Hypocrisy a go-go!

After saying to Paxman that there were two ways of
looking at this crisis, seriously or on the level of
satire, Blair seems intent on providing material for the
latter.

Faced with over one million on the streets of London,
over 50,000 in Glasgow and hundreds of thousands
protesting across the globe (including a demo in
Antarctica) Blair reached new heights of hypocrisy. He
raised the "moral case" for bombing Iraq.

When the state raises the question of "morality" you
know that the games a bogey. But Blair's raising of this
"case" is significant. As he himself implicitly
admitted, this was the pretence of last resort, the
transparently hypocritical position. He argued that he
had failed to get his message across. The possibility
that he had done so but that the British public are not
idiots did not cross his mind. Indeed, the opposite. He
insultingly stated that he does "honestly believe people
should think carefully," as if those who disagreed with
him did not (or could not) make their own minds up.

He is obviously judging the public by the example of his
own government. The day after Blair made his far from
moral "case" for war, justifying it in terms of removing
the evil dictator Saddam and liberating the people of
Iraq, Downing Street stated that, well, Saddam would
remain in power if he disarmed. Opps. Bad luck Tony,
maybe next time!

Ironically, a few days later Blair went back on himself.
In spite of the "moral" case, he stressed that "regime
change" was not government policy, showing yet again
that his understanding of "morality" is shaky at best.
The problem for Blair is that by demonising Saddam so
much, he simply cannot retreat. The more pretences Blair
generates the more desperate he seems and anti-war
feelings grow. After all, if it is about human rights,
why has it taken Blair so long to mention that this was
the case? And, if, as Blair argues, Saddam is so evil
that bombing the Iraqi people is the only "moral"
solution then how can he let Saddam remain in power if
the Iraqi regime did fully co-operate and disarm?

Significantly, Blair consistently refused to specify
what sort of regime might follow Saddam's. He avoided
committing to a democratic regime. While hoping to see
democracy sometime in the future, he stated that this
was "something that has to be discussed not just with
allies but with the UN and with people inside Iraq." Why
the allies (i.e. US and UK elites) or the UN should have
a say in which system the Iraqi people will live under
was left unspecified.

All of which is at odds with the notion that the bombing
will "liberate" the Iraqis (bar life itself). Apparently
the "future governance" of Iraq is not a decision for
the Iraqi people who, apparently, like the UK population
cannot be left to make such important decisions by
themselves. This can be seen from his line that the
"territorial integrity of Iraq" would remain, explicitly
refusing to support Kurdish self-determination in what
is now northern Iraq or Shi'ite self-determination in
the south. He insisted that Iraq's territorial integrity
was "absolute."

21st Century Imperialism
That this war is just good old fashioned imperialism
given a 21st century "humanitarian" veneer can be seen
to the response of Kurdish leaders within Iraq to
America's post-Saddam occupation plans. They are enraged
by its "undemocratic" nature, stating that the US is
abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq based on
a meeting with US officials in Ankara in early February
and recent public US declarations.

The current American plan is to occupy Iraq but largely
retain the state apparatus. In the words of Sami Abdul-
Rahman, the deputy prime minister of the Kurdish
administration: "In every Iraqi ministry they are just
going to remove one or two officials and replace them
with American military officers." So, not so much a
regime change than a personnel change, as has always
been desired by the US ruling class. "Conquerors always
call themselves liberators," he continued, exposing the
rhetoric of Bush's statement that US troops were going
to liberate Iraq to the harsh light of reality.

Which destroys the latest pretence by Bush and Blair
that war is justified by the evil nature of the regime
in Baghdad. While the Kurdish deputy PM may think this
was "very disappointing," anarchists disagree. It is
unsurprising, given that free elections would lead to
radical change in Iraq. As such, it is consistent with
US policy at the end of the last Gulf War. While wanting
to get rid of President Saddam, it wanted to avoid a
radical change and so it did not support the uprisings
of Shia Muslims and Kurds.

And least we forget, when Blair or Bush talk about
"liberating" Iraqi or "bringing democracy" to its
people, remember who took it away from them in the first
place. It was the CIA that installed the Ba'ath Party in
Baghdad from which emerged Saddam Hussein. "That was my
favourite coup," said the CIA man in charge.

So much for "liberating" the Iraqi people. As one
veteran Kurdish leader put it: "If the US wants to
impose its own government, regardless of the ethnic and
religious composition of Iraq, there is going to be a
backlash." Can we look forward to a US client regime
repressing "its" people? Will we see it sending troops
against the Kurds after Bush has "liberated" the Iraqi
oil, sorry, people?

But on a more positive note, at least Blair must be glad
that Bush has managed to achieve one of his stated
goals. He promised to "unite" people and he has -- the
world is united in saying "No to Bush" and, of course,
his poodle!

No Rush to Judgment!
Blair continued his attempts to convince us later in the
week by asking us not to "look at the parody" of Bush
but to "look at the reality." Specifically, that "after
September 11th he didn't act in haste." In a sense he is
right, the Bush Junta has waited. The plan to attack
Iraq was developed long before September 11th:

"Back in 1997, in the years of the Clinton
administration, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a bunch of
other right-wing men - most involved in the oil business
- created the Project for the New American Century, a
lobby group demanding 'regime change' in Iraq. In a 1998
letter to President Clinton, they called for the removal
of Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, who
was then Speaker of the House, they wrote that 'we
should establish and maintain a strong US military
presence in the region, and be prepared to use that
force to protect our vital interests [sic] in the Gulf -
and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.'

"The signatories of one or both letters included
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's Pentagon
deputy, John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for
arms control, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's
under-secretary at the State Department . . . They also
included . . . Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal
Corporation oil industry consultant who became US
special envoy to Afghanistan - where Unocal tried to cut
a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan
territory - and who now, miracle of miracles, has been
appointed a special Bush official for - you guessed it -
Iraq." (Robert Fisk, This Looming War Isn't About
Chemical Warheads Or Human Rights: It's About Oil, The
Independent, January 18, 2003)

Calling a spade a spade
Blair states that "some of the rhetoric that I hear used
about America is actually more savage than rhetoric used
about Saddam." Given that everyone (including those
against the war) agrees that Saddam is an evil dictator,
it is hard to know what to make of Blair's comments.
Given that Saddam committed the horrific crimes he is
now attacked for when he was supported by the US and UK,
why should the rulers of these countries not be
subjected to "savage" comments? It seems the moral thing
to do.

So given the past US/UK support for Saddam's regime, it
seems hypocritical for him to justify war by pointing to
Iraqi exiles and stating that relatives were "tortured
and killed - it's not something we are making up or
propaganda." As this was happening in the 1980s, it is
clear that his "moral case" is nothing but an excuse.
And for all his comments that "there are two sides to
this argument," he fails to quote those Iraqi exiles who
don't want their relatives in Iraq murdered by the
planned US bombing campaign.

Democracy in action!
It is obviously the case that the majority is not always
right. Nor is it the case that ethics is decided by
adding numbers. Anarchists are well aware of this.
However, we are also aware of the vast difference in
between an individual without power holding an opinion
and one with power imposing it. This means, for example,
that anarchists side with the workers if a boss opposes
them forming a union. It also means that we seek to hold
power accountable to those it claims to represent,
urging the use of direct action and solidarity
(occupations, blockades, strikes, etc.) to stop our
rulers acting in unjust, exploitative and oppressive
ways either at home or aboard. As well as being moral,
it is also in our self-interest as unchecked power is a
threat to us all.

So when Blair states "all I ask people to do is to
listen to the other side of the argument. I do not have
a monopoly of wisdom on this." He misses the point
twice. Firstly, we have listened to government side. We
are not convinced. Secondly, he may not have a monopoly
of wisdom but he does (in theory at least) have a
monopoly of power. He claims that monopoly because we
live in a "democracy" and so, in theory, claims to
represent the viewpoint of the majority. Clearly, he
does not. But rather than do so he decides to ignore the
wishes of the majority and press ahead regardless. Is
that democratic?

Moreover, his position is praised as "good leadership."
But what kind of leader has no one following them? As
with the others in "New Europe," Blair is being praised
for ignoring the wishes of the population. This gives a
clear insight into the elitism of capitalist democracy.
As Noam Chomsky put it in his pamphlet Media Control:

"One conception of democracy has it that a democratic
society is one in which the public has the means to
participate in some meaningful way in the management of
their own affairs . . .An alternative conception . . .
is that the public must be barred from managing their
own affairs . . . That may sound like an odd conception
of democracy, but it's important to understand that it
is the prevailing conception. In fact it has long been,
not just in operation, but even in theory . . . [In this
conception] we should not succumb to 'democratic
dogmatisms' about men being the best judges of their own
interests. Because they're not. We're [the elite] the
best judges of the public interests."

The rhetoric used to justify this dismissal of the
wishes of the majority is incredible. Indeed, they seem
designed to prove anarchism right! Thus we have the
argument that "democratic" leaders have to do what is
right, not what is popular, and that it is up to those
in power to determine what it is. Which is tyranny, not
democracy. Perhaps the last US presidential elections
can give us a taste of the logical conclusion of this
position. Clearly the voters there had made a "popular"
decision, it was just not considered the "right" one.
And so the Bush Junta was hoisted into office against
their wishes. Will Blair do the same next election? Will
he explain to the people that, unfortunately, there are
two sides to this issue, that the people are misinformed
and that the "moral" thing to do is to ignore the
election result?

So it not surprising Blair is unclear about whether
there will be a democracy in post-Saddam Iraq. You
cannot give someone something you don't have or don't
want them to have.

Which, incidentally, shows the contradiction in
representative democracy. If we are judged wise enough
to pick our masters, those who know what the "right
thing to do" actually is, then, surely, we are wise
enough to question their judgement, oppose their
decisions when they are wrong and, moreover, do without
them by governing ourselves. That is why anarchists have
stressed self-management within free association. In an
anarchist society, if a delegate was ignoring the wishes
and decisions of those who mandated them then they would
be instantly recalled and replaced by someone else. Only
this, decision making by those affected by a decision,
decision making from the bottom-up, can ensure real
freedom.

But then we would be talking about what Blair dismissed
as "undemocratic anarchy" after the state repression of
the Gothenburg demos. It appears that "moral" is not the
only word the PM does not know the meaning of.