The Western use of riots
Prof. Rajiva WIJESINHA MP
The recent riots in Britain have taken many Britons by shock. The
general reaction of the British people has been adverse, and
understandably so.
No one wants law and order disrupted, and there is ample evidence
that many of those involved in the riots have been engaged essentially
in plunder.
However, there were obviously also people who saw rioting as a way of
registering a protest. Initially there were strong feelings based on the
killing of a man by the police.
I have no idea what actually happened in that incident, and I hope
the inquiry that has been started will not only find out what happened,
but will also do so in a manner that carries conviction.
Sadly the history of official British inquiries suggests that their
capacity to inspire confidence is minimal.
'Sunday bloody Sunday'
We all know what happened in the first 'Sunday Bloody Sunday' inquiry
and, even though a second inquiry finally finished after several years,
and seemed to many Britons to have moved nearer to the truth, the
reaction of Bernadette Devlin suggests that doubts still remain, with
the overall responsibility for brutality transferred to individuals, and
no proper examination of the policies involved.
Meanwhile a representative of the Liberal Party who came to Sri Lanka
to work with our party said quite categorically that David Kelly, the
scientist who had blown the whistle on the falsities that the British
government had used to promote the attack on Iraq, had been murdered. I
had followed the inquiry held on his apparent suicide with interest,
because a good friend of mine was involved, and indeed in some sense
took the rap because his career in the Civil Service ground to a halt
afterwards. I could understand this, given the suspicions that had been
engendered and the sense that David Kelly had been badly treated.
But the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, to look basically
into inadequacies in procedures that might have hounded the man to
suicide, now makes me wonder if, with typical British brilliance, the
establishment did not manage to divert attention from the more worrying
question my Liberal friends advanced.
Main justification
Certainly the several inquiries held into the Iraq War suggest that,
while individuals may be blamed, there is no effort to look into the
institutional corruption that can allow individuals to get away with
murder.
I refer here not only to suspicions with regard to David Kelly, but
also the reality of so many Iraqis, not just civilians but the soldiers
deemed fair targets because the West wanted regime change in Iraq. That,
I was finally told, was the main justification for the war, not the
pretexts of association with Al-Qaeda or of weapons of mass destruction
that had been so blithely advanced.
But the point is, while self-defence is an acceptable reason for war,
the desire to change a regime is not. Sadly, that has now become a way
of life with some rulers in the West, and no media outlets of influence
will challenge the various excuses put forward to advance self interest,
none will explore the inconsistencies and prejudices advanced to justify
selective and selfish action.
A recent article by Michel Chossudovsky however raises a lot of
questions about what is happening now in Syria.
It claims that 'the ongoing protest movement is intended to serve as
a pretext and a justification to intervene militarily against Syria. The
existence of an armed insurrection is denied.
The Western media in chorus have described recent events in Syria as
a "peaceful protest movement" directed against the government of Bashar
Al Assad, when the evidence confirms the existence of an armed
insurgency integrated by Islamic paramilitary groups.
From the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March, there
has been an exchange of fire between the police and armed forces on the
one hand and armed gunmen on the other.
Acts of arson directed against government buildings have also been
committed. In late July in Hama, public buildings including the Court
House and the Agricultural Bank were set on fire. Israeli news sources,
while dismissing the existence of an armed conflict, nonetheless,
acknowledge that "protesters [were] armed with heavy machine guns."
(DEBKAfile August 1, 2001. Report on Hama, emphasis added)'.
'Regime change'
Naturally, 'the White House called, in no uncertain terms, for
"regime change" in Syria and the ouster of President Bashar Al
Assad..... Covert support has also been channelled to the armed rebel
groups'.
If not entirely as a result of the support of the West for what are
termed peaceful protests in countries where the West would like regime
change, the media presents these protests in a very positive light.
The implication is that law and order should be put aside in the
service of a good cause. This extended as we know to protests in places
where the West did not want a change, but those protests were soon
forcibly quelled, and are now referred to only sporadically.
The stage then seemed set for a wholly manipulated presentation of
protests, with good protests which the West found attractive and would
support to the desired conclusion, and bad protests which had to be
suppressed. This was reminiscent of the total cynicism with which the
West had developed the concept of good terrorists and bad ones. The
former were to be encouraged, so we used to have vivid accounts of the
brave heroics of for instance Jonas Savimbi in Angola, the Contras in
Nicaragua, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan when its opponents were Russians.
There are also suggestions that similar tactics were used in Kosovo,
though I should note that the latest article on the subject was
published by the Centre for Research on Globalisation, which also
published Chossudovsky. His account of what happened in Azerbaijan in
1993 therefore - 'the mujahedin got to defend Muslims against Russian
influence in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, while the Americans got a
new president who opened up the oilfields of Baku to western oil
companies' - may need to be examined further.
Unfortunately chickens come home to roost. The utterly cynical use of
fundamentalist terrorists to defeat the Soviet Union led to an
enormously strengthened organization that was able to perpetrate the
monstrosity of 9/11.
Support for Saddam Hussein against Iran led to a well equipped army
that invaded Kuwait and was then able to engage in rhetoric that
provided a pretext for war.
And now the privileging of lawless demonstrations has led to those
who see themselves as deprived and discriminated against taking the law
into their own hands, and engaging in looting and destruction.
Social media
Fascinatingly, given the adulation of the role social media had
played in fomenting riots in the Middle East, the British Prime Minister
came down hard on what he has now recognized can be abuse.
He is now reported to have declared that '"Everyone watching these
horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social
media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be
used for ill.
And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop
them. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and
industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people
communicating via these websites and services when we know they are
plotting violence, disorder and criminality.
I have also asked the police if they need any other new powers.
Police were facing a new circumstance where rioters were using the
BlackBerry Messenger service, a closed network, to organise riots. We've
got to examine that and work out how to get ahead of them."'
So much for the free flow of information. But what the British Prime
Minister should also examine is the manner in which use and abuse of
these new methods of connectivity has been encouraged by training in the
West to foment dissension.
Such dissension may be seen by Western politicians of a particular
mindset as salutary, but they must remember that unscrupulous use of
violent dissension is a tool available to all sorts of people, all of
whom might be full of self-righteousness in the pursuit of their own
interests.
God given right
Fortunately those countries that feel threatened by those Western
countries that think it is their god-given right to interfere are
neither nasty nor powerful enough to engage in destabilization by
encouraging forces opposed to governments in those countries to take to
the streets.
But given the enormous strides in recent years in the use of social
media, and the possibility of replicating the training programmes now
being conducted for possible recruits to the various networks that are
being established, it is only a matter of time before other countries
also might start to play similar games. The result will be chaos.
I can only hope then that measures will be taken soon to regulate the
methods in which powerful countries interfere with each other.
Interactions through economic integration as well as educational
exchanges should be encouraged, and this may well help the West to
promote the more open and decent of its values.
Similarly, the strengthening of international bodies with a balance
of power instead of the current domination by a particular mindset will
help to resolve difficulties based on the authoritarian or majoritarian
approach of particular governments.
But the current practice of open season on governments that powerful
countries disapprove of must be controlled, because it can only promote
instability for everyone.
|