Truth and War Mean Nothing at the Party Conferences

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Britain’s
political conference season of 2008 will be remembered as The Great
Silence. Politicians have come and gone and their mouths have moved
in front of large images of themselves, and they often wave at someone.
There has been lots of news about each other. Adam Boulton, the
political editor of Sky News, and billed as "the husband of
Blair aide Anji Hunter," has published a book of gossip derived
from his "unrivaled access to No 10." His revelation is
that Tony Blair’s mouthpiece told lies. The war criminal himself
has been absent, but the former mouthpiece has been signing his
own book of gossip, and waving. The club is celebrating itself,
including all those, Labour and Tory, who gave the war criminal
a standing ovation on his last day in parliament and who have yet
to vote on, let alone condemn, Britain’s part in the wanton human,
social and physical destruction of an entire nation. Instead, there
are happy debates such as, "Can hope win?" and, my favorite,
"Can foreign policy be a Labour strength?" As Harold Pinter
said of unmentionable crimes: "Nothing ever happened. Even
while it was happening, it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It
was of no interest."

The Guardian’s
economics editor, Larry Elliott, has written that the Prime Minister
"resembles a tragic hero in a Hardy novel: an essentially good
man brought down by one error of judgment." What is this one
error of judgment? The bankrolling of two murderous colonial adventures?
No. The unprecedented growth of the British arms industry and the
sale of weapons to the poorest countries? No. The replacement of
manufacturing and public service by an arcane cult serving the ultra-rich?
No. The Prime Minister’s "folly" is "postponing the
election last year." This is the March Hare Factor.

Following
the US

Reality can
be detected, however, by applying the Orwell Rule and inverting
public pronouncements and headlines, such as "Aggressor Russia
facing pariah status, US warns," thereby identifying the correct
pariah; or by crossing the invisible boundaries that fix the boundaries
of political and media discussion. "When truth is replaced
by silence," said the Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko,
"the silence is a lie."

Understanding
this silence is critical in a society in which news has become noise.
Silence covers the truth that Britain’s political parties have converged
and now follow the single-ideology model of the United States. This
is different from the political consensus of half a century ago
that produced what was known as social democracy. Today’s political
union has no principled social democratic premises. Debate has become
just another weasel word and principle, like the language of Chaucer,
is bygone. That the poor and the state fund the rich is a given,
along with the theft of public services, known as privatization.
This was spelt out by Margaret Thatcher but, more importantly, by
new Labour’s engineers. In The
Blair Revolution: Can New Labour Deliver?
Peter Mandelson
and Roger Liddle declared Britain’s new "economic strengths"
to be its transnational corporations, the "aerospace"
industry (weapons) and "the preeminence of the City of London."
The rest was to be asset-stripped, including the peculiar British
pursuit of selfless public service. Overlaying this was a new social
authoritarianism guided by a hypocrisy based on "values."
Mandelson and Liddle demanded "a tough discipline" and
a "hardworking majority" and the "proper bringing-up
[sic] of children." And in formally launching his Murdochracy,
Blair used "moral" and "morality" 18 times in
a speech he gave in Australia as a guest of Rupert Murdoch, who
had recently found God.

A "think
tank" called Demos exemplified this new order. A founder of
Demos, Geoff Mulgan, himself rewarded with a job in one of Blair’s
"policy units," wrote a book called Connexity. "In
much of the world today," he offered, "the most pressing
problems on the public agenda are not poverty or material shortage
. . . but rather the disorders of freedom: the troubles that result
from having too many freedoms that are abused rather than constructively
used." As if celebrating life in another solar system, he wrote:
"For the first time ever, most of the world’s most powerful
nations do not want to conquer territory."

That reads,
now as it ought to have read then, as dark parody in a world where
more than 24,000 children die every day from the effects of poverty
and at least a million people lie dead in just one territory conquered
by the most powerful nations. However, it serves to remind us of
the political "culture" that has so successfully fused
traditional liberalism with the lunar branch of western political
life and allowed our "too many freedoms" to be taken away
as ruthlessly and anonymously as wedding parties in Afghanistan
have been obliterated by our bombs.

The product
of these organized delusions is rarely acknowledged. The current
economic crisis, with its threat to jobs and savings and public
services, is the direct consequence of a rampant militarism comparable,
in large part, with that of the first half of the last century,
when Europe’s most advanced and cultured nation committed genocide.
Since the 1990s, America’s military budget has doubled. Like the
national debt, it is currently the largest ever. The true figure
is not known, because up to 40 per cent is classified "black"
— it is hidden. Britain, with a weapons industry second only
to the US, has also been militarized. The Iraq invasion has cost
$5trn, at least. The 4,500 British troops in Basra almost never
leave their base. They are there because the Americans demand it.
On 19 September, Robert Gates, the American defense secretary, was
in London demanding $20bn from allies like Britain so that the US
invasion force in Afghanistan could be increased to 44,000. He said
the British force would be increased. It was an order.

In the meantime,
an American invasion of Pakistan is under way, secretly authorized
by President Bush. The "change" candidate for president,
Barack Obama, had already called for an invasion and more aircraft
and bombs. The ironies are searing. A Pakistani religious school
attacked by American drone missiles, killing 23 people, was set
up in the 1980s with CIA backing. It was part of Operation Cyclone,
in which the US armed and funded mujahedin groups that became al-Qaeda
and the Taliban. The aim was to bring down the Soviet Union. This
was achieved; it also brought down the Twin Towers.

War of the
world

On 20 September
the inevitable response to the latest invasion came with the bombing
of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad. For me, it is reminiscent of
President Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia in 1970, which was planned
as a diversion from the coming defeat in Vietnam. The result was
the rise to power of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. Today, with Taliban
guerrillas closing on Kabul and NATO refusing to conduct serious
negotiations, defeat in Afghanistan is also coming.

It is a war
of the world. In Latin America, the Bush administration is fomenting
incipient military coups in Venezuela, Bolivia, and possibly Paraguay,
democracies whose governments have opposed Washington’s historic
rapacious intervention in its "backyard." Washington’s
"Plan Colombia" is the model for a mostly unreported assault
on Mexico. This is the Merida Initiative, which will allow the United
States to fund "the war on drugs and organized crime"
in Mexico — a cover, as in Colombia, for militarizing its closest
neighbor and ensuring its "business stability."

Britain is
tied to all these adventures — a British "School of the Americas"
is to be built in Wales, where British soldiers will train killers
from all corners of the American empire in the name of "global
security."

None of this
is as potentially dangerous, or more distorted in permitted public
discussion, than the war on Russia. Two years ago, Stephen Cohen,
professor of Russian Studies at New York University, wrote a landmark
essay in the Nation which has now been reprinted in Britain.*
He warns of "the gravest threats [posed] by the undeclared
Cold War Washington has waged, under both parties, against post-communist
Russia during the past 15 years." He describes a catastrophic
"relentless winner-take-all of Russia’s post-1991 weakness,"
with two-thirds of the population forced into poverty and life expectancy
barely at 59. With most of us in the West unaware, Russia is being
encircled by US and NATO bases and missiles in violation of a pledge
by the United States not to expand NATO "one inch to the east."
The result, writes Cohen, "is a US-built reverse iron curtain
[and] a US denial that Russia has any legitimate national interests
outside its own territory, even in ethnically akin former republics
such as Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia. [There is even] a presumption
that Russia does not have full sovereignty within its own borders,
as expressed by constant US interventions in Moscow’s internal affairs
since 1992 . . . the United States is attempting to acquire the
nuclear responsibility it could not achieve during the Soviet era."

This
danger has grown rapidly as the American media again presents US-Russian
relations as "a duel to the death — perhaps literally."
The liberal Washington Post, says Cohen, "reads like
a bygone Pravda on the Potomac." The same is true in
Britain, with the regurgitation of propaganda that Russia was wholly
responsible for the war in the Caucasus and must therefore be a
"pariah." Sarah Palin, who may end up US president, says
she is ready to attack Russia. The steady beat of this drum has
seen Moscow return to its old nuclear alerts. Remember the 1980s,
writes Cohen, "when the world faced exceedingly grave Cold
War perils, and Mikhail Gorbachev unexpectedly emerged to offer
a heretical way out. Is there an American leader today ready to
retrieve that missed opportunity?" It is an urgent question
that must be asked all over the world by those of us still unafraid
to break the lethal silence.

*Stephen Cohen’s
article, "The New American Cold War," is reprinted in
full in the current issue of the Spokesman,
published by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation.

September
26, 2008

John
Pilger
was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been
a war correspondent, filmmaker and playwright. Based in London,
he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism’s
highest award, that of "Journalist of the Year," for his
work in Vietnam and Cambodia. His new book, Tell
Me No Lies: Investigative Journalism and Its Triumphs
, is
published by Jonathan Cape in June.

John
Pilger Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare