Customer Reviews

Unpeople: Victims of British Policy

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As a British citizen living under the long shadow of the New Labour political project, it is difficult not to be overwhelmed with cynicism when pondering the motivations and goals of a set of politicians so deeply in thrall to Big Business. Increasingly, too, the poverty of ideals among the mainstream UK political parties, in essence rival factions of the same party representing the narrow interests of the ruling state-corporate elite (as in the US), makes many fearful for the future of representative democracy in the UK.

Yet, even for those disillusioned with this depressing state of affairs, modern historian Mark Curtis' disturbing new book, Unpeople, is still likely to come as a huge shock. Unstintingly and unswervingly, in case study after case study, Curtis unravels the extraordinary levels of deception lurking beneath the squeaky-clean veneer of UK foreign policy's much-vaunted concern for human rights. At the heart of the author's portrayal of Britain as an outlaw state - one that certainly gives the US a good run for its money - lie the 'unpeople'. These are the expendable citizens of faraway countries who have suffered and died under the miseries imposed by the equally ruthless foreign policies of both Labour and Tory governments. Indeed, according to Curtis' conservative calculations, Britain may well be complicit in the deaths of in excess of 10 million `unpeople' since World War Two.

Those who have already read Curtis' previous exposé, Web of Deceit (2003), will immediately recognise the rigour of his content and the thoroughness of his research, while warming once again to his very readable writing style. In many ways, this book continues where `WOD' left off, bringing the UK's misadventures in Iraq up to date (circa autumn 2004) while mining declassified government documents in order to lay bare Britain's malevolent influences in conflicts as far afield and removed in history as Vietnam and Biafra (during the 1960's under the Wilson government) and contemporary Colombia.

In summary, 'Unpeople' is essential - though highly unpalatable - reading for anyone seeking to understand Britain's real role in the world. Be prepared for this five-star text to disabuse you of some comforting but misplaced assumptions.

Curtis has based his excellent new book on considerable research in the National Archive, especially the newly available government documents from the early 1970s.

He shows how British governments backed coups in British Guyana, Oman, Idi Amin in Uganda and Pinochet in Chile. He shows how Labour backed the US aggression against Vietnam, tore up the Geneva Agreement, supported every escalation, opposed every effort at negotiation, used the SAS and MI6, gave military training and sold arms.

Now Labour backs Nepal's king, who has dismissed the elected government and postponed elections indefinitely. It aids and trains his forces, which have a far worse human rights record than the resistance.

Labour backs the Obasanjo tyranny in Nigeria, which has killed at least 2,200 people (far more killed than in Zimbabwe, for instance), but Nigeria has yielded $300 billion worth of oil over the last few decades.

Labour backs the Colombian government, a drug-dealing tyranny which has killed tens of thousands pretending that it is warring on drugs. British firms are the country's largest investors, at $10 billion. BP has invested $2 billion and controls half Colombia's oil output.

Labour backs Sharon's plan for permanently occupying the West Bank, which tears up all the UN Resolutions requiring Israel to withdraw from the illegally occupied territories. Labour doubled its arms exports to Israel in 2001-02 - machine guns, rifles, tear gas, leg irons, electric shock belts, and parts for tanks, helicopters and F-16 planes. It abstained in the UN vote declaring Israel's wall illegal.

Curtis proves with a wealth of examples that the key features of the current war on Iraq are endemic and typical of Britain's ruling class: "in particular: the violation of international law, the government's abuse of the UN, its deception of the public and its support for US aggression." Only the incompetence of this government is unusual: their lies were so bad that we rumbled them.

As the House of Commons Defence Committee reported approvingly in March 2004, the Ministry of Defence's "media strategy ... was an integral part of the overall military plan." The Foreign Office's London-based `public diplomacy' cost £340 million a year. The Army says it must keep `moral as well as information dominance'. `Embedding' journalists "helped secure public opinion in the UK." British land force commander General Brims said, "none of them let the side down."

Curtis sums up Labour's policy, in alliance with NATO and the EU: "first, Britain is deepening its support for state terrorism in a number of countries; second, unprecedented plans are being developed to increase Britain's ability to intervene militarily around the world; third, the government is increasing its state propaganda operations, directed towards the British public; and fourth, Whitehall's planners have in effect announced they are no longer bound by international law."

Curtis' book is a slashing indictment of a ruling class in decline, ever more at odds with what British society needs and wants, ever more interventionist abroad. However, the right response is not a `global justice movement', a rootless internationalism, but workers' nationalism seizing real democracy, as in Cuba.

From an American point of view what really disturbed me was the enabling that goes on between the U.S. and Great Britain. Mr. Curtis goes into some detail about the role Britain played in legitimizing and containing world condemnation for America's war in Vietnam. Although the British policy makers knew that this war was a lost cause, and knew of some of the U.S. military's more nefarious policies they still shielded the U.S. from as much criticism as they could.

For those of us here in the U.S. hoping that Britain could become a voice of reason, this book does not do much to nurture that hope. I was surprised when Curtis writes about how British foreign policy seems to be run by elites much like here in the U.S. Foreign policy is not subject to the will of the people, but instead is hidden from the public. It seems that whichever political party is in charge the direction of foreign policy rarely changes much.

The most frightening aspect of the book is how media is becoming more consolidated. Media is such an essential element for any democracy that this trend is perhaps the biggest threat to our freedoms than any terrorist or rogue state out there. As the media becomes more and more consolidated, the easier it will be to manipulate our information and thus the people. Reading that the British media is following the same trends as media here in the U.S. is a frightening prospect.

The British government's arms deals with the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin is another similarity between the U.S. and every other country with a highly developed military industrial complex. When a large portion of government revenue comes from exporting materials used for war or murder how can that nation ever be an honest broker for peace? When large sectors of an economy of any country is devoted entirely too military arms what will be that country's main export peace or war? We in the industrialized must make the tough decisions about whether we are willing to keep our enormous wealth even if that means we continue to export death and destruction to those less fortunate nations.

I believe one has to work to change his/her own home before they should criticize someone else's, and I did not read this book looking to criticize British policy, but instead I wanted to learn what kind of help the U.S.'s biggest ally might be in curbing our aggressive policies. In this regard, I found Mr. Curtis's book to be rather disappointing. It's very disturbing when you look at a country's polls and see that policy is in direct contradiction to what the people want. When a nation's foreign policy is not subject to its citizens or humanitarian standards then will that country ever be an honest defender of human rights or ever have the moral authority to demand morality from any other nation?

Until we the people arm ourselves with this knowledge and demand that our governments behave humanely these policy makers will be able to export death in our names. Like it or not, we all share responsibility for what our governments do.