The Flaws of "Whataboutism" : Discrediting Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."- Matthew 7:3-5

The term "whataboutism" is one that has been used more and more in online political debates over the last year or two. I would believe it really gained traction after John Oliver mentioned it in one of his segments on his show Last Week Tonight. Meriam Webster defines Whataboutism as " a rhetorical device that involves accusing others of offenses as a way of deflecting attention from one's own deeds.". It is a logical fallacy in the same vein as tu quoque (meaning 'you also' in Latin), an older term of appeal to hypocrisy.

Whataboutism, in and of itself, is not a bad argument. In the context in which John Oliver brings it up, and from where it has gained its latest popularity, is with regards to the way that conservative pundits and members of the Trump administration very often would bring up many of Hillary's misdeeds when faced with having to defend or explain an unpopular situation. "What about her emails?", "What about Benghazi?", and many more, were very frequent false arguments used to counter attacks from the opposite political side. So in this regard, whataboutism, or tu quoque, is a very bad and weak argument to use in a debate.

Now, where calling out whataboutism really starts bothering me, is in the area of foreign policy. Anyone who knows a little bit about the matter, knows that there is a huge one-sidedness with regards to who is deciding what is right and what is wrong in international affairs. The West along with NATO have a very strong overhand within the UN and a strong international power to influence other countries in the way they see fit. The US especially has an extensive history of medling in the political life of foreign countries, going as far as bribing politicians, overthrowing governments, and even invading with military troops. This coercive influence is unprecedented and is never really perceived as a problem in the eyes of the international community. The term "American Exceptionalism" comes to mind, being the idea that the United States in some way holds the moral high ground on our planet, and all of its actions are therefor justified, given that they are doing it for the "greater good". Needless to say, this is complete nonsense. Everything from the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria, to help overthrowing governments in Chile, Columbia, Honduras, Panama, Ukraine, should remind one that the US is by far no example in helping the world - and the list of countries affected goes on and on.

Most, if not all, of these foreign interventions have gone completely unpunished by the global community and keep happening still without anyone in the West blinking an eye about it. Yet in the light of the recent accusations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election, this US exceptionalism becomes ever more apparent. As the West cries in harmony for more punishing and sanctioning of the Russian Federation, it becomes almost impossible to have a reasonable debate regarding the actions of Russia in the larger context of history, without being told one is indulging in "whataboutism". I cannot recall the amount of time I have seen someone on Reddit or elsewhere online try to bring up the foreign interventions of the United States in a comparative policy analysis hoping to balance the scale to a more fair assessment of the Russia's action, only to be called out on "that's whataboutism". It happens, time and time again, as if it is the argument to end them all.

Whataboutism as a logical fallacy is legitimate if the situation is such as

Person A : "You killed my cat"
Person B : "What about the fact that you broke my window"
Person A : "That's whataboutism".

But in a different situation such as this one, it doesn't hold up at all in the same way :

Person A : "You killed my cat"
Person B : "What about the fact that you killed my cat, my dog and my turtle"
Person A : "That's whataboutism"

Breaking a window doesn't justify killing someone's cat, and is a false appeal to hypocrisy. But on the other hand, mentioning that the other person is accusing you of the same crime yet amplified, calling out for whataboutism simply comes across as shallow and frankly quite idiotic. Of course killing 3 pets doesn't directly justify killing another, but the victim who lost all 3 pets is entitled to call out the accusation of Person A as being hypocritical.

If someone tells me that the actions of Russia to hire 13 trolls to post memes on social media in order to sway the electorate in the US in the favour of Trump is in fact foreign intervention from the side of Russia, and deserves to be punished, I try to remind me of the time but 20 years ago, when the US openly and proudly interfered in the Russian election to sway the election in the favor of Yeltsin. This is a typical case in which I would be attacked for doing "whataboutism". Yet my intent is never to justify the actions of the Russian government, but instead to try and counterbalance claims that lack a certain nuance necessary to judge the actions of the Russian government.

See the graph below :

My endline is this : when dealing with foreign policy, when dealing with international relations, whataboutism is not a logical counterargument in a call for historical perspective. In the case of condemnations, sanctions or intervention, we are dealing with the lives of people, and hence all arguments to prevent undesired suffering are worth being taken into account.

It is always a good idea to be aware of the misdeeds of your own country in the context of our global society, if you want to fairly judge the misdeeds of other countries. To quote Noam Chomsky :

"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it.

So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one's actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century."

So next time you may feel the urge to vividly accuse someone on the internet of deflecting your claim in a vile act of whataboutism, ask yourself first whether the person is not trying to put your claim in a grander necessary context that might help shed a more balanced light on the situation. Simply trying to compare two events is not always the same as using the one to discredit the other - at least not if done with the proper intent.