Zimpapers Logo

Edward Snowden

John Pilger
THE other night, I saw George Orwells’ “1984” performed on the London stage. Although crying out for a contemporary interpretation, Orwell’s warning about the future was presented as a period piece: remote, unthreatening, almost reassuring.
It was as if Edward Snowden had revealed nothing, Big Brother was not now a digital eavesdropper and Orwell himself had never said, “To be corrupted by totalitarianism, one does not have to live in a totalitarian country.”

Acclaimed by critics, the skilful production was a measure of our cultural and political times.
When the lights came up, people were already on their way out.

They seemed unmoved, or perhaps other distractions beckoned.
“What a mindfuck,” said the young woman, lighting up her phone.

As advanced societies are de-politicised, the changes are both subtle and spectacular.
In everyday discourse, political language is turned on its head, as Orwell prophesised in “1984”.

“Democracy” is now a rhetorical device. Peace is “perpetual war”.
“Global” is imperial. The once hopeful concept of “reform” now means regression, even destruction.

“Austerity” is the imposition of extreme capitalism on the poor and the gift of socialism for the rich: an ingenious system under which the majority service the debts of the few.

In the arts, hostility to political truth-telling is an article of bourgeois faith.
“Picasso’s red period,” says an Observer headline, “and why politics don’t make good art.”

Consider this in a newspaper that promoted the bloodbath in Iraq as a liberal crusade.
Picasso’s lifelong opposition to fascism is a footnote, just as Orwell’s radicalism has faded from the prize that appropriated his name.

A few years ago, Terry Eagleton, then professor of English literature at Manchester University, reckoned that “for the first time in two centuries, there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life”.

No Shelley speaks for the poor, no Blake for utopian dreams, no Byron damns the corruption of the ruling class, no Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin reveal the moral disaster of capitalism.

William Morris, Oscar Wilde, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw have no equivalents today.
Harold Pinter was the last to raise his voice.

Among the insistent voices of consumer-feminism, none echoes Virginia Woolf, who described “the arts of dominating other people . . . of ruling, of killing, of acquiring land and capital”.

At the National Theatre, a new play, “Great Britain”, satirises the phone hacking scandal that has seen journalists tried and convicted, including a former editor of Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World.

Described as a “farce with fangs [that] puts the whole incestuous [media] culture in the dock and subjects it to merciless ridicule”, the play’s targets are the “blessedly funny” characters in Britain’s tabloid Press.

That is well and good, and so familiar.
What of the non-tabloid media that regards itself as reputable and credible, yet serves a parallel role as an arm of state and corporate power, as in the promotion of illegal war?

The Leveson inquiry into phone hacking glimpsed this unmentionable.
Tony Blair was giving evidence, complaining to His Lordship about the tabloids’ harassment of his wife, when he was interrupted by a voice from the public gallery.

David Lawley-Wakelin, a film-maker, demanded Blair’s arrest and prosecution for war crimes. There was a long pause: the shock of truth.
Lord Leveson leapt to his feet and ordered the truth-teller thrown out and apologised to the war criminal. Lawley-Wakelin was prosecuted; Blair went free.

Blair’s enduring accomplices are more respectable than the phone hackers.
When the BBC arts presenter, Kirsty Wark, interviewed him on the 10th anniversary of his invasion of Iraq, she gifted him a moment he could only dream of; she allowed him to agonise over his “difficult” decision on Iraq rather than call him to account for his epic crime.

This evoked the procession of BBC journalists who in 2003 declared that Blair could feel “vindicated”, and the subsequent, “seminal” BBC series, ‘The Blair Years’, for which David Aaronovitch was chosen as the writer, presenter and interviewer.

A Murdoch retainer who campaigned for military attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria, Aaronovitch fawned expertly.
Since the invasion of Iraq — the exemplar of an act of unprovoked aggression the Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson called “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” — Blair and his mouthpiece and principal accomplice, Alastair Campbell, have been afforded generous space in the Guardian to rehabilitate their reputations.

Described as a Labour Party “star”, Campbell has sought the sympathy of readers for his depression and displayed his interests, though not his current assignment as advisor, with Blair, to the Egyptian military tyranny.

As Iraq is dismembered as a consequence of the Blair/Bush invasion, a Guardian headline declares: “Toppling Saddam was right, but we pulled out too soon”.

This ran across a prominent article on June 13 by a former Blair functionary, John McTernan, who also served Iraq’s CIA installed dictator Iyad Allawi.

In calling for a repeat invasion of a country his former master helped destroy, he made no reference to the deaths of at least 700 000 people, the flight of four million refugees and sectarian turmoil in a nation once proud of its communal tolerance.

“Blair embodies corruption and war,” wrote the radical Guardian columnist Seumas Milne in a spirited piece on July 3. This is known in the trade as “balance”.

The following day, the paper published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber.
On a menacing image of the bomber were the words: “The F-35. GREAT For Britain”.

This other embodiment of “corruption and war” will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered people across the developing world.

In a village in Afghanistan, inhabited by the poorest of the poor, I filmed Orifa, kneeling at the graves of her husband, Gul Ahmed, a carpet weaver, seven other members of her family, including six children, and two children who were killed in the adjacent house.

A “precision” 500-pound bomb fell directly on their small mud, stone and straw house, leaving a crater 50 feet wide.
Lockheed Martin, the plane’s manufacturer’s, had pride of place in the Guardian’s advertisement.

The former US secretary of state and aspiring president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, was recently on the BBC’s “Women’s Hour”, the quintessence of media respectability.

The presenter, Jenni Murray, presented Clinton as a beacon of female achievement.
She did not remind her listeners about Clinton’s profanity that Afghanistan was invaded to “liberate” women like Orifa.

She asked Clinton nothing about her administration’s terror campaign using drones to kill women, men and children.
There was no mention of Clinton’s idle threat, while campaigning to be the first female president, to “eliminate” Iran, and nothing about her support for illegal mass surveillance and the pursuit of whistle-blowers.

Murray did ask one finger-to-the-lips question. Had Clinton forgiven Monica Lewinsky for having an affair with husband? “Forgiveness is a choice,” said Clinton, “for me, it was absolutely the right choice.”

This recalled the 1990s and the years consumed by the Lewinsky “scandal”.
President Bill Clinton was then invading Haiti, and bombing the Balkans, Africa and Iraq.

He was also destroying the lives of Iraqi children; Unicef reported the deaths of half a million Iraqi infants under the age of five as a result of an embargo led by the US and Britain.

The children were media unpeople, just as Hillary Clinton’s victims in the invasions she supported and promoted — Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia – are media unpeople. Murray made no reference to them.

A photograph of her and her distinguished guest, beaming, appears on the BBC website.
In politics as in journalism and the arts, it seems that dissent once tolerated in the “mainstream” has regressed to a dissidence: a metaphoric underground.

When I began a career in Britain’s Fleet Street in the 1960s, it was acceptable to critique western power as a rapacious force.
Read James Cameron’s celebrated reports of the explosion of the Hydrogen bomb at Bikini Atoll, the barbaric war in Korea and the American bombing of North Vietnam.

Today’s grand illusion is of an information age when, in truth, we live in a media age in which incessant corporate propaganda is insidious, contagious, effective and liberal.

In his 1859 essay ‘On Liberty’, to which modern liberals pay homage, John Stuart Mill wrote: “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.”
The “barbarians” were large sections of humanity of whom “implicit obedience” was required.

“It’s a nice and convenient myth that liberals are peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers,” wrote the historian Hywel Williams in 2001, “but the imperialism of the liberal way may be more dangerous because of its open-ended nature: its conviction that it represents a superior form of life.”

He had in mind a speech by Blair in which the then prime minister promised to “reorder the world around us” according to his “moral values”.

This article is reproduced from www.johnpilger.com