Obama gets his photo taken by those he sends out to be killed and to kill. |
FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2016
Silencing
America as it Prepares for War. FRIDAY, MAY 27, 2016
By John Pilger
Returning
to the United States in an election year, I am struck by the silence. I have
covered four presidential campaigns, starting with 1968; I was with Robert
Kennedy when he was shot and I saw his assassin, preparing to kill him. It was
a baptism in the American way, along with the salivating violence of the
Chicago police at the Democratic Party’s rigged convention. The great
counter revolution had begun.
The
first to be assassinated that year, Martin Luther King, had dared link the
suffering of African-Americans and the people of Vietnam. When Janis Joplin
sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”, she spoke perhaps
unconsciously for millions of America’s victims in faraway places.
“We lost
58,000 young soldiers in Vietnam, and they died defending your freedom. Now
don’t you forget it.” So said a National Parks Service guide as I filmed
last week at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. He was addressing a school
party of young teenagers in bright orange T-shirts. As if by rote, he inverted
the truth about Vietnam into an unchallenged lie.
The
millions of Vietnamese who died and were maimed and poisoned and dispossessed
by the American invasion have no historical place in young minds, not to
mention the estimated 60,000 veterans who took their own lives. A friend of
mine, a marine who became a paraplegic in Vietnam, was often asked, “Which side
did you fight on?”
A few
years ago, I attended a popular exhibition called “The Price of Freedom” at the
venerable Smithsonian Institution in Washington. The lines of ordinary people,
mostly children shuffling through a Santa’s grotto of revisionism, were
dispensed a variety of lies: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved
“a million lives”; Iraq was “liberated [by] air strikes of unprecedented
precision”. The theme was unerringly heroic: only Americans pay the price of
freedom.
The 2016
election campaign is remarkable not only for the rise of Donald Trump and
Bernie Sanders but also for the resilience of an enduring silence about a
murderous self-bestowed divinity. A third of the members of the United Nations
have felt Washington’s boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy,
imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been
liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
The
breathtaking record of perfidy is so mutated in the public mind, wrote the late
Harold Pinter, that it “never happened …Nothing ever happened. Even while it was
happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. It
didn’t matter … “. Pinter expressed a mock admiration for what he called “a
quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force
for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of
hypnosis.”
Take
Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all over again. He
is “cool”. One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the
Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted
more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea
Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented
worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.
In 2009,
Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads
than Obama. He is “modernising” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new
“mini” nuclear weapon, whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading
general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable”.
James
Bradley, the best-selling author of Flags of Our Fathers and son of one of the
US marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, said, “[One] great myth we’re
seeing play out is that of Obama as some kind of peaceful guy who’s trying to
get rid of nuclear weapons. He’s the biggest nuclear warrior there is. He’s
committed us to a ruinous course of spending a trillion dollars on more nuclear
weapons. Somehow, people live in this fantasy that because he gives vague news
conferences and speeches and feel-good photo-ops that somehow that’s attached
to actual policy. It isn’t.”
On
Obama’s watch, a second cold war is under way. The Russian president is a
pantomime villain; the Chinese are not yet back to their sinister pig-tailed
caricature – when all Chinese were banned from the United States – but the
media warriors are working on it.
Neither
Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders has mentioned any of this. There is no risk
and no danger for the United States and all of us. For them, the greatest
military build-up on the borders of Russia since World War Two has not
happened. On May 11, Romania went “live” with a Nato “missile defence” base
that aims its first-strike American missiles at the heart of Russia, the
world’s second nuclear power.
In Asia,
the Pentagon is sending ships, planes and special forces to the Philippines to
threaten China. The US already encircles China with hundreds of military bases
that curve in an arc up from Australia, to Asia and across to Afghanistan.
Obama calls this a “pivot”.
As a
direct consequence, China reportedly has changed its nuclear weapons policy
from no-first-use to high alert and put to sea submarines with nuclear weapons.
The escalator is quickening.
It was
Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State in 2010, elevated the competing
territorial claims for rocks and reef in the South China Sea to an
international issue; CNN and BBC hysteria followed; China was building
airstrips on the disputed islands. In its mammoth war game in 2015, Operation
Talisman Sabre, the US practiced “choking” the Straits of Malacca through which
pass most of China’s oil and trade. This was not news.
Clinton
declared that America had a “national interest” in these Asian waters. The
Philippines and Vietnam were encouraged and bribed to pursue their claims and
old enmities against China. In America, people are being primed to see any
Chinese defensive position as offensive, and so the ground is laid for rapid
escalation. A similar strategy of provocation and propaganda is applied to
Russia.
Clinton,
the “women’s candidate”, leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya
(plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA
theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with
Russia. It was through Ukraine – literally, borderland -- that Hitler’s Nazis
invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe
remains a presence in Russia. Clinton’s presidential campaign has received
money from all but one of the world’s ten biggest arms companies. No other
candidate comes close.
Sanders,
the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from Clinton in his
proprietorial view of the world beyond the United States. He backed Bill
Clinton’s illegal bombing of Serbia. He supports Obama’s terrorism by drone,
the provocation of Russia and the return of special forces (death squads) to
Iraq. He has nothing to say on the drumbeat of threats to China and the
accelerating risk of nuclear war. He agrees that Edward Snowden should stand
trial and he calls Hugo Chavez – like him, a social democrat – “a dead
communist dictator”. He promises to support Clinton if she is nominated.
The
election of Trump or Clinton is the old illusion of choice that is no choice:
two sides of the same coin. In scapegoating minorities and promising to “make
America great again”, Trump is a far right-wing domestic populist; yet the
danger of Clinton may be more lethal for the world.
“Only
Donald Trump has said anything meaningful and critical of US foreign policy,”
wrote Stephen Cohen, emeritus professor of Russian History at Princeton and
NYU, one of the few Russia experts in the United States to speak out about the
risk of war.
In a
radio broadcast, Cohen referred to critical questions Trump alone had raised.
Among them: why is the United States “everywhere on the globe”? What is NATO’s
true mission? Why does the US always pursue regime change in Iraq, Syria,
Libya, Ukraine? Why does Washington treat Russia and Vladimir Putin as an
enemy?
The
hysteria in the liberal media over Trump serves an illusion of “free and open
debate” and “democracy at work”. His views on immigrants and Muslims are
grotesque, yet the deporter-in-chief of vulnerable people from America is
not Trump but Obama, whose betrayal of people of colour is his legacy: such as
the warehousing of a mostly black prison population, now more numerous than
Stalin’s gulag.
This
presidential campaign may not be about populism but American liberalism, an
ideology that sees itself as modern and therefore superior and the one true
way. Those on its right wing bear a likeness to 19th century Christian
imperialists, with a God-given duty to convert or co-opt or conquer.
In
Britain, this is Blairism. The Christian war criminal Tony Blair got away with
his secret preparation for the invasion of Iraq largely because the liberal
political class and media fell for his “cool Britannia”. In the Guardian, the
applause was deafening; he was called “mystical”. A distraction known as
identity politics, imported from the United States, rested easily in his care.
History
was declared over, class was abolished and gender promoted as feminism; lots of
women became New Labour MPs. They voted on the first day of Parliament to cut
the benefits of single parents, mostly women, as instructed. A majority voted
for an invasion that produced 700,000 Iraqi widows.
The
equivalent in the US are the politically correct warmongers on the New York
Times, the Washington Post and network TV who dominate political debate. I
watched a furious debate on CNN about Trump’s infidelities. It was clear, they
said, a man like that could not be trusted in the White House. No issues were
raised. Nothing on the 80 per cent of Americans whose income has collapsed to
1970s levels. Nothing on the drift to war. The received wisdom seems to
be “hold your nose” and vote for Clinton: anyone but Trump. That way, you stop
the monster and preserve a system gagging for another war.
~ John Pilger originally hails from
Australia. Arriving in London, Pilger freelanced, then joined Reuters,
moving to the London Daily Mirror, Britain's biggest selling newspaper, which
was then changing to a serious tabloid. He became chief foreign correspondent
and reported from all over the world, covering numerous wars, notably Vietnam.
He became the youngest journalist to receive Britain's highest award for
journalism, Journalist of the Year and was the first to win it twice. He also
has created many award winning documentaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment