Disobey
by
John Pilger
Dissident Voice
March 13, 2003
How
have we got to this point, where two western governments take us into an
illegal and immoral war against a stricken nation with whom we have no quarrel
and who offer us no threat: an act of aggression opposed by almost everybody
and whose charade is transparent?
How can they attack, in our
name, a country already crushed by more than 12 years of an embargo aimed
mostly at the civilian population, of whom 42 per cent are children - a
medieval siege that has taken the lives of at least half a million children and
is described as genocidal by the former United Nations humanitarian coordinator
for Iraq?
How can those claiming to be
"liberals" disguise their embarrassment, and shame, while justifying
their support for George Bush's proposed launch of 800 missiles in two days as
a "liberation"? How can they ignore two United Nations studies which
reveal that some 500,000 people will be at risk? Do they not hear their own
echo in the words of the American general who said famously of a Vietnamese town
he had just levelled: "We had to destroy it in order to save it?"
"Few of us,"
Arthur Miller once wrote, "can easily surrender our belief that society
must somehow make sense. The thought that the State has lost its mind and is
punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be
internally denied."
These days, Miller's
astuteness applies to a minority of warmongers and apologists. Since 11
September 2001, the consciousness of the majority has soared. The word
"imperialism" has been rescued from agitprop and returned to common
usage. America's and Britain's planned theft of the Iraqi oilfields, following
historical precedent, is well understood. The false choices of the cold war are
redundant, and people are once again stirring in their millions. More and more
of them now glimpse American power, as Mark Twain wrote, "with its banner
of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in
the other".
What is heartening is the
apparent demise of "anti-Americanism" as a respectable means of
stifling recognition and analysis of American Imperialism. Intellectual loyalty
oaths, similar to those rife during the Third Reich, when the abusive
"anti-German" was enough to silence dissent, no longer work. In America
itself, there are too many anti-Americans filling the streets now: those whom
Martha Gellhorn called "that life-saving minority who judge their
government in moral terms, who are the people with a wakeful conscience and can
be counted upon".
Perhaps for the first time
since the late 1940s, Americanism as an ideology is being identified in the
same terms as any rapacious power structure; and we can thank Bush and Dick
Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice for that, even though their
acts of international violence have yet to exceed those of the
"liberal" Bill Clinton.
"My guess," wrote
Norman Mailer recently, "is that, like it or not, or want it or not, we
are going to go to war because that is the only solution Bush and his people
can see. The dire prospect that opens, therefore, is that America is going to
become a mega-banana republic where the army will have more and more importance
in our lives. And, before it is all over, democracy, noble and delicate as it
is, may give way . . . Indeed, democracy is the special condition that we will
be called upon to defend in the coming years. That will be enormously difficult
because the combination of the corporation, the military and the complete
investiture of the flag with mass spectator sports has set up a pre-fascist
atmosphere in America already."
In the military plutocracy
that is the American state, with its unelected president, venal Supreme Court,
silent Congress, gutted Bill of Rights and compliant media, Mailer's
"pre-fascist atmosphere" makes common sense. The dissident American
writer William Rivers Pitt pursues this further. "Critics of the Bush
administration," he wrote, "like to bandy about the word 'fascist'
when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi storm troopers
marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit.
It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes
of Benito Mussolini. Dubbed 'the father of fascism', Mussolini defined the word
in a far more pertinent fashion. 'Fascism,' he said, 'should more properly be
called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.'
"
Bush himself offered an
understanding of this on 26 February when he addressed the annual dinner of the
American Enterprise Institute. He paid tribute to "some of the finest
minds of our nation [who] are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our
nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such
minds. I want to thank them for their service."
The "20 such
minds" are crypto-fascists who fit the definition of William Pitt Rivers.
The institute is America's biggest, most important and wealthiest
"think-tank". A typical member is John Bolton, under-secretary for
arms control, the Bush official most responsible for dismantling the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, arguably the most important arms control
agreement of the late 20th century. The institute's strongest ties are with
extreme Zionism and the regime of Ariel Sharon. Last month, Bolton was in Tel Aviv
to hear Sharon's view on which country in the region should be next after Iraq.
For the expansionists running Israel, the prize is not so much the conquest of
Iraq but Iran. A significant proportion of the Israeli air force is already
based in Turkey with Iran in its sights, waiting for an American attack.
Richard Perle is the
institute's star. Perle is chairman of the powerful Defence Policy Board at the
Pentagon, the author of the insane policies of "total war" and
"creative destruction". The latter is designed to subjugate finally
the Middle East, beginning with the $90bn invasion of Iraq.
Perle helped to set up
another crypto-fascist group, the Project for the New American Century. Other
founders include Vice-President Cheney, the defence secretary Rumsfeld and
deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The institute's "mission
report", Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for
a new century, is an unabashed blueprint for world conquest. Before Bush came
to power, it recommended an increase in arms spending by $48bn so that America "can
fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has come
true. It said that nuclear war-fighting should be given the priority it
deserved. This has come true. It said that Iraq should be a primary target. And
so it is. And it dismissed the issue of Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass
destruction" as a convenient excuse, which it is.
Written by Wolfowitz, this
guide to world domination puts the onus on the Pentagon to establish a
"new order" in the Middle East under unchallenged US authority. A
"liberated" Iraq, the centrepiece of the new order, will be divided
and ruled, probably by three American generals; and after a horrific onslaught,
known as Shock and Awe.
Vladimir Slipchenko, one of
the world's leading military analysts, says the testing of new weapons is a
"main purpose" of the attack on Iraq. "Nobody is saying anything
about it," he said last month. "In May 2001, in his first
presidential address, Bush spoke about the need for preparation for future wars.
He emphasised that the armed forces needed to be completely high-tech, capable
of conducting hostilities by the no-contact method. After a series of live
experiments - in Iraq in 1991, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan - many corporations
achieved huge profits. Now the bottom line is $50-60bn a year."
He says that, apart from new
types of cluster bombs and cruise missiles, the Americans will use their
untested pulse bomb, known also as a microwave bomb. Each discharges two
megawatts of radiation which instantly puts out of action all communications,
computers, radios, even hearing aids and heart pacemakers. "Imagine, your
heart explodes!" he said.
In the future, this Pax
Americana will be policed with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons used
"pre-emptively", even in conflicts that do not directly engage US
interests. In August, the Bush administration will convene a secret meeting in
Omaha, Nebraska, to discuss the construction of a new generation of nuclear
weapons, including "mini nukes", "bunker busters" and neutron
bombs. Generals, government officials and nuclear scientists will also discuss
the appropriate propaganda to convince the American public that the new weapons
are necessary.
Such is Mailer's pre-fascist
state. If appeasement has any meaning today, it has little to do with a
regional dictator and everything to do with the demonstrably dangerous men in
Washington. It is vitally important that we understand their goals and the
degree of their ruthlessness. One example: General Pervez Musharraf, the
Pakistani dictator, was last year deliberately allowed by Washington to come
within an ace of starting a nuclear war with India - and to continue supplying
North Korea with nuclear technology - because he agreed to hand over al-Qaeda
operatives. The other day, John Howard, the Australian prime minister and
Washington mouthpiece, praised Musharraf, the man who almost blew up west Asia,
for his "personal courage and outstanding leadership".
In 1946, Justice Robert
Jackson, chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, said: "The very essence
of the Nuremberg charter is that individuals have international duties which
transcend national obligations of obedience imposed by the state."
With an attack on Iraq
almost a certainty, the millions who filled London and other capitals on the
weekend of 15-16 February, and the millions who cheered them on, now have these
transcendent duties. The Bush gang, and Tony Blair, cannot be allowed to hold
the rest of us captive to their obsessions and war plans. Speculation on
Blair's political future is trivia; he and the robotic Jack Straw and Geoff
Hoon must be stopped now, for the reasons long argued in these pages and on
hundreds of platforms.
And, incidentally, no one
should be distracted by the latest opportunistic antics of Clare Short, whose
routine hints of "rebellion", followed by her predictable inaction,
have helped to give Blair the time he wants to subvert the UN.
There is only one form of
opposition now: it is civil disobedience leading to what the police call civil
unrest. The latter is feared by undemocratic governments of all stripes.
The revolt has already
begun. In January, Scottish train drivers refused to move munitions. In Italy,
people have been blocking dozens of trains carrying American weapons and
personnel, and dockers have refused to load arms shipments. US military bases
have been blockaded in Germany, and thousands have demonstrated at Shannon
which, despite Ireland's neutrality, is being used by the US military to refuel
its planes en route to Iraq.
"We have become a
threat, but can we deliver?" asked Jessica Azulay and Brian Dominick of
the American resistance movement. "Policy-makers are debating right now
whether or not they have to heed our dissent. Now we must make it clear to them
that there will be political and economic consequences if they decide to ignore
us."
My own view is that if the
protest movement sees itself as a world power, as an expression of true
internationalism, then success need not be a dream. That depends on how far
people are prepared to go. The young female employee of the
Gloucestershire-based top-secret Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ),
who was charged this month with leaking information about America's dirty
tricks operation on members of the Security Council, shows us the courage required.
In the meantime, the new
Mussolinis are on their balconies, with their virtuoso rants and impassioned
insincerity. Reduced to wagging their fingers in a futile attempt to silence
us, they see millions of us for the first time, knowing and fearing that we
cannot be silenced.
John Pilger is an internationally renowned
investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest book is The
New Rulers of the World (Verso, 2002). Visit John Pilger’s website at: http://www.johnpilger.com