avatar
Silent Democracy


David Cromwell 

and David Edwards"It’s

sociologically interesting, though scary", said the actor Anthony Sher in a

recent interview, "that you can be inside an evil system and be somehow

unaware of it." South African by birth, Sher was talking about the former

system of apartheid. But what if the same could be said of our

"liberal-democratic" western society?

During

last year’s 78-day NATO bombing campaign of the Former Republic of Yugoslavia

(FRY), Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, wrote, "Future historians

will spend long hours and write fat books working out this phenomenon. Why have

the Serbs not risen in outrage at the unspeakable horrors committed in their

name?"

Future

historians, in fact, have already examined Freedland’s "unspeakable

horrors" and found them to be pure fantasy, the product of the overheated

imagination of NATO warmongers and credulous journalists. It is now clear that

in the twelve months prior to the bombing, between 1,000 and 2,000 people were

killed on both sides of the conflict, with deaths running at an average of one

per day in the weeks running up to the attack – appalling, but hardly

genocidal. In its examination of 30 mass gravesites the FBI unearthed a total of

some 200 bodies. In Ljubenic, a mass grave alleged to contain some 350 bodies

was found to contain just seven. In town after town, alleged mass graves were

found to be empty or contained only one or two bodies.

The

head of a Spanish forensic team attached to the International Criminal tribunal,

Emilio Perez Pujol, denounced the way his time had become part of "a

semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines, because we did not find one

– not one – mass grave."

The

timing of the famed flood of refugees has also been of interest to future

historians. Prior to the bombing, and for two days following its onset, the

United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported no data on refugees.

On March 27, three days into the bombing, UNHCR reported that 4,000 had fled

Kosovo to Albania and Macedonia. By April 5, the New York Times reported

"more than 350,000 have left Kosovo since March 24".

Long

after this had all become clear, Lord Robertson, Secretary General of NATO, did

his best to exploit public (media-assisted) ignorance of these matters in an ITV

interview in June 2000: "We were faced with a situation where there was

this killing going on, this cleansing going on; the kind of ethnic cleansing we

thought had disappeared after the Second World War. You were seeing people there

coming in trains, the cattle trains, with refugees once again. Were we supposed

to stand back? Were we supposed to stand back and watch people being murdered,

butchered, tortured, raped, expelled from their country, simply to do

nothing?"

To

prevent what, in fact, was low-level killing and a tide of refugees that did not

exist (until after the bombing had begun), NATO sent bombs crashing through 33

medical clinics and hospitals, 344 schools, a mosque in Djakovica, a Basilica in

Nis, a church in Prokuplje, trains, tractors, power stations, and the rest. It

polluted the land with depleted uranium shells and unexploded cluster bomblets

which continue to kill children and adults. Also, in June of this year, Amnesty

International reported how "NATO forces…committed serious violations of

the laws of war leading in a number of cases to the unlawful killings of

civilians." Amnesty focused in particular on the April 23, 1999 bombing of

the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television, which left 16 civilians

dead, describing it as "a deliberate attack on a civilian object"

which therefore "constitutes a war crime." The report noted that the

requirement that NATO aircraft fly above 15,000 feet to provide maximum

protection for aircraft and pilots "made full adherence to international

humanitarian law virtually impossible".

The

real question, not just for future historians, but for all thinking people, is

how so many respected journalists, like Jonathan Freedland, could yet again be

so readily taken in by the deceptions of power? Spokespeople for state power

have always insisted that they are acting for the good of all humanity, and

respected commentators have always accepted their words at face value as

although they were born, if not yesterday, then since the previous set of lies

had been exposed as utterly fraudulent. This happens with such consistency that

there is clearly something more than random chance at work. Noam Chomsky

explains how the selection process can best be understood: "In any society,

the respectable intellectuals, those who will be recognised as serious

intellectuals, will overwhelmingly tend to be those who are subordinated to

power. Those who are not subordinated to power are not recognised as

intellectuals, or are marginalised as dissidents, maybe ‘ideological’… The

tendency is just as obvious as the fact that corporate media serve corporate

interests."

The

notion of a Western-led "moral crusade" becomes even more

extraordinary when we consider that millions of people have died, and many

millions more have been condemned to lives of misery and torture, as a result of

Western interventions in Iran, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Guatemala, Chile,

Brazil, Nicaragua, Iraq and elsewhere. The leading academic scholar on human

rights in Latin America, Lars Schoultz, found, for example, that US aid

"has tended to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments which

torture their citizens… to the hemisphere’s relatively egregious violators of

fundamental human rights".

The

rationale is not hard to divine: exploitative conditions – "good investment

climates" benefiting local elites and Western corporations (the real power)

- require violence to pacify the discontent of impoverished majorities. Britain

and the US actively supported Suharto’s bloody coup in Indonesia in 1965-66 at

the cost of one million lives. Some 90% of the bullets used in Indonesia’s

subsequent invasion of East Timor in 1975 were US-supplied. Around 200,000

people died in a slaughter for which Suharto "was given the green

light" by the US, according to former CIA operations officer in Jakarta,

Philip Liechty: "We sent the Indonesian generals everything that you need

to fight a major war against somebody who doesn’t have any guns. We sent them

rifles, ammunition, mortars, grenades, food, helicopters. You name it; they got

it. And they got it direct," Liechty adds.

Pragmatic

need is more than sufficient to ensure that these facts are either unknown or

dismissed out of hand. Corporations are naturally not keen to discuss the role

of terror and murder in imposing ‘development’ on the Third World; nor are their

allies in government; and nor is the ‘free press’ – itself made up of

corporations, owned by parent corporations, and dependent on corporate

advertisers. It is not that the above facts are not true, they +can’t+ be true,

and so they are ignored, or dismissed as delusions. The familiar notion of the

essential benignity of Western power, by contrast, +must+ be true – it is a

‘necessary illusion’ – and so it +is+ true: we are proud supporters of

‘democracy’, ‘fair play’ and ‘respect for law and order’ in a world that somehow

comes to be filled with violent thugs supported by Western states and businesses

which coincidentally profit immensely from their violence. The first casualty of

the war for profit is the capacity to make elementary rational connections.

The

United States, after all, is massively rich and powerful. Central and South

America are weak and afflicted with terrible poverty. The United States is an

ardent supporter of democracy and freedom. Central and South America are

eternally plagued by authoritarian governments and outright dictators. US

corporations profit massively from the vulnerability of Central and South

American human and natural resources. A secondary school child could work it

out, and yet such connections are totally alien, indeed unknown, to our

corporate press.

Take

another example of our silent ‘democracy’. Climate change. According to the

London-based Global Commons Institute, there will be more than two million

deaths from climate change-related disasters worldwide in the next ten years.

Damage to property will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. But where are

the in-depth media debates exposing the chasm between the magnitude of the

climate threat and the pitiful political response to it? No wonder that Ross

Gelbspan, the Pultizer Prize-winning journalist, once wrote that ‘news stories

about the warming of the planet generally evoke an eerie silence’.

There

are exceptions. A recent Sunday Times article reports that the legendary

Northwest Passage has at last been opened by climate change. Peter Conradi notes

"The benefits are considerable: up to 2,500 miles will be cut from journeys

from one coast of America to the other, and as much as double that from Europe

to Asia." A marvellous boost to global trade, in other words. "Not all

experts share the euphoria", however, as there remains a depressing, if

slight, risk that local temperatures might actually fall slightly over the next

few years, threatening the passage.

The

academic community is, by and large, complicit in this mixture of silence and

absurdity. When one of the authors, an oceanographer, attends meetings on the

politics of climate change, he is commonly asked by management whether he is

attending "as an individual or as a representative of the organisation".

But what does such a question actually mean? Where and how can the line be drawn

between the professional self and the personal self? The disjunction is

profoundly unhealthy, echoing R.D Laing’s concept of ‘the divided self’ – a

division that is characteristic of the truly insane mind.

The

renowned German psychologist Erich Fromm analysed the psychology of obedience in

modern corporate society. The "organization man", Fromm wrote,

"is not aware that he obeys; he believes that he only conforms with what is

rational and practical". In academia, to be "rational and

practical" means to conform to a system that rewards obedience to power:

elite interests – transnational corporations and international investors – which

benefit from ‘free trade’ and deregulated capital flows. Meanwhile, their

political allies in government trip over themselves to cut public services to

boost ‘international competitiveness’.

Sober

academics are not ‘supposed’ to step outside our specialised field of knowledge

to criticise the private interests which pollute precious ecosystems, destroy

communities, abuse human rights and threaten the global climate system. They are

‘supposed’ to restrict our public utterances to safe topics that do not reflect

badly on their institutions or upset funding sources. Such ‘neutrality’ ensures

that today’s headlong rush to environmental devastation and social injustice

proceeds apace. In truth ‘neutrality’ is impossible: to do nothing is to vote

for disaster.

When

Chomsky was challenged to explain what qualified him as a commentator on US

domestic and foreign policy, he replied simply, "I’m a human being".

How many times have scientists told us informally, "Get me down the pub

over a pint and I’ll tell you what I really think about climate change and oil

companies"? What kind of professional ‘objectivity’ is that? It is the kind

that acquiesces in research and teaching moulded to fit a corporate-shaped

economy; that does not challenge our political paymasters about the deaths of

5000 young Iraqi children every month as a direct result of Western-imposed

economic sanctions; and that allows one in six British children to live in

poverty with barely a murmur in the press or academia.

How

can we reconcile these facts with the widespread belief in the essential

goodness of our ‘liberal-democratic’ society? We cannot. "Our boasted

civilisation", said the writer Jack London, "is based upon blood,

soaked in blood, and neither you nor I nor any of us can escape the scarlet

stains." Far from living in a benign, democratic society, we are living

under a system that promotes power and profit above concern for justice and

life. By now the deluding power of institutionalised greed for profit and

personal compromise are at a level where society can work remorselessly to

ensure its own destruction by undermining even trivial moves to control

greenhouse gas emissions. Witness the response of big business – the National

Association of Manufacturers and US Chamber, for example – to the Kyoto Protocol

on climate change: obstructionism all the way.

And

what about us? How much do we really care? How much does it really matter to us

so long as we get on with playing safe, with getting paid and climbing the

promotional ladder? If some kind of stand needs to be made, then it is surely

someone else who will have to make it. And if some kind of price needs to be

paid, then it is surely someone else who will have to pay it.

As

historian and activist Howard Zinn has noted, we are kidding ourselves if we

think we have no choice, or that no choice needs to be made: "In a

situation where one’s job is within someone else’s power to grant or to

withhold, still… there is the possibility of choice. The choice is between

teaching and acting according to our most deeply felt values, whether or not it

meets approval from those with power over us – or being dishonest with

ourselves, censoring ourselves, in order to be safe."

 

David

Cromwell is an oceanographer and author of the forthcoming "Private

Planet" (Jon Carpenter Publishing). David Edwards is the author of

"Free to be Human" (1995) and "The Compassionate

Revolution" (1998 – both Green Books).

 

 

Leave a comment