Harold Pinter on U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq

[Chris Alger]

The following paragraphs were excerpted from Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

The essence of his charge is that the United States is sociopathic but propaganda-induced hypnosis precludes Americans from confronting the obvious. I'd add a more specific defect. American discourse has degenerated to the point where war sympathies cannot be expressed without either relying on blatant dishonesty or substituting subjective, empty labels (liberation, terrorism, democracy, etc.) for argument. War supporters don't have the tools to even describe what they support. Maybe I should except the Islam exterminationists, but so far these animals are beyond the pale even for Bush.

I’m posting it here because you won’t see it discussed in the MSM, other than the usual tacit agreement-cum-sneering.

My question is: why should we tolerate anyone who supports U.S. war and torture who cannot refute pretty much everything Pinter has to say? (The part in bold is a good summary of the way everyone should view the war).
_____________________
As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.

But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.

. . .
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised 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.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of prisons, which extends across the US.
The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally – a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.

Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead.
. . .
Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force – yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.
. . .
I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man.

[evil_twin]

I saw this in full on UK television last night. He has brilliantly articulated what so many of us are thinking. How people continue to delude themselves this is a war on terror or a battle for Iraqi freedom is totally beyond my capacity to understand.

I particularly liked how he points out the US has most certainly not been a force for "good" since the second world war, and the sheer hypocrisy of the battle for freedom blurb in contrast with the US's recent military history. I have nothing further to add as Pinter said everything so much better than I could ever hope to.

[adios]

A couple of things I found amusing about this lecture:

[ QUOTE ]
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam Hussein: his rise to power

Some years ago a European interviewer nervously quoted reports that the Baghdad authorities might, on occasions, have tortured and perhaps even killed opponents of the regime. Was this true? Saddam was not offended. Rather, he seemed surprised by the naivete of the question. "Of course," he replied. "What do you expect if they oppose the regime?"


The Personal History of Saddam Hussein


According to reports by Hanna Batatu (a government reporter), Hussein rose quickly through the ranks, due to his extreme efficiency as a torturer.


And the leftists condemn the U.S. for removing this despot who repeatedly violated international law, strong armed his way to power illegitimately, and was responsible for god knows how many murders. His strong suit was torture. Too funny.

[ QUOTE ]
The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile.

[/ QUOTE ]

No left wing murderous dictators? Puhleeze.

[ QUOTE ]
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

And these people support the Saddam Hussein regime and basically hold these folks up as shining examples of freedom fighters:

Iraq Bomber Strikes on Bus; Up to 30 Dead

Iraq Insurgents Claim to Kill U.S. Hostage

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
And the leftists condemn the U.S. for removing this despot who repeatedly violated international law, strong armed his way to power illegitimately, and was responsible for god knows how many murders. His strong suit was torture. Too funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't.

Their's an old gag Billy Connelly used to tell about the Old Firm Football game, (Glasgow Rangers v Glasgow Celtic Soccer game for you Yanks), it's a long joke but the punchline is 'Football violence will always prevalent in this game as long as they are shitting in our shoes and we are pissing in their bovril'

[BillUCF]

It is obvious in recent years the quality of non-science Nobel recipients has greatly declined. It is time identify those persons who are against freedom and democracy and those who support fascism. There is no sitting on the fence here. People who refuse to confront fascist governments like Saddam's are just as guilty as those who support fascist ideas.

Of course the US subjegates other nations. How do you think we got this rich?

It is amazing that the people who benefit from these savage acts are completely oblivious to them. Like our military goes around doing nice things for people.

That is exactly why US citizens bought the line that we are in Iraq to help the Iraqis. HA yeah right. Listen to adios whine about how the war is somehow helping Iraqis: "And the leftists condemn the U.S. for removing this despot who repeatedly violated international law, strong armed his way to power illegitimately, and was responsible for god knows how many murders. His strong suit was torture. Too funny."

Oh yes, that is why we overthrew him, because hes was a bad guy. Try looking up our involvement in Timor, East.

[ QUOTE ]
It is obvious in recent years the quality of non-science Nobel recipients has greatly declined. It is time identify those persons who are against freedom and democracy and those who support fascism. There is no sitting on the fence here. People who refuse to confront fascist governments like Saddam's are just as guilty as those who support fascist ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

LoL! Dont attack the information, attack the source!

He doesnt agree with me, label him a facist commie pinko [censored]!

[BillUCF]

The definition of subjugate is "to bring under control; conquer". Look at the history of countries we have subjugated. Germany, Italy, Japan. They are thriving democracies that are now respectable nations in the world. Remember, freedom is not given, it must be earned by killing the fascists, communists, and other evils. Something the soft belly libs will never understand.

[BillUCF]

I wasn't gunning for u, just the Nobel committee.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
American discourse has degenerated to the point where war sympathies cannot be expressed without either relying on blatant dishonesty or substituting subjective, empty labels (liberation, terrorism, democracy, etc.) for argument. War supporters don't have the tools to even describe what they support. Maybe I should except the Islam exterminationists, but so far these animals are beyond the pale even for Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, what the [censored] are you talking about? Those words mean very specific things. Just because they're really important and carry huge weight with pretty much everyone doesn't mean they're "subjective" or "empty." Also, you may note that your boy Pinter does the same ("blatant act of state terrorism," "war criminal," numerous references to vague "international law").

[ QUOTE ]

My question is: why should we tolerate anyone who supports U.S. war and torture who cannot refute pretty much everything Pinter has to say? (The part in bold is a good summary of the way everyone should view the war).

[/ QUOTE ]

Cause he's a moron? What's there to refute? US clients got out of hand in Chile and El Salvador - true. Bad things are happening in Iraq - true. People are being held in Guantanamo indefinitely - true. Proponents of the war don't deny these things, they just see a greater good behind them.