Show Hide image

The 50 people who matter today: 41-50

41-50 on our diverse list of individuals, couples and families changing the world, for good and ill.

41. David Ray Griffin

Top truther

Conspiracy theories are everywhere, and they always have been. In recent years, one of the most pernicious global myths has been that the US government carried out, or at least colluded in, the 11 September 2001 attacks as a pretext for going to war. David Ray Griffin, a retired professor of religion, is the high priest of the "truther" movement. His books on the subject have lent a sheen of respectability that appeals to people at the highest levels of government - from Michael Meacher MP to Anthony "Van" Jones, who was recently forced to resign as Barack Obama's "green jobs" adviser after it emerged that he had signed a 9/11 truth petition in 2004.

42. Shahrukh Khan

Special K

For billions of people across Asia, Shahrukh Khan is the biggest star on earth. Since his film debut in 1992, King Khan has been the ruling monarch of Bollywood, the world's largest film industry. "I want people to scream and shout at me," he says. Which is lucky, as he is wildly popular in India, Pakistan and even Afghanistan, where his films were sold on the black market during Taliban rule. A Muslim hero in a Hindu nation, SRK, as he is affectionately known, is the symbol of a younger, confident, richer, globalised India.

43. Joaquín "Shorty" Guzmán

Cocaine knight

At a diminutive 5ft, Mexico's most wanted man is nicknamed "El Chapo" (Shorty). But don't let that fool you - as the top drug lord in a country that provides 90 per cent of all cocaine in the US, Guzmán is instrumental to the international drugs trade and the thousands of lives it claims each year. Head of the Sinaloa cartel, he escaped from prison in 2001 and has since eluded capture. His stake in the US drugs market has amassed him a fortune of $1bn, earning him a place on the Forbes rich list this year.

44. Hugo Chávez

Bolívar's boy

Since being elected president of Venezuela in 1998, Hugo Chávez, the standard-bearer of "21st-century socialism", has survived all attempts to unseat him and has vowed to continue leading the Bolivarian revolution until 2030. His victory earlier this year in a referendum to abolish term limits allows him to run for a third six-year term in 2013. The former army paratrooper's political philosophy, a fusion of Marxism, nationalism and Christian socialism, has inspired left-wing leaders across Latin America - and dismayed US politicians.

45. Peter Akinola

Unhappy clapper

As head of the Church of Nigeria, Akinola is one of the most controversial figures in the worldwide Anglican Communion. He campaigned in 2003 against the consecration of two gay men: Jeffrey John in Reading and Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. The Church of England backed down on John's appointment and a schism was avoided - just. In 2006, at Akinola's invitation, two disenchanted congregations in the US placed themselves under the authority of the Church of Nigeria. And last year's Lambeth Conference was boycotted by 250 traditionalists. Africa is the fastest-growing section of the Church, and Akinola's influence is sure to extend beyond his retirement in March 2010.

46. Anna Wintour

Atomic kitter

Her nickname, "Nuclear Wintour", says it all. The editor of American Vogue is the ultimate ice queen. Both films made about her - one fictional (The Devil Wears Prada) and the other a documentary (The September Issue) - depict her as a terrifying, dictator-like figure, able to shape fashion the world over, from the top designers to the high street chains. But fashion is never just fashion. Wintour's editorial eye will determine what we buy and what we see from one year to the next.

47. Jay-Z and Beyoncé

Pop idols

Beyoncé walks onstage in an explosion of lights and glitter and sequin leotards, and the 20,000-strong crowd bursts into a frenzy of excitement. When she sings "Ave Maria", the arena is hushed. But it's not simply her performance, or her charisma. The woman is a machine. She is somewhere beyond sweaty human reality. Her force and energy seem superhuman. There isn't a lapse, a misstep, not even a glimpse of uncertainty.

Beyoncé is a workaholic. Just as she conquers one thing, she seeks out another and beats that into submission, too. Destiny's Child seems an age ago, after "Crazy in Love", Dreamgirls and her Sasha Fierce incarnation. She has sold over 75 million records, spent more weeks at number one than any other female artist this decade and earned nearly $90m last year, making her the highest-paid entertainer under 30. She has also launched the inevitable fashion line, House of Deréon. She sang for the Obamas; she visits hospitals and rehabilitation centres; she encourages her fans to bring groceries to her US concerts to help feed America. Beyoncé is fast becoming a saint, with the power to convince millions of her cause.

As if Beyoncé weren't enough on her own, she became one half of arguably the most powerful showbiz couple in the world when she married Jay-Z in April 2008.

Jay-Z is a rapper by trade, but by founding Roc-A-Fella Records, running Def Jam and then starting Roc Nation, he has become a vastly influential music industry boss, launching the careers of Ne-Yo and Rihanna along the way. He, too, has a fashion label, Rocawear; and he owns the New Jersey Nets basketball team and invests in smart New York hotels. Together, Beyoncé and Jay-Z preside over an expanding empire. But it's about more than wealth, or power. They have a steeliness about them. They do not make mistakes. There is a feeling that they have somehow gone beyond the foibles of being human to a place where perfection is effortlessly within their control.
Sophie Elmhirst

48. Jóhanna Sigurdardóttir

Ice queen

Has Iceland ever made more headlines than in the past year? Still reeling from the banking collapse of last October, the country has started on the road to recovery with one giant step for womankind. In February, Sigurdardóttir - Iceland's only minister to have gained in popularity in 2008 - became not only the country's first female prime minister, but the world's first openly gay leader. After losing a bid to lead the Social Democrats in 1994, Saint Jóhanna (as Sigurdardóttir has been nicknamed) declared: "My time will come." That time is now.

49. Patricia Woertz

Grain goddess

As CEO of Archer Daniels Midlands (ADM), one of the largest food processors in the US, Patricia Woertz's influence in corn, wheat and soybean production extends across the world. She has been the driving force behind the conglomerate's switch from food to bio-energy, pushing ADM's investment in corn ethanol production and profiting from heavy government subsidies designed to "help the American farmer". ADM brandishes the slogan "Resourceful by Nature", yet it still ranks as the tenth worst polluter in the US.

50. Dan Brown

Conspiracy theorist

Love or hate him, Dan Brown is one of the bestselling authors of all time. The Da Vinci Code, a thriller about a conspiracy to conceal the marriage and modern-day descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, has sold 80 million copies and been translated into 44 languages. Its success triggered a deluge of similar novels, guides to the theories, and books refuting its claims - not to mention a huge spike in tourism to the places it featured. His latest novel, The Lost Symbol, which focuses on freemasonry and the Founding Fathers, has smashed first-day sales records. Watch this space for a mass exodus of conspiracy tourists to Washington, DC.

This article first appeared in the 28 September 2009 issue of the New Statesman, The 50 people who matter

Show Hide image

Happiness is a huge gun: Cold War thrillers and the modern nuclear deterrent

For all that books and films laud Britain's strength, ultimately, they show that our power is interdependent.

Francisco “Pistols” Scaramanga, the ­assassin for hire in Ian Fleming’s 1965 James Bond novel, The Man With the Golden Gun, has invested more than money in his favourite weapon. Bond’s colleagues in the Secret Service have concluded from Freudian analysis that Scaramanga’s golden gun is “a symbol of virility – an extension of the male organ”. It is just one of many phallic weapons in the Bond saga. In Dr No, for instance, Bond reflects on his 15-year “marriage” to his Beretta handgun as he fondly recalls “pumping the cartridges out on to the bedspread in some hotel bedroom somewhere around the world”. Objectively speaking, guns comprise little more than highly engineered metal and springs, but Fleming invests them with an ­extraordinary degree of psychosexual significance.

Size matters in the Bond novels – a point made by a furious Paul Johnson in a review of Dr No for this paper in 1958 (“everything is giant in Dr No – insects, breasts, and gin-and-tonics”). One of the Bond stories’ biggest weapons is a rocket carrying an atomic warhead: the Moonraker, which gives its name to the third Bond novel, published in 1955. The most important thing about the Moonraker is that it is apparently British – a gift to a grateful nation from the plutocrat Sir Hugo Drax. And, like Bond’s Beretta, it is freighted with psychosexual significance. When Bond first lays eyes on it there is no doubt that this is an erotically charged symbol of destructive power. “One of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen,” Bond says, with a “rapt expression”:

Up through the centre of the shaft, which was about thirty feet wide, soared a pencil of glistening chromium [. . .] nothing marred the silken sheen of the fifty feet of polished chrome steel except the spidery fingers of two light gantries which stood out from the walls and clasped the waist of the rocket between thick pads of foam-rubber.

The guns in the Bond books can be seen as expressions of their bearer’s power – or, as with Scaramanga’s golden gun, compensation for a lack of virility. The Moonraker is equally symbolic, but on a far larger scale: an expression of a nation’s geopolitical power, or compensation for its impotence.

As what is known officially as Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent (“Trident” to everyone else) returns to the top of the political agenda, the cultural dimension of the debate will no doubt continue to be overlooked. Yet culture matters in politics, especially when the issue is a weapon. As the guns in the Bond novels remind us, weapons are not merely tools, they are also symbols. Trident is not just a system comprising nuclear warheads, missiles and four Vanguard-class submarines. Its symbolic meanings are, to a great extent, what this debate is about. Trident stands for Britain itself, and it does so for different people in different ways. Your opinion on whether to cancel or replace it depends to a great extent on what kind of country you think Britain is, or ought to be.

The Cold War British spy thriller is particularly topical because it developed in tandem with Britain’s nuclear programme through the 1950s and 1960s. Moonraker was published just weeks after Churchill’s government announced its intention to build an H-bomb in the 1955 defence white paper, and three years after Britain’s first atomic test on the Montebello Islands, Western Australia. These novels drew on technological reality in their plots concerning the theft of nuclear secrets or the proliferation of nuclear technology, but they influenced reality as well as reflected it, with stories of British power that helped create Britain’s image of itself in a postwar world.

The main theme of the genre is the decline of British power and how the country responded. Atomic or nuclear weapons serve this as symbols and plot devices. Len Deighton’s debut novel, The Ipcress File (1962), for instance, concerns a plan to brainwash British scientists to spy for the Soviet Union, and has as its centrepiece an American neutron-bomb test on a Pacific atoll, observed by a British double agent who is transmitting Allied secrets to an offshore Soviet submarine. The novel’s technical dialogue on nuclear technology, and its appendices providing a fictionalised account of the Soviet Union’s first atomic bomb test and a factual explanation of the neutron bomb, are in the book not merely for verisimilitude: Deighton’s British spies are observers or victims of the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR, agents with remarkably little agency.

A more dour variation on the theme is John le Carré’s The Looking Glass War (1965), in which the prospect of obtaining information on Soviet nuclear missiles in East Germany provokes “the Department”, a failing military intelligence organisation, to try to regain its wartime glory with an intelligence coup. This hubris leads to tragedy as its amateurish operation unravels to disastrous effect, le Carré’s point being that military and economic might cannot be regained through nostalgic wish-fulfilment. These novels situate British decline in the context of superpower domination; their characters recall the technological and operational successes of the Second World War but seem unable to accept the contemporary reality of military and geopolitical decline. For Deighton and le Carré, Britain simply doesn’t matter as much as it used to, which is why, in le Carré’s later Smiley novels and Deighton’s Game, Set and Match trilogy (1983-85), the spymasters are so desperate to impress the Americans.

Fleming is usually seen as a reactionary, even blimpish writer – his England was “substantially right of centre”, Kingsley Amis remarked – and he signalled his own politics by making a trade unionist the ­villain of his first novel, Casino Royale (1953). So it might seem surprising that he was as concerned as his younger contemporaries Deighton and le Carré with British decline. The historian David Cannadine, for one, emphasises that although Fleming may have been aghast at certain aspects of postwar change such as the welfare state and unionisation (opinions that Bond makes no secret of sharing), he simply refused to believe that Britain was in decline, a refusal embodied in Bond’s very character.

Bond the man is more than the “anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a ­government department” that Fleming described to the Manchester Guardian in 1958. He is an expression of the British state itself, demonstrating Britain’s toughness while besting its enemies – the Russian agents of SMERSH and, later, the international criminals and terrorists of SPECTRE. He is supported by a formidable apparatus of technological and logistical capability that mythologises British research and development, which had peaked during the Second World War (a point made more obviously in the film franchise when Fleming’s Armourer becomes the white-coated Q, heir to Barnes Wallis and the ingenious technicians of the Special Operations Executive). And, as Cannadine astutely observes, “this comforting, escapist theme of Britain’s continued pre-eminence” is most evident in Bond’s relationship with the United States. The Americans may have more money, but they cannot spy or fight anywhere near as well as Bond, as is made plain when the hapless Felix Leiter, Bond’s friend in the CIA, literally loses an arm and a leg to one of Mr Big’s sharks in Live and Let Die (1954).

Moonraker, however, exposes a more complex and sceptical side to Fleming’s Bond. It is significant that this emerges in a book that is explicitly about Englishness and the Bomb. The rocket is being built atop another symbol: the white cliffs of Dover, prompting some surprisingly lyrical passages on the beauty of South Foreland coast. And yet, though replete with emblems of English tradition and bursting with hatred of ugly, evil-minded foreigners, this novel has an unmistakable political subtext that undermines its apparent confidence in British power. Drax, it turns out, is a patriot – but a patriot of Nazi Germany, which he had served as an SS officer and plans to avenge with a missile that is pointing not, as everyone believes, at a test site in the North Sea, but at central London, the intended Ground Zero being a flat in Ebury Street, Belgravia (the location, incidentally, of Fleming’s own bachelor pad in the 1930s and 1940s). The missile has been designed and built by engineers from Wernher von Braun’s wartime rocket programme, and its atomic warhead has been generously donated by the Soviet Union, which is looking to bring Britain to its knees without having to go through the rigmarole of fighting a war.

The Moonraker, we are told repeatedly, will restore Britain to its rightful place at the global top table after its unfortunate postwar period of retrenchment and austerity. But the rocket is not British, except in being built on British soil, and the aim of the man controlling it is to destroy British power, not project it. The implication is that Britain is not only incapable of looking after its own defences, but also pathetically grateful for the favours bestowed on it. After the missile is fired, its trajectory diverted by Bond back to the original target (thereby fortuitously taking out a Soviet submarine carrying the fleeing Drax), the government decides to cover it all up and allow the public to continue believing that the Moonraker is a genuinely British atomic success.

One of the ironies of the Bond phenomenon is that by examining the myths and realities of British hard power, it became a chief instrument of British soft power. Of the first 18 novels to sell over a million copies in Britain, ten were Bond books, and Moonraker (by no means the most successful instalment of the saga) was approaching the two million mark 20 years after publication. The film franchise continues to offer Cannadine’s “comforting, escapist” image of Britain (the two most recent pictures, directed by Sam Mendes, are especially replete with British icons), but the novels are altogether more uncertain about Britain’s role in the world. Moonraker is full of anxiety that the myth of British power is nothing more than a myth, that Britain lacks the industrial and scientific wherewithal to return to greatness. It even conjures up an image of the apocalypse, reminding readers of the precariousness of those cherished British values and institutions, when the love interest, the improbably named Special Branch detective Gala Brand, imagines the terrible consequences of Drax’s plan:

The crowds in the streets. The Palace. The nursemaids in the park. The birds in the trees. The great bloom of flame a mile wide. And then the mushroom cloud. And nothing left. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

***

Even though their plots ensure that apocalypse is averted, Cold War thrillers thus made their own contribution to forcing us to imagine the unimaginable, as did more mainstream post-apocalyptic novels such as William Golding’s Lord of the Flies (1954), Nevil Shute’s bestseller On the Beach (1957) and The Old Men at the Zoo (1961) by Angus Wilson. In Desmond Cory’s Shockwave, first published in 1963 as Hammerhead and featuring the Spanish-British agent Johnny Fedora (whose debut preceded Bond’s by two years), Madrid is saved from destruction by a nuclear bomb that the Soviet master spy Feramontov almost succeeds in delivering to its target. As he contemplates his objective, Feramontov muses that, in the “bomb-haunted world of the Sixties”, death in a nuclear fireball “might even come as a release, like the snapping of an overtautened string; and after the rains of death had flooded the Earth, those who survived in the sodden ruins might think of him as a benefactor of the race”.

But where the post-apocalyptic dystopias might be viewed as an argument for nuclear disarmament, later Cold War thrillers such as Cory’s usually accepted the fact of mutually assured destruction – and that British peace and prosperity were guaranteed by US nuclear firepower. Nowhere is this more apparent than Frederick Forsyth’s 1984 bestseller, The Fourth Protocol, which turns the Labour Party’s famously unilateralist 1983 election manifesto into a uniquely party-political espionage plot. In it, the general secretary of the Soviet Union conspires with the elderly Kim Philby to smuggle into Britain a small, self-assembly nuclear bomb that a KGB “illegal” will put together and ­detonate at a US air force base in East Anglia.

Unlike in Moonraker and Shockwave, however, the objective is not to provoke hostilities or prompt military capitulation, but to persuade the British public to vote Labour – by provoking horror and outrage at the risks of US nuclear weapons remaining on British soil. However, the new and moderate Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, will have a scant few hours in Downing Street, as a hard-left rival under Soviet control (such as a certain Ken Livingstone, whom Philby describes as “a nondescript, instantly forgettable little fellow with a nasal voice”) will at once usurp Kinnock and reinstate a policy of unilateral disarmament, leading to the removal of the US missiles.

The ideological force of Forsyth’s novel is clear enough: Britain is beset by enemies within and without, and must arm itself morally and politically against communism. But although this is an insistently, even tiresomely patriotic novel, its plot makes no attempt to conceal Britain’s relative military weakness and dependence on the United States, though disaster is averted by the combined brilliance of MI5, MI6 and the SAS. The Fourth Protocol thus becomes an allegory of this country’s world-leading “niche capabilities”, which maintain Britain’s prestige and relevance despite its declining military and economic might.

Today, the political argument remains on much the same terms as at the start of the Cold War. Whichever way you look at it, Trident symbolises Britain. To its supporters, it is symbolic of Britain’s talent for “punching above its weight”, and its responsibility to protect freedom and keep the global peace. To its opponents, it is an emblem of economic folly, militaristic excess, and a misunderstanding of contemporary strategic threats; it is an expression not of British confidence but of a misplaced machismo, a way for Britons to feel good about themselves that fails to address the real threats to the nation. One academic, Nick Ritchie of York University, argues that Britain’s nuclear policy discourse “is underpinned by powerful ideas about masculinity in international politics in which nuclear weapons are associated with ideas of virility, strength, autonomy and rationality”.

In 1945, shortly after Hiroshima became a byword for mass destruction, George ­Orwell predicted in his essay “You and the Atom Bomb” that nuclear weapons would bring about what he was the first to call a “cold war”. Because an atomic bomb “is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship”, it could be produced at scale only by countries with vast industrial capacity; this would lead to the emergence of two or three superpowers, confronting each other in a “peace that is no peace”.

Orwell’s point about industrial capacity helps explain why Trident is totemic: it is proof that our industrial might has not entirely vanished. Alternatively, it can be seen as a consolation for industrial decline. This may be why the huge cost of the Successor programme – one of the main arguments wielded by Trident’s opponents against replacement – appears to be a source of pride for the government: the Strategic Defence and Security Review proclaims that, at £31bn, with a further £10bn for contingencies, Successor will be “one of the largest government investment programmes”.

Clearly, size matters today as much as it did when Fleming was writing. But Moonraker again helps us see that all is not what it seems. Just as the Moonraker is a German missile with a Soviet warhead, even if it is being built in Kent, so the missiles carried by the Vanguard-class submarines are, in fact, made in California, Britain having given up missile production in the 1960s. The Trident warheads are made in Berkshire – but by a privatised government agency part-owned by two American firms. Trident may be British, but only in the way Manchester United or a James Bond movie are British.

The Cold War spy thriller presciently suggests that true independence is an illusion. Britain may consume the most destructive weapons yet invented, but it can no longer produce them or deliver them without America’s industrial might. British power is interdependent, not independent: that is the Cold War thriller’s most politically prescient message.

Andrew Glazzard is a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute and the author of “Conrad’s Popular Fictions: Secret Histories and Sensational Novels” (Palgrave Macmillan)

This article first appeared in the 21 July 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The English Revolt