Man’s inhumanity to man
May 11, 2004 on 10:46 am | In Writings by Others | Comments OffDAWN (Pakistan Newspaper) -11th May 2004
Man’s inhumanity to man
By F.S. Aijazuddin
The Allied governments are fortunate that Lord Russell of Liverpool is not alive to document their atrocities in Iraq. Edward Russell, later Baron Russell of Liverpool, was a soldier, a military lawyer and later, combining these skills, he compiled a damning indictment of the brutality of the Axis powers - Germany and Japan - during the Second World War.
His book on the Nazi crimes against humanity was published in 1954 under the title “The Scourge of the Swastika”, followed a few years later by a companion volume on the Japanese atrocities in the East titled The Knights of the Bushido. Had Lord Russell been alive, he would found it difficult to resist completing a hat-trick with a third volume, this time on the unspeakable, indefensible behaviour of the Allied troops against their Iraqi captives.
The pictorial disclosures during the past few days in The New Yorker magazine and in Britain’s The Daily Mirror newspaper have been an assault on the senses of every decent-minded human being, whichever side of the Iraqi divide they happen to be on.
The cumulative effect of each horrific image, piled one on top of the other, like the naked Iraqi prisoners forced to create a human pyramid for their captors to surmount, has been to release a reservoir of revulsion against a war that had no cause, and brutality shown to defenceless prisoners that has no precedent, except during the days of the Nazis and their infamous concentration camps.
No Iraqi, however gullible, could have been satisfied to hear the evasive, bland, almost callous admission of responsibility by Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld during his testimony before a Congressional hearing on Capitol Hill on May 7. It was less an admission of guilt than a forewarning that the Pentagon had yet more horrific photographs and even videos up its sullied sleeve.
Only the Pentagon would know what they contain. It might be best that only the Pentagon knows. Any more images, however cathartic they may be for the psyche of the Americans or titillating for viewers, could only serve to inflame human consciences. Mankind is not wood nor stones, but men.
Never in the history of human conflict has there been a clash without pain or suffering, a wound without blood, a death without grief. What has been happening at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad though has nothing to do with human conflict.
Everything that happened to the inmates in the jail was not the result of impulsive behaviour by bored prison guards. It was deliberate, it was organized, it was orchestrated, and then systematically photographed and filmed, a soft-porn S & M video set in an Iraqi jail.
That it was done - as Secretary Rumsfeld has explained - not by US regular troops but by prison security guards hired by the Pentagon to do their dirty work has been offered as a sop to the American people. That is a specious, callous evasion.
In effect, the Pentagon is saying that it has, as it has other services during this war (profitable for profiteers), subcontracted acts of inhumanity. It has used the US taxpayer’s dollars to pay for perversion.
After 1945, the German people claimed that they knew nothing of the horrors being perpetrated in their name within the concentration camps. They never knew of the Jews arrested in their neighbourhoods.
They never heard the trains transporting them to Auschwitz and Buchenwald. They never saw the smoke from the chimneys of overworked crematoria. They never smelt the corpses left rotting for the Allied soldiers to find and bury, using bulldozers to push stacks of bodies into mass graves.
The American public will never be able to make that excuse. Every atrocity has been photographed and filmed for their benefit. Sixty years ago, in July 1944, there was a botched assassination attempt by a Col.
Count von Stauffenberg and his accomplices on the life of Hitler. The conspirators were hanged from hooks, using piano wire to prolong their agony. Their suffering was filmed by the Gestapo to show Hitler. The humiliation of the Iraqi prisoners is the modern equivalent.
It is clear that the use of subcontractors in this war has not been out of operational exigencies, nor to free fighting troops for the front. It is part of a strategy that extends from the United States to Iraq and Afghanistan, with a stopover at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a stratagem to hoodwink the American public and keep justice blindfolded. It is the headstone of a policy to keep everything indefensible about the war out beyond the jurisdiction of the US or international courts.
The American base at Guantanamo Bay was obtained by the United States as a quid pro quo for withdrawing its forces from Cuba in 1901. The Platt Amendment, as it is known, under which the base was acquired was repealed in 1934, but for the past 70 years the United States has remained there, an unwelcome tenant. That base is now like Monaco or Liechtenstein, a legal haven, providing legal immunity to those who need it, which in this case is the United States government that can keep citizens of any country (including Pakistan) beyond the reach of any authority save its own arbitrary one.
The wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, no matter what western leaders may maintain, are not for the rights of the Iraqi or the Afghani people. Power may well come though the barrel of a gun. Democracy does not, as every military discovers to his own cost and the cost of his hapless nation. The traumas in Iraq and Afghanistan are one-sided sallies, the unrestrainable actions a strong bully intimidating a weaker victim. They are not even media wars. They are wars fought to catch the attention of the media. The pen may on occasions be as mighty as the sword, but the mightiest weapon of all in modern warfare obviously is the tell-tale camera. Through its images, the world has become more than a distant participant; it has become a voyeur, an accomplice in man’s deliberate inhumanity to fellow man.
Time will never erase the image of a hooded Arab prisoner, arms held akimbo, like some figure of in a crucifixion, with electrodes attached to his hands in place of metal nails. Two thousand and four years ago Pontius Pilate was required to adjudicate in a case on a matter of jurisdiction. Like Rumsfeld, he washed his hands of culpability in public. US Gospel singers once sang a Negro spiritual reminding their audience of that earlier atrocity: Where were you when they crucified my Lord?
Will future generations of mankind ask of us: Where were you when they electrocuted an Iraqi?
The ghost of Vietnam comes haunting
By Omar Kureishi
Last week the 50th anniversary of Dien Bien Phu was commemorated in Vietnam. Dien Bien Phu marked the end of French control of Indochina, an epic battle that stirred the imagination and gave great heart to those who were still trying to shake off colonial rule.
Ho Chi Minh may have been a communist but he was also a nationalist. The Viet Minh had fought the French, not for an ideological abstraction, but for the inalienable right to be their own masters in their own homeland.
Dien Bien Phu turned out to be a false dawn for a new and stronger enemy emerged to take the place of the French and the Vietnamese people were at war once again.
It would be a savage war and would claim millions of Vietnamese lives, three to four million at a guess-estimate, and bring untold hardships to a poor peasant-people, those who were children when the war had started had become young men and women when it ended.
Vietnam has all but been forgotten, its memory is not even an embarrassment. But it is being increasingly recalled to provide an analogy as more and more people are fearing that Iraq could become “another Vietnam.”
Winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people was also one of the objectives and there too it was felt that this laudable objective could be speeded up by B-52 bombers dropping napalm on villages and hamlets, by using Agent Orange to clear the jungles and, of course, good, old fashioned combat which could lead to some unavoidable massacres as My Lai but it was all in a noble cause.
The South Vietnamese had to be saved from themselves, saved too from the old man who sat in Hanoi who wanted to exchange the freedom of the Vietnamese people for the slavery of communism.
There would have been much to reflect upon as the 50th anniversary of Dien Bien Phu was commemorated. On display, along with other memorabilia was some heavy American guns. They were a soft reminder that the hearts and minds of the American government at that time was with the French and not with a people who were fighting for their freedom.
In 1964, I had taken leave from PIA and in the company of a then relatively unknown Swiss photographer, Rene Burri, had gone to China. After a few weeks in China, I had gone to Japan, to see the difference between the two systems.
Socialism seemed to be working for the Chinese and capitalism for the Japanese, a point I made to Edwin Reischauser, the American ambassador to Japan. I had met him through the good offices of our own ambassador, the late Lt-Gen Khalid Shaikh.
Reischauser had made it clear that he could not spare more than half an hour. The meeting lasted much longer than that. After some polite formalities I asked him point-blank: “Why are you in Vietnam? “. I told him that I wanted Reischauser the scholar to answer the question, not the ambassador.
I didn’t want to know about the domino theory nor how the spread of communism could be halted through the use of military force. He gave me a long, rambling answer but he didn’t seem convinced himself.”
International politics has a logic of its own,” he said. I could not help feeling that he was uncomfortable with the standard line that Washington DC was putting out.
There are similarities between Vietnam and Iraq. The mistakes of Vietnam are being repeated in Iraq. I happened to be in New York when Robert S. McNamara’s book In Retrospect came out in 1995. I bought a copy of it. I read it in one go, on the long flight back. I have re-read the book. McNamara was an even more powerful secretary of defence than Donald Rumsfeld.
He was a hawk on Vietnam in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, he passionately believed that the fight against communism was worth the sacrifice of American lives, he saw it as a divine mission, some God-given right to spread the gospel of democracy.
He seemed to be at peace with his conscience even as the slaughter continued but he writes, “something changed my attitude.” He felt a need to unburden himself, to free himself.
In Retrospect is an acknowledgment of his errors and those of the administrations he served, a mea culpa, the apology that the United States did not offer officially.
“We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation.
We made our decisions in the light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why,” he writes in the preface of the book. He quotes the ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus: “The reward of suffering is experience.”
The reward of suffering may be experience but what good is experience if it is erased by a new set of circumstances or what appear to be a new set of circumstances? Though there is still the same divine mission, the same God-given right to spread democracy, the same theology of good guys and bad guys.
I watched Donald Rumsfeld’s appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee on television. The bluster was not there and he seemed suitably contrite which is different to being actually contrite.
Since the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prisoners took place on his watch, he accepted the responsibility but it was a vague, distant, a token acceptance like the chairman of Japan Airlines taking the responsibility for the crash of one of its aircraft.
The thought crossed my mind whether Donald Rumsfeld too would write a book like Robert McNamara did and admit that “We were wrong, terribly wrong.” It also struck me why the Iraqi prisoners had not been declared “illegal combatants” that unique condition that sends prisoners into a legal limbo, beyond the reach of any law. There would not then be any photographs and videos and other sundry evidence of acts of cruelty beyond the call of patriotic duty.
Mother’s Day
May 8, 2004 on 7:06 pm | In Miscellaneous Musings!, Letter To Editors, Friends | Comments Off
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^