freedom costs money

April/2004

The likelihood of conflict in Iraq provoked the largest anti-war marches London has ever seen yet did nothing to convince Blair that he needed to rethink. Instead he continued with the “I know it’s tricky but I believe I’m right so trust me” line of argument. Now that there can obviously be no turning back, and that Iraq appears to be in turmoil, how should we view the situation?

First of all, when you consider how many people managed to get to London for the anti-war demonstrations and then consider how many people may have liked to but didn’t make it, what you have at the very least is widespread public doubt over the effects of war and what the motivations are behind it. This includes a lot of people who suspect the policies of the stronger countries in the world are being carried out to the detriment of the weaker ones. We weren’t generally protesting because we thought Saddam was a nice man that had been misunderstood. On the contrary, we knew British and American governments had been culpable in allowing him to retain a stranglehold over Iraq. What we were voicing were our doubts that the U.S. and Britain’s leaders A) knew what was best for Iraq and B) were trying to do what was best for Iraq. What we perhaps yearned for, and still ideally yearn for, was a stronger U.N. that could decide democratically who the main violators of human rights across the globe are and how best to deal with them. What we certainly didn’t want was everyone bowing down to a zealous U.S. Administration that has never even bothered to disguise its desire for America to dominate the world and its ever-dwindling resources (yes it’s the same old oil story).

Now this type of liberal lefty clap-trap is quite easily shot down by the ‘realists’ among us. How is the U.N. ever going to decide which human rights violators should be dealt with and then how best to do it? First of all, there is such a wide spectrum of opinion coupled with the always inevitable vested interests coming into play that the decision-making process would be so slow that it simply would not work. This criticism, though not wholly constructive on its own, is of course warranted. Notwithstanding why should it follow that, rather than work on creating a viable system that allows rapid and effective action to be taken against human right violations, the proper course of action is to wade into Iraq, after having already obliterated Afghanistan, and cause even more of a humanitarian disaster? Of course, the humanitarian issue itself was badly fudged and came more as a conveniently emotive afterthought because the mandate for war was actually based on the need to rid of Saddam of his, now seemingly imaginary, weapons of mass destruction. But I actually feel for some politicians to some degree. I’m sure Blair doesn’t get much time to sit around and think about the world as I do, he has to go about sorting out the immediate problems to the best of his abilities. He probably has a range of choices on the table at any one time of which none may seem very appealing or have very positive likely end consequences.

But perhaps the complexities of the situation demand a return to long term ideals rather than short-term pragmatism. This requires politicians to become more far-sighted and more selfless (difficult for individuals with a psychological make-up that makes the pursuit of personal power a priority I know but I may as well continue down this avenue of futility as I don't have any paid work to do at the moment). The Prime Minister for example exists within a four year cycle where he takes the rap for how things, often largely beyond his control, play out domestically and internationally. His or her success is largely judged by whether his or her party gets back into power. Making the world a more peaceful, safer place is not a priority unless, for the sake of simplicity, it A) pleases the corporations that sponsor you B) is the most important thing to the people you’re relying on to vote for you and C) plays well in the media you’re reliant upon to reach this proportion of the electorate. But unless we tackle the larger questions faced by humanity then soon these dictates could be rendered meaningless anyway when the societies we have grown used to first start to splutter and then begin to disintegrate.

True political naivety is in fact rooted in the idea that our societies are so highly evolved this cannot happen and that it is the less developed countries that need us to show them the way. History shows that when the people are brought to their knees this is when they lash out. Some would argue that this is visible right now with regards to Palestinian sucicide bombers. People are always prone to anger and dissatisfaction due to the manner in which they feel they’re exploited but are apathetic when there’s food on the table and money to be spent. The social changes that occurred in countries like France and Britain were influenced by an evolution in political thought concerning the basic rights of man but perhaps often only became truly potent when the people rioted because they couldn’t afford to buy bread for example. What if there was a serious economic downturn in the West and no external enemy left to focus our anger upon? Would are societies remain peaceful despite this growing feeling that we are continually being lied to? We know the problems the planet faces environmentally and we know the interests of corporate elites are riding roughshod over the long-term interests of humanity in favour of limited short-term gains. We know the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer as a result. We know we need politicians that are perceptive enough to stare further into the future and understand where the world could be heading if we don’t start to change tack. We know that our political systems need to adapt in order to allow more progressive ideas to flourish unimpeded by the priority given to the pursuit of short-term profit. And most importantly we know that people need to be better educated in order to overcome manipulation through fear and allow the ideals we all share as humans to become something real we can actually aspire to. The best way to convince people of your argument is to show them the right evidence. And if terrorism is truly the biggest danger we face in the world today Mr Bush and Mr Blair, how does the present situation in Iraq, bearing in mind it's gone from economic deprivation to bombing to invasion to occupation, actually look to potential new members swayed by the arguments of terrorist groups?! You've presented them with entirely the wrong type of evidence - that of Western aggression - and any talk of 'a battle for hearts and minds' seems ridiculous at this point in time. It’s a simple enough sum to equate and maths isn’t exactly my strong point: Loads more fuel + already sizeable fire = big, fuck off, raging inferno!

There are people in this world (and I’m not yet sure whether Bush is one of them but people within his administration seem to be if you read March's Bolshy Bill) that believe the tense current geo-political climate simply signals the start of Armageddon and are perfectly resigned to this being the case, some are even happy to help the process on its way. And, to jump from Iraq to Israel/Palestine for a second, how can American fundamentalist Christians, turning up to Israeli parades, as I witnessed on the program Children of Abraham on Channel 4 (and I saw some people waving Union Jacks too), do anything other than heighten the tension with regards to the perceived clash of civilisations? We have heard that much has been done to improve the security of the West in relation to ‘9/11’ and other thoroughly repugnant instances such as the Madrid bombings and this includes tracking the movement of people that could be a threat to a state’s internal security and not allowing them to travel freely. Why no clamping down on the freedom of movement of people who are doing nothing other than antagonising people that already feel as though they’ve been trodden into the ground for centuries? An ‘us and them’ mentality will do none of us any favours because we have to fully realise that all of our actions have knock-on effects. One person’s victory march is another person’s feeling of being walked all over.

If I am thoroughly incensed by the sight of Christians and Jews expressing their solidarity in a manner that implies the exclusion of the Muslim then how will it appear to Islamic people growing up in an environment where they feel nothing but physical oppression and political repression?! If you took away my freedom, my possessions, the luxury I have of being able to channel my anger into more creative and productive outlets, if you left me with nothing but my thoughts and my perception of history, I would not like to hypothesise over what I would be capable of when I finally reached the end of my tether.

Whilst our leaders and media seem prone to label terrorist acts as ‘evil’ rather than ‘an evil’ (if we have to use that word at all) we will not learn anything. We should not be fostering an impression that there is a constant battle between good and evil, this notion has already pervaded everything from entertainment to religion, it does not need any more bolstering. When a young man or woman straps explosives to him or herself and then detonates them it is the result of a longstanding, deep-rooted feeling of desperation catalysed by a process of indoctrination in which the anger is finally given a chance to manifest itself. I know that the dispute regarding Israel and Palestine is long-running, interminably complex and virtually, if not wholly, intractable. But what I also know, and what many of the anti-war protestors knew before the invasion of Iraq, is that someone has to make the first move with regards to refusing to use force in the attempt to solve disputes.

What was disappointing with regards to Iraq was people everywhere, perhaps more overwhelmingly than ever before, stood up to be counted and said “NO” to war. And we were treated as though we were naïve and overly idealistic when in actual fact many of us were the real realists. This is because we saw the problem as a whole and not as an isolated difficulty that could be remedied by getting the weapons out and grabbing the oil. We also knew that if we suspected the political system was governed by the interests of big business, the military-industrial complex and religious fundamentalists, and that these power blocs were becoming worryingly intertwined, that the chance of a positive outcome in Iraq was unlikely and thus it was our duty to oppose conflict. Now that Iraq's future seems to hang in the balance, people of the anti-war persuasion might well be gloating. This is just as flawed a stance as it was to be confident that the U.S. and Britain were going to make Iraq a stable, happy country almost instantaneously.

Once the decision was taken to go to war, the whole framework changed. Saddam was soon ousted and the question quickly became what should be done with post-Saddam Iraq? This was the other question that perturbed me before the war that nobody seemed able to answer. Yes, being rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thing for Iraq and I am as happy as anyone to see one less ruthless dictator in the world. However, most people interested in politics and history will be aware of what can happen when a vice-like grip over a society is suddenly broken. It’s called a power vacuum. The horrific instances of repression under Saddam should not only be perceived as indefensible crimes against humanity but also the acts of a man only too aware of how much violence and manipulation was necessary in order to fend off potential rivals (this was a man that worshipped Stalin for pity’s sake!) and was therefore obviously paranoid that he could one day just as easily be toppled. There are deep divisions within Iraq after all and a number of different groups that believe they should play the dominant role in running the country.

Thus now our countries have a duty to keep a lid on what could turn into a long and bloody resistance to occupation and then a civil war that could finally result in the victory of one group and the persecution of the rest. That a final workable settlement should truly be reached under the banner of the international community's flag rather than forged in relation to perceived U.S./British interests is obvious but this shouldn’t mean that America and Britain places the financial, physical and logistical onus on the UN to sort out their mess. The moment we went to war we made the fate of Iraq our responsibility. The scale of resistance we have witnessed surely implies that this should be the last time the U.S. and Britain handle an issue such as Iraq in this way because the action and the manner in which it was undertaken is widely perceived, at best, as another instance of neo-imperialism, at worst, part of a wider war already being waged against Islam. If the situation simmers down and it actually turns out that the pro-war politicians were right all along and knew what they were doing as much as anyone could in a highly complex and difficult situation such as this then we and they have to answer the question of why we have no confidence in our government’s motivations and the policies hinged upon them. If in 10 years time Iraq is stable, happy and prospering and all of its citizens are free then, as far as I can tell, all we will probably be able to say is that we went to war foolishly, for all the wrong reasons, but that the outcome was, luckily, finally preferable to another 10 years of Saddam Hussein. You can live in hope I suppose………..

WILLIAM GRAY

(Anyone interested in the subject matter discussed in this piece will, in my humble opinion, find they can arrive at a better understanding of the international political system if they read work by Chomsky Pilger and Monbiot, or simply log onto ZNet)