Dealing with allegations of war crimes
Some weeks back I was sent, by a friend in England, a book entitled
The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media. It was by
someone called Lila Rajiva, but doubtless that was not the only reason
to assume it would interest me.
I took some time to start on the book but, once I did so, it had to
be finished. Published in 2005, it is a graphic and convincing account
of the manner in which the Americans ignored all moral restraint in the
war against terrorism they were engaged in.
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq |
That part was convincing, and simply fleshed out what one knows
anyway, that countries in pursuing their own interests will stop at
nothing. What was more startling was the suggestion that the wholesale
prevalence of this absolutist mindset also represented a takeover of the
ruling political dispensation by a culture of chicanery that strikes at
the heart of supposedly predominant American values.
At the core of this transformation is the corporate supremacy
represented most obviously by Rumsfeld and Cheney, and the takeover of
much supposedly military activity by private contractors and special
agents, who move with seamless dexterity from one world to another.
Exemplifying this, and indicative of what C S Lewis would have described
as a Hideous Strength which finds its own partisans dispensable, is the
strange story of Nicholas Berg, the shadowy contractor whose beheading
served to deflect the story of torture at Abu Ghraib, and in some minds
excuse the institutionalized torture that was taking place there.
Weapons of mass destruction
The book should be essential reading for those concerned not just
with human rights, but with human civilization, as I continue to hope
Navanethem Pillay is. However I suspect that she is too much under the
thumb of those who fund her office, which is why, though there are stabs
at dealing with wider issues, the main thrusts of her criticisms are
directed at those weaker than herself. I suppose it would be absurd to
expect anything more, in a unipolar world, with the media so purposeful
in destroying anything that might suggest an alternative narrative.
Navanethem Pillay |
John Kerry |
But my purpose here is not to engage in analysis of why and how
America is destroying its own soul. That has happened to many other
empires, and is nothing surprising. More thorough analysis of the part
played in the phenomenon now by modern techniques of communication will
be useful, if only to help with resisting the worst incursions of these
modern crusaders, bearing not swords but secretive weapons of mass
destruction. But in the end salvation will come only through
understanding on the part of the American people of how they too are
being exploited, to feed the greed of what Eisenhower described as a
Military – Industrial Complex.
To blame the military for that would be a mistake. Lila Rajiva makes
the point that Eisenhower and MacArthur had resisted the use of the atom
bomb, and I was reminded of Dayan Jayatilleka’s response when I chided
him for using the word militarization too loosely. In my experience the
military was not responsible for many of the difficulties we face now in
the North, and indeed better use of their undoubted capabilities would
help us solve some problems.
His answer was that it was rarely the military that engaged in
militarization, but rather civilians on the make took advantage of the
general support for a successful military to advance their own agendas.
Unfortunately the problem in Sri Lanka is that, whereas the American
military is invincible, both militarily and also politically (ie, they
will never be charged with War Crimes, and neither Navanethem Pillay nor
Ban ki Moon will ever appoint committees to probe them), our military is
not in the same position.
While our civilians swan around then, without really caring whether
their posturings are convincing or not, it is our army that is under
attack, and that will suffer when our defences are finally down. The
fact that some of our best, and most civilized generals, are declared
persona non grata by the Americans should make clear the writing that is
on the wall.
Kerry Report
Not entirely surprisingly, the most grata it seems to the Americans
is former Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, who was at the heart of the
most telling charge in the report prepared under the aegis of John Kerry
in 2010, long before he was Secretary of State. Lila Rajiva incidentally
claims that John Kerry has ‘admitted to committing war crimes in
Vietnam, including shooting an unarmed civilian in the back’, which I am
not sure I credit, since the evidence she cites includes a newspaper
article of 2004, when he was running for President. Still, his
experience in Vietnam must have taught him something of the unintended
tragedies of war, which perhaps explains the generally objective nature
of that 2010 report.
Unfortunately the Peace Secretariat had by then been closed, and
though I urged an immediate reply, I was not in a position to deal with
the allegations. Almost all could have been answered, from the report
itself as well as the statistics I had collated at the Secretariat, but
the job was given to a Committee that did nothing, calling me after six
months had passed, and then declaring their work had been subsumed by
the LLRC – which of course had no clear mandate to respond in detail to
the Kerry Report.
All this came back to me when I saw the latest effusion by Frances
Harrison, reviving the story of the White Flag Case. As I said then, it
would have made sense simply to ask Sarath Fonseka to explain the
statement Kerry attributed to him. But, in the welter of claiming that
it was traitorous to take any allegations seriously, that chance was
lost. The opportunity to clear our forces, doing what the Americans do,
which is attributing any aberrations to rogue individuals, seems lost
then forever. |