or we have a plausible explanation, the ball is then deemed to be in our opponent’s court. “What do you say to that?” And back and forth it goes, all the while being only one input determining major-power response.
This international game of chess may have been ongoing since the dawn of recorded history. I don’t know. But countless movies have had it as a theme or sub-theme.
May I launch out into the collective consciousness this thought: Let us swap out of our international affairs the following strategies – for starters:
- Plausible deniability (constructing a story that could be true, which you know isn’t)
- Self-serving bias (maximizing our victories and minimizing our defeats)
- The mirror effect (blaming our enemy for what we ourself did)
What would diplomacy look like without these elements of corruption … and all others?
Pipe dream? Maybe. But now that this thought bubble has been launched out into the collective consciousness, like a magnet, it’ll attract others of like intent and then?
Footnotes
(1) Google: Plausible deniability refers to the ability of an individual, often in a position of authority, to deny knowledge or responsibility for an action, even if they were personally involved, due to a lack of concrete evidence that would directly implicate them.
This tactic relies on the ambiguity surrounding the situation, making the denial seem credible or “plausible” despite potential involvement.
It’s a way to distance oneself from potentially damaging or illegal activities while maintaining a degree of plausible innocence.