Hail to the true victors of Rupert’s Revolution
The British press celebrates the triumph of Libya’s “rebel” forces. And the British arms industry to
By John Pilger Published 09 September 2011
On 13 September, one of the world's biggest arms fairs opens in London, backed by the British government. On 8 September, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry held a preview entitled "Middle East: a Vast Market for UK Defence and Security Companies". The host was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs. According to Amnesty International, 98 per cent of the victims of cluster bombs are civilians and 30 per cent children. RBS has received £20bn in public money. The blurb for the bank's arms party read: "The Middle East is one of the regions with the greatest number of opportunities for UK defence and security companies. Saudi Arabia . . . is the world's top defence importer, having spent $56bn in 2009 . . . a very worthwhile region to target."
Such are the Cameron government's priorities following the great "humanitarian" victory in Libya. As Margaret Thatcher once declared: "Rejoice!" And as the bankers and arms merchants raise their glasses, let us not forget the heroic RAF pilots who made Libya ours again by incinerating countless "pro-Gaddafi elements" in their homes and cots and clinics, and the unsung stalwarts of the British drone industry at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire who, before and after lunch, provide the information for targets so that Hellfire missiles can flatten homes and suck the air out of lungs. And cheers to QinetiQ's drone testing site at Aberporth and at UAV Engines Limited in Lichfield.
Heist of little interest
The west's humanitarian mission is not quite finished. Six months after securing a UN resolution authorising "the [protection] of civilians and civilian-populated areas under the threat of attack", Nato is raining fragmentation bombs on civilian-populated Sirte and other "Gaddafi strongholds" where, says a Channel 4 News reporter, "until they cut off the head of the snake, Libyans will not feel safe". I quote that not so much for its Orwellian quality, but as a model of journalism's role in justifying "our" bloodbaths in advance.
This is Rupert's Revolution, after all. Gone from the Murdoch press are pejorative "insurgents". The action in Libya, says the Times, is "a revolution . . . as revolutions used to be". That it is a coup by a gang of Muammar al-Gaddafi's ex-cronies and spooks in collusion with Nato is hardly news. Their self-appointed leader, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, was Gaddafi's feared justice minister. The CIA runs or bankrolls most of the rest, including America's old friends - the mujahedin Islamists who spawned al-Qaeda. They told journalists what they needed to know: that Gaddafi was about to commit "genocide", of which there was no evidence, unlike the abundant evidence of "rebel" massacres of black African workers falsely accused of being mercenaries. European bankers' secret transfer of the Central Bank of Libya from Tripoli to Benghazi in order to control the country's oil billions was an epic heist of little interest.
The entirely predictable indictment of Gaddafi before the "international court" at The Hague evokes the charade of the dying "Lockerbie bomber", Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, whose "heinous crime" has been deployed to promote the west's ambitions in Libya. In 2009, al-Megrahi was sent back to Libya not for compassionate reasons, as reported, but because his appeal would have confirmed his innocence and described how he was framed by the Thatcher government, as the late Paul Foot's landmark exposé revealed. As an antidote to the current propaganda, I urge you to read the forensic demolition of Megrahi's "guilt" and its wider meaning in Dispatches from the Dark Side: on Torture and the Death of Justice (Verso) by the distinguished human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce.
This is not to detract from Gaddafi's awful dictatorship, a "rendition" destination for MI6, we now learn. But his odium is unrelated to the rape of his country by imperial caricatures such as Nicolas Sarkozy, a Napoleonic Islamophobe whose intelligence services almost certainly set up the coup against Gaddafi. US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks disclose the west's panic over Gaddafi's refusal to hand over the greatest reserves of oil in Africa and his overtures to China and Russia.
Get it right
Propaganda relies not only on Murdoch but on apparently respectable voices inducing historical amnesia. The Observer, which has yet to apologise for its catastrophic promotion of Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, is in thrall to the "honourable intervention" of Sarkozy and Cameron and their "humanitarian and emotional" motives. Its political columnist Andrew Rawnsley completes an impressive double. As Media Lens reminds us, in 2003, Rawnsley wrote of Iraq: "The death toll has been nothing like as high as had been widely feared." A million dead Iraqis later, Rawnsley insists that, in Libya, Britain "got it right" and "the number of civilian casualties inflicted by the air strikes seems to have been mercifully light". Tell that to those with loved ones obliterated by corporate-friendly Hellfires.
Nato attacked Libya to counter and manipulate a general Arab uprising that took the rulers of the world by surprise. Unlike his neighbours, Gaddafi had come to power by denying western control of his country's natural wealth. For this, he was never forgiven, and the opportunity for his demise was seized in the usual manner. The American historian William Blum has kept the record. Since the Second World War, the United States has crushed or subverted liberation movements in 20 countries, and attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democratic, and dropped bombs on 30 countries, and attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. Rejoice!
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


78 comments
And now the anti-Gaddafi forces are wearing American 'Rangers' hats.
Looks more like a 'photo-shoot' every day.
Hope US rap stars do not make an appearance. People with dark skins appear to be most unwelcome in this Arabian rush towards democracy.
Film Fan
Don't worry Danger I was perfectly in control. Sometimes the pool attendant needs to be shaken out of his cossie. Who else is going to do it with such force and insight?
Sam,
Thanks for the offer of the translation from Arabic of Gaddafi's speech. I'll take you up on that. I was refering to a speech in Tripoli in, I think it was February, 21 or 22. It's great to have another pair of eyes and a brain looking at these things, thanks again. I'm looking forward to it.
It's probaly irrelevant, but I'm not a member of the "left". I'm conservative on most issues I'm afraid, though as politics has moved so far to the right over the last forty years,regardless of which party is in power, and I've pretty much remained where I was, then maybe, without me even trying, I'm now left stranded on the "left" but that's hardly my fault.
As to me knowing what the "Truth", well, that's a really be philosophical discussion, isn't it? I don't believe I pretended to know the absolute truth about what Gaddafi said, or meant, I'm not even sure he did. However, even a superficial examination of his words, doesn't give credence to the allegation that he threatened to unleash genocide on the civilian population of Benghazi. Threatening to crush what he described as armed terrorists whilst protecting the misguided, misled, and ordinary people of the city, doesn't qualify as boasting about a plan of genocide, that is Nato's version and interpretation, in the service of war-propagada, I'm afraid, which is my entire point.
Nobody likes Gaddafi really. But if anyone seriously thinks NATO were there for humanitarian reasons they're kidding themselves. Opportunism and greed were the real reasons. Don't know if I agree with everything John Pilger says but most of it is right. It's important there are still people like him around with the guts to expose the lies at the heart of our politics and media
Mr. Devine.
The point is, if one bothers to look at the Gaddafi speech that unleashed the Nato propaganda offensive in our media about "genocide" in Benghazi, one cannot find him "promissing" or "threatening" to do these things. This was Nato spin I'm afraid, or war propaganda designed specifically to manipulate domestice public opinion into supporting the Nato attack on Libya, to further our own strategic and economic interests.
Why don't you go and read what he said and prove me wrong, if it's that easy and obvious? What have you got to lose?
As the speech was distorted into pure Nato propaganda, which I believe any reasonable person reading it would agree on, how much of the rest of the stories coming out of Libya were true? Was most of it lies, exaggerations, distortions... war propaganda?
If one looks at the rest of the world, not the countries directly involved in the attack on Libya, the belligerents, one sees a very different picture emerging. A picture which is far more neutral and sceptical of the stories emanating from Nato and the Nato rebels. Since when does one uncritically accept and believe the war propaganda of one side or the other in a conflict? Or, are we, supposed, despite the evidence to the contrary, to simply believe Nato, who's attacking Libya? Surely that would be extremely foolish, espcially after Iraq and the non-existant threat from their non-existant WMDs?
The stories about mass rapes were propaganda, the stories about indiscriminate aerial bombing of civilians were propaganda, the stories about tens of thousands of black, African mercenaries were propaganda, basically the entire foundation and moral justification for attacking Libya... was propaganda, and that, to put it mildly, troubles me. Because if our politicians can get away with going to war based on propaganda, which is a pretty serious business, what else can they get away with? And what about our media? How come they no longer ask akward questions, and merely follow the political lead? Is there any counter-weight or alternative source of power in our system anymore? Do we even really live in democracy anymore if our politicians are free to go to war without restraint?
And what about the next time? What about Syria and Iran? Are we going to be "played" again? Isn't it getting easier and easier to go to war? Isn't this dangerous? Isn't this a slippery slope?
It seems we can go to war because the nationalist right are happy about waging war, almost for any reason, as long as we are fighting someone, and the left are happy because we're on a crusade for freedom and humanitarianism, where will it end?
The attack against libya was without foundation, except for oil and commercial interests, and Western, especially French, vainglory (it was, after all, Sarkozy who led the 'campaign',' not Cameron). Gadaafi has used oil money to develop his country, to help in the development of African states to the south, especially Mali, Chad, CAR - he has a residence in Tombomctou Mali, and Mali has stated recently that he would be welcome there. He might have killed a few thousand, though the Lockerbie victims were certainly not his. But so what? what's that to the British, who can proudly boast millions in deaths in cowardly asymmetric warfare (by our 'heroes'), and obsequious toadying to the American and israeli imperium. 4,5 million Iraqi refugees alone, let alone the IDPs; and the same for Afghanistan. As for the ICC call for Gadaafi, it's typical of Ocampo's personal career opportunism. A judge making a name for himself by indicting easy prey, leaving the big criminals, the UK and US bandits untroubled. Gadaafi is small fry compared to our own big time military and political interested parties. Omar Bashir, another Ocampo opportunistic target, is yet another focus of self-righteous western aggression.
Right on the money again John, as usual all the Daily Mail brigade are first out of the traps what a weasel bunch, keep it up John.
Okay, we have a straight bet: either we were told a pack of lies, or a vicious dictator somehow made the mistake of 'putting his head on the block' (as writeon said).
Perhaps we can put it down to dictators being tolerated so long as they serve their purpose.
writeon can't quote it to you because he made it up. That's what he does ... he makes things up to win an argument. He exaggerates and lies about things in order to 'win' an argument. He doesn't realise that this practice of exaggeration and misrepresentation is causing damage to the left.
Maria, your post at 21:13 is stunningly smug. I think Pilger is a one note obsessive, and I'm not servile in the least. Your hagiographic tendencies, on the other hand....