The Forbidden Truths of the Bush-Blair War
| Monday April 7, 2003
John Pilger, The
Independent Covering this in a shroud of respectability has not been easy for
George Bush and Tony Blair. Millions now know too much; the crime is all
too evident. Tam Dalyell, Father of the House of Commons, a Labour MP
for 41 years, says the prime minister is a war criminal and should be
sent to The Hague. He is serious, because the prima facie case against
Blair and Bush is beyond doubt. In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the
“necessity’’ for pre-emptive attacks against its neighbors. “To
initiate a war of aggression,’’ said the tribunal’s judgment,
“is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international
crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within
itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’’ To this, the Palestinian writer Ghada Karmi adds, “a deep and
unconscious racism that imbues every aspect of Western policy toward
Iraq.” It is this racism, she says, that has cynically elevated Saddam
Hussein from “a petty local chieftain, albeit a brutal and ruthless
one in the mold of many before him, (to a figure) demoniZed beyond
reason”. To Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, the Iraqis, like all
Arabs, were “niggers’’, against whom poison gas could be used.
They were un-people; and they still are. The killing of some 80
villagers near Baghdad last Thursday, of children in markets, of the
“chicks who get in the way’’ would be in industrial quantities now
were it not for the voices of the millions who filled London and other
capitals, and the young people who walked out of their schools; they
have saved countless lives. Just as the American invasion of Vietnam was fueled by racism, in
which “gooks’’ could be murdered with impunity, so the current
atrocity in Iraq is from the same mold. Should you doubt that, turn the
news around and examine the double standard. Imagine there are Iraqi
tanks in Britain and Iraqi troops laying siege to Birmingham. Absurd?
Well, it would not happen here. But the British military is doing that
to Basra, a city bigger than Birmingham, firing shoulder-held missiles
and dropping cluster bombs on its population, 40 percent of whom are
children. Moreover, “our boys” are denying water to the stricken
people of Basra as well as to Umm Qasr, which they have controlled for a
week. It is no wonder Blair is furious with the Al-Jazeera channel,
which has exposed this, and the lie that the people of Basra were rising
up on cue for their liberation. Since Sept. 11, 2001, “our’’ propaganda and its unspoken racism
has required an imperial distortion of intellect and morality. The
Iraqis are not fighting like lions, in defense of their homeland. They
are “cowardly’’ and subhuman because they use hit-and-run tactics
against a hugely powerful invader — as if they have any choice. This
belittling of their bravery and disregard of their humanity, like the
disregard of thousands of Afghans recently bombed to death in dusty
villages, confronts us with a moral issue as profound as the Western
response to that greatest act of terrorism, the wilful atomic bombing of
Japan. Have we progressed? In 2003, is it still true that only
“our’’ lives are of value? These Anglo-American invasions of weak and largely defenseless
nations are meant to demonstrate the kind of world the US is planning to
dominate by force, with its procession of worthy and unworthy victims
and the establishment of American bases at the gateways of all the main
sources of fossil fuels. There is a list now. If Israel has its way,
Iran will be next; and Cuba, Libya, Syria and even China had better
watch out. North Korea may not be an immediate American target, because
its threat of nuclear war has been effective. Ironically, had Iraq kept
its nuclear weapons, this invasion probably would not have taken place.
That is the lesson for all governments at odds with Bush and Blair:
Nuclear-arm yourself quickly. The most forbidden truth is that this demonstrably militarist British
government, and the rampant superpower it serves, are the true enemies
of our security. In the plethora of opinion polls, the most illuminating
was conducted by American Time magazine among a quarter of a million
people across Europe. The question was: “Which country poses the
greatest danger to world peace in 2003?’’ Readers were asked to tick
off one of three possibilities: Iraq, North Korea and the United States.
Eight percent viewed Iraq as the most dangerous; North Korea was chosen
by 9 percent. No fewer than 83 percent voted for the United States, of
which, in the eyes of most of humanity, Britain is now but a lethal
appendage. Only successful propaganda, and corrupt journalism, will
prevent us understanding this and other truths. Arab News Features 7 April 2003 |
Copyright 2014 Q Madp www.OurWarHeroes.org