"the war itself had causes"

posted by k

In Tom Stoppard's play, Travesties, set in Zurich in 1917, the diplomat-protagonist Henry Carr reflects on the causes of the First World War: "I forget what they were, but it was all in the papers at the time. Something about brave little Belgium, wasn't it?" Later he wonders if the cause wasn't "saucy little Serbia." The key point is not the truth but effective headlines. As he puts it, "The newspapers would never have risked calling the British public to arms without a proper regard for succinct alliteration."

We forget the causes of war. So many countries, so many names - such difficult sets of belief and complicated histories. Even important politicians can't keep track of which is which. It's much easier to latch on to what the papers say - to news that is often fed to journalists by government sources.

When Tony Blair spoke about the war in Iraq, which he linked with the so-called "war on terror", he used to go back to 9/11 as the day on which everything changed. He described the war as "an eopchal struggle between the forces of progress and the forces of reaction" set in motion by a "poisonous ideology" which had "chosen Iraq as its battleground." (I thought Iraq was chosen by Bush and Blair - but that doesn't fit the myth.)

One odd thing about this war is the way in which the sides change. One week we have one enemy, then another. Sometimes we're fighting Shi-ite extremists, sometimes Sunni extremists, sometimes both together.

Our allies are a funny lot too. So many people are keen to be against Terror. Russia is a keen ally. Sarkozy seems to be bringing France into the "War on Terror" camp. President Karimov of Uzbekistan was free to torture and murder dissidents and their families, so long as he spouted the "War on Terror" line. Libya was against us. Now Libya is our ally. Today, North Korea announced that it is to be removed from the U.S. list of rogue states. How long our leaders describe Kim Jong-Il as a democrat and friend of freedom?

Rogue states are defined by the White House as states that:

• brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
• display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
• are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
• sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
• reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.

It's worth testing Britain, the United States and all their allies against these standards. I've noticed quite a few countries developing weapons of mass destruction, disregarding international law and using threats to achieve their designs. I've noticed quite a few people in public life getting rich from defence contracts. Does that squander national resources for personal gain - at the cost of human lives? Or aren't we supposed to consider ourselves? Perhaps ethics are just for other people. Or perhaps ethical standards change as fast as our history is rewritten.

At the end of 2001 the four main rogue states were listed as Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Now there's only one left - and the hawks are circling.

"the history of barbarism"

posted by k

Suppose we told the other side of the story. It would go something like this.

"We watched them interfere with shipping. This concerned us. Their leaders were issuing threats. Troop numbers are high in the region. Warships are massing in what they term "military exercises".

"We were careful to avoid casualties. We let them see they were outnumbered and that we were well-armed. No-one was hurt and we took them into custody. Naturally we took away their arms. At first we restrained them. We didn't want anyone to be hurt.

"We had to take precautions to safeguard military secrets. This is normal. We gave the prisoners blindfolds and let them put them on. Our soldiers were armed of course. Soldiers are accustomed to bear arms.

"As is normal, we segregate the sexes in custody. Interrogation followed normal techniques - nothing violent or humiliating . (We are not barbarians.) We interviewed prisoners separately and tried to get at the truth. We cautioned them and pointed out the risk of trial and imprisonment. We are sorry if sometimes guards moved the prisoners a little roughly; it is hard when they do not speak the same language though we tried to have an interpreter ready at all time.

"The prisoners were treated with respect. They were provided with fresh clothing and bedding. They had separate cells. Food and drink were provided. There were blankets to ensure that they were warm. After a few days we improved their conditions. They were allowed to associate with one another.

"When we discovered that the woman was a mother, we allowed her to write home. We invited television cameras to film the prisoners so that their families could see they were well.

"The prisoners confessed. Some of our people called for their trial and execution. We paid no attention to these extremists but showed mercy. Without demanding anything in return, we freed the prisoners and sent them home with gifts.

"Now they complain of their treatment. They may be obeying orders. They are soldiers; they do what their superiors command. They may tell lies for money. But we treated them well. It is your allies who abuse prisoners. We have seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib and we know enough of what happens in Guantanamo.

"Why do you say we are the hostage-takers? Why do you call us the barbarians?"


Seven of the fifteen freed prisoners attended the press conference to condemn their treatment in Iran. They didn't all speak. They had previously thanked President Ahmadinejad and said they were well-treated in Iran.

Now the Ministry of Defence is encouraging the freed prisoners to sell their stories. This sounds like chequebook journalism. Max Clifford sees problems in this. So does Craig Murray. So do I.