PDA

View Full Version : JOHN PILGER: Australia’s racist shame


gone
02-20-2005, 07:11 AM
National myths are usually partly true. In Australia, the myth of an egalitarian society, or “fair go”, has an extraordinary history. Long before most of the world, Australia had a minimum wage, a 35-hour working week, child benefits and the vote for women. The secret ballot was invented in Australia. By the 1960s, Australians could boast the most equitable spread of personal income in the world.

Today, these are forgotten, subversive truths. As schools are ordered to fly the flag (its British Union Jack still mocking from on high), the maudlin story of Australian soldiers dying pointlessly for an imperial master at Gallipoli is elevated, along with barely veiled colonialism and racism.

Self-promoted as a bastion of human rights, Australia has become a sideshow of their denial and degradation. Many Australians are aware of this, not least those who filled a small Sydney theatre on January 26, “Australia Day”, which celebrates the dispossession of the Aboriginal people by the British in 1770. The Australian playwright Stephen Sewell’s remarkable play Myth, Propaganda and Disaster in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America was showing at the Stables Theatre.

Inspired in part by Franz Kafka’s The Trial, it strips away the democratic facade of the US — “if you want to see America, look into the eyes of its prisoners”, says one of the principal characters. Rapacious power dressed as democracy, and the fear and silence of its privileged — notably academics — is Sewell’s theme and one that is rarely discussed in public in Australia.

When the performance ended, a lawyer, Stephen Hopper, stood and spoke. It was as if a long silence had been shattered. Hopper is the lawyer for Mamdouh Habib, one of two Australians who was jailed in the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. He described Habib’s suffering and torture, first in Egypt where he was “rendered” by US personnel after they had kidnapped him in Pakistan. In a CIA-supported prison in Egypt, he was suspended from the ceiling with only an electrified barrel to stand on. “He would stand and get a shock or hang painfully by his arms until he’d collapse”, said Hopper. Habib was blindfolded and locked in rooms that were flooded with water and charged with electricity.

In Guantanamo Bay, the guards brought a prostitute who “stood over him naked while he was strapped to the floor and menstruated on him”. Photographs of Habib’s wife and four children were defaced. “The Americans in their wisdom have taken the heads off the pictures”, said Hopper, “enlarged them and superimposed them with the heads of animals and then strung them up all over the walls of the interrogation room. [They said to him], ‘It’s a shame we had to kill your family’.”

We know about these atrocities from the earlier accounts of the British prisoners. What is different here is that no government calling itself democratic has so completely collaborated with the Guantanamo regime as that of PM John Howard. Stephen Hopper described how an Australian official stood by as Habib was tortured by members of the US military and dragged on to a plane; there is documented evidence of this.

The attorney-general, Philip Ruddock, claims he knew nothing about this. Ruddock has relentlessly slandered Habib, and the other Australian prisoner, David Hicks, as terrorist suspects when not a shred of evidence has been produced. It was only when it seemed the US Supreme Court would examine his case that Habib was hurriedly sent home. Gareth Peirce, who represents the Guantanamo Britons, told me: “The fact that David Hicks is before a military commission is entirely due to the Australian government doing nothing for him.”

Even Hicks’ American military lawyer says his “trial”, with its vaporous conspiracy charges, is a travesty. Yet Ruddock, whose job is to resist the abuse of liberties bestowed by the law, has allowed a mockery of the judicial process to be used brutally against Australian citizens. Having placed Habib under constant surveillance and prevented him from leaving the country, he now is trying to stop him speaking publicly about the grotesque things done to him. What is clear is that this squalid politician fears the truth that Habib is now free to tell.

It is a fear faithfully reflected by most of the Australian media. The Sydney Morning Herald shamefully allowed a pro-Israel propagandist, Ted Lapkin, to say that Habib, an innocent man under any proper legal system, had “paid the price for his actions with incarceration by American authorities”. In the January 30 Melbourne Age, a leading “liberal” commentator, Michelle Grattan, described Habib, who is clearly damaged by his abuse, as having “entered the celebrity category”, and says he “cannot reasonably complain about [remaining under watch] by Australian authorities”.

It is hardly surprising that, according to Reporters sans Frontieres, the Australian press rates 41st on the world’s press freedom index, its obsequiousness to power just ahead of autocratic and totalitarian states. Like those in Sewell’s play, many Australian journalists remain silent (as do most Australian academics). Some of the most prominent journalists form an adoring court for a prime minister who has out-Blaired British PM Tony Blair in his rank deceptions and is out-Bushing his mentor in Washington in his demonstrable contempt for human rights.

Under Howard and Ruddock, Australia has built its own Gulag in the Pacific, imprisoning behind razor wire Iraqis and others fleeing dictatorships. These innocent people are held in some of the most isolated places on earth, including Manus Island and Nauru. They include children. A Kashmiri refugee, Peter Qasim, has been locked up for nearly seven years. The head of a UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Louis Joinet, who has made more than 40 inspections of mandatory detention facilities around the world, says he had not seen worse abuse of human rights than in Australia. The first Australians have experienced this for a long time. Under the Howard government, support for Aboriginal health and legal services has diminished. In western New South Wales, the life expectancy for Aboriginal men is 33; Australia is the only developed country on a United Nations “shame list” of countries that have not conquered trachoma, a preventable blindness that affects mostly Aboriginal children, and is a disease of poverty.

Six years ago, I interviewed Ruddock when he was the federal minister responsible for ensuring that uppity black Australians did not embarrass the government in the run-up to the Sydney Olympics. I asked him: “How do you feel receiving Amnesty reports on human rights violations with ‘Australia’ written across the top, such as ‘Aborigines are still dying in prison and police custody at levels that may amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment’?” Smiling, he replied: “Why do they use the word ‘may’?”

The land of a fair go deserves better than supercilious cruelty.

[John Pilger’s latest book is Tell Me No Lies: Investigative Journalism and its Triumphs (Jonathan Cape, 2004). Visit his website: <http://www.johnpilger.com>.]

From Green Left Weekly, February 16, 2005.

gone
02-20-2005, 07:17 AM
In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger asks why so much western journalism looks at the world through a one-way moral mirror, and discovers that at the root of this censorship by omission is a more subtle attack on our collective memory. : Pilger : 17 Feb 2005

THE STRUGGLE FOR MEMORY IN FREE SOCIETIES

How does thought control work in societies that call themselves free? Why are famous journalists so eager, almost as a reflex, to minimise the culpability of political leaders such as Bush and Blair who share responsibility for the unprovoked attack on a defenceless people, for laying to waste their land and for killing at least 100,000 people, most of them civilians, having sought to justify this epic crime with demonstrable lies? What does BBC reporter describe the invasion of Iraq as "a vindication for Blair"? Why have broadcasters never associated the British or American state with terrorism? Why have such privileged communicators, with unlimited access to the facts, lined up to describe an unobserved, unverified, illegitimate, cynically manipulated election, held under a brutal occupation, as "democratic" with the pristine aim of being "free and fair"?

Do they not read history? Or is the history they know, or choose to know, subject to such amnesia and omission that it produces a world view as seen only through a one-way moral mirror? There is no suggestion of conspiracy. This one-way mirror ensures that most of humanity is regarded in terms of its usefulness to "us", its desirability or expendability, its worthiness or unworthiness: for example, the notion of "good" Kurds in Iraq and "bad" Kurds in Turkey. The unerring assumption is that "we" in the dominant west have moral standards superior to "them". One of "their" dictators (often a former client of ours, like Saddam Hussein) kills thousands of people and he is declared a monster, a second Hitler. When one of our leaders does the same, he is viewed, at worst like Blair, in Shakespearean terms. Those who kill people with car bombs are "terrorists"; those who kill far more people with cluster bombs are the noble occupants of a "quagmire".

Historical amnesia can spread quickly. Only ten years after the Vietnam war, which I reported, an opinion poll in the United States found that a third of Americans could not remember which side their government had supported. This demonstrated the insidious power of the dominant propaganda, that the war was essentially a conflict of "good" Vietnamese against "bad" Vietnamese, in which the Americans became "involved", bringing democracy to the people of southern Vietnam faced with a "communist threat". Such a false and dishonest assumption permeated the media coverage, with honourable exceptions. The truth is that the longest war of the 20th century was a war waged against Vietnam, north and south, communist and non-communist, by America. It was an unprovoked invasion of their homeland and their lives, just like the invasion of Iraq. Amnesia ensures that, while the relatively few deaths of the invaders are constantly acknowledged, the deaths of up to five million Vietnamese are consigned to oblivion.

What are the roots of this? Certainly, "popular culture", especially Hollywood movies, can decide what and how little we remember. Selective education at a tender age performs the same task. I have been sent a widely used revision guide for students of modern world history, on Vietnam and the cold war. This is learned by 14 to 16-year-olds in British schools, sitting for the critical GCSE exam. It informs their understanding of a pivotal historical period, which must influence how they make sense of today's news from Iraq and elsewhere.

It is shocking. It says that under the 1954 Geneva agreement: "Vietnam was partitioned into communist north and democratic south." In one sentence, truth is dispatched. The final declaration of the Geneva conference divided Vietnam "temporarily" until free national elections were held on 26 July 1956. There was little doubt that Ho Chi Minh would win and form Vietnam's first democratically elected government. Certainly, President Eisenhower was in no doubt of this. "I have never talked with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs," he wrote, "who did not agree that... 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."

Not only did the United States refuse to allow the UN to administer the agreed elections two years later, but the "democratic" regime in the south was an invention. One of the inventors, the CIA official Ralph McGehee, describes in his masterly book Deadly Deceits how a brutal expatriate mandarin, Ngo Dinh Diem, was imported from New Jersey to be "president" and a fake government was put in place. "The CIA", he wrote, "was ordered to sustain that illusion through propaganda [placed in the media]."

Phoney elections were arranged, hailed in the west as "free and fair", with American officials fabricating "an 83 per cent turnout despite Vietcong terror". The guide alludes to none of this, nor that "the terrorists", whom the Americans called the Vietcong, were also southern Vietnamese defending their homeland against the American invasion and whose resistance was popular. For Vietnam, read Iraq.

The tone of this tract is from the point of view of "us". There is no sense that a national liberation movement existed in Vietnam, merely "a communist threat", merely the propaganda that "the USA was terrified that many other countries might become communist and help the USSR - they didn?t want to be outnumbered", merely that President Johnson "was determined to keep South Vietnam communist-free" (emphasis as in the original). This proceeds quickly to the Tet Offensive in 1968, which "ended in the loss of thousands of American lives - 14,000 in 1969 - most were young men". There is no mention of the millions of Vietnamese lives also lost in the offensive. And America merely began "a bombing campaign": there is no mention of the greatest tonnage of bombs dropped in the history of warfare, of a military strategy that was deliberately designed to force millions of people to abandon their homes, and of chemicals used in a manner that profoundly changed the environment and the genetic order, leaving a once-bounty ful land all but ruined.

This revision guide reflects the bias and distortions reflect of the official syllabuses, such as the prestiugous syllabus from Oxford and Cambridge, used all over the world as a model. Its cold war section refers to Soviet "expansionism" and the "spread" of communism; there is not a word about the "spread" of rapacious America. One of its "key questions" is: "How effectively did the USA contain the spread of communism?" Good versus evil for untutored minds.

"Phew, loads for you to learn here..." say the authors of the revision guide, "so get it learned right now." Phew, the British empire did not happen; there is nothing about the atrocious colonial wars that were models for the successor power, America, in Indonesia, Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, to name but a few along modern history's imperial trail of blood, of which Iraq is the latest.

And now Iran? The drumbeat has already begun. How many more innocent people have to die before those who filter the past and the present wake up to their moral responsibility to protect our memory and the lives of human beings?

First published in the New Statesman - www.newstatesman.co.uk (http://www.newstatesman.co.uk)

daniel
02-20-2005, 02:19 PM
please read, if you haven't done so, Walter Benjamin's "Theses on the Philosophy of History," in "Illuminations."

whitewave
02-22-2005, 05:37 AM
I just finished a novel called The Fifth Sacred Thing, by Starhawk, last night. Starhawk is a witch and activist who has devoted her life to non-violent resistance to the patriarchal culture of war. In the novel, San Francisco and the Northern California watershed have broken free from the "Stewards" and "Millenialists" of Southern California, who control the resources of the former United States. San Francisco is designed according to permacultural principles and runs on consensus--there is no poverty because all agree that the four sacred things--earth, air, fire, and water--cannot be bought and sold. There is enough for everybody. However, 20 years after the Stewards took control in the south, they are running out of water and decide they must invade the north. The north, founded on the principles of non-violence, has to decide whether to adhere to these principles, or to fight back against the invading south. Since they believe that violence will only beget more violence, they do not want to fight, but instead carry out a plan of non-violent resistance. I won't tell you what happens in case you want to read it, but I would just like to say that this is a very powerful book that deals with this question raised here--what will it take to get people to stop killing each other?

Isaiah Mpski
02-22-2005, 07:47 AM
Something like a giant asteroid in space that we can see three years in advance,

Mpski