Behind the Arab revolt lurks a word we dare not speak

The people of Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan and Libya are rising up not only again

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I interviewed Ray McGovern, one of an elite group of CIA officers who prepared the president's daily intelligence brief. McGovern was at the apex of the "national security" monolith that is American power and had retired with presidential plaudits. On the eve of the invasion, he and 45 other former senior officers of the CIA and other US intelligence agencies wrote to President George W Bush that the "drumbeat for war" was based not on intelligence, but lies.

“It was 95 per cent charade," McGovern told me.

“How did they get away with it?"

“The press allowed the crazies to get away with it."

“Who are the crazies?"

“The people running the administration have a set of beliefs a lot like those expressed in Mein Kampf . . . these are the same people who were referred to in the circles in which I moved, at the top, as 'the crazies'."

I said, "Norman Mailer has written that he believes America has entered a pre-fascist state. What's your view of that?"

“Well . . . I hope he's right, because there are others saying we are already in a fascist mode."

First blows

On 22 January, McGovern emailed me to express his disgust at the Obama administration's treatment of the alleged whistleblower Bradley Manning and its pursuit of Julian Assange. "Way back when George and Tony decided it might be fun to attack Iraq," he wrote, "I said something to the effect that fascism had already begun here. I have to admit I did not think it would get this bad this quickly."

On 15 February, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, gave a speech at George Washington University in which she condemned governments that arrest protesters and crush free expression. She lauded the liberating power of the internet but failed to mention that her government was planning to close down those parts of the internet that encourage dissent and truth-telling. It was a speech of spectacular hypocrisy. McGovern was in the audience. Outraged, he rose from his chair and silently turned his back on Clinton. He was immediately seized by police and a security goon, beaten to the floor, dragged out and thrown into jail, bleeding. He has sent me photographs of his injuries. He is 71. During the assault, which was clearly visible to Clinton, she did not pause in making her remarks.

Fascism is a difficult word, because it comes with an iconography that touches the Nazi nerve and is abused as propaganda against America's official enemies and to promote the west's foreign adventures with a moral vocabulary written in the struggle against Hitler. And yet fascism and imperialism are twins. In the aftermath of the Second World War, those in the imperial states who had made respectable the racial and cultural superiority of "western civilisation" found that Hitler and fascism had claimed the same, employing strikingly similar methods. Thereafter, the very notion of American imperialism was swept from the textbooks and popular culture of an imperial nation forged on the genocidal conquest of its native people. And a war on social justice and democracy became "US foreign policy".

As the Washington historian William Blum has documented, since 1945, the US has destroyed or subverted more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and used mass murderers such as Suharto, Mobutu and Pinochet to dominate by proxy. In the Middle East, America has sustained every dictatorship and pseudo-monarchy. In "Operation Cyclone", the CIA and MI6 secretly fostered and bankrolled Islamic extremism. The object was to smash or deter nationalism and democracy. Most of the victims of this western state terrorism have been Muslims. The people gunned down this past week in Bahrain and Libya - the latter a "priority market" for the UK, according to Britain's official arms "procurers" - join those children blown to bits in Gaza by the latest US F-16 aircraft.

The revolt in the Arab world is against not merely a resident dictator, but a worldwide economic tyranny, designed by the US Treasury and imposed by the US Agency for International Development, the IMF and the World Bank, which have ensured that rich countries such as Egypt are reduced to vast sweatshops, with 40 per cent of the population earning less than $2 a day. The people's triumph in Cairo was the first blow against what Benito Mussolini called corporatism, a word that appears in his definition of fascism.

Enemy with a name

How did such extremism take hold in the liberal west? "It is necessary to destroy hope, idealism, solidarity and concern for the poor and oppressed," observed Noam Chomsky a generation ago, "[and] to replace these dangerous feelings by self-centred egoism, a pervasive cynicism that holds that [an order of] inequities and oppression is the best that can be achieved. In fact, a great international propaganda campaign is under way to convince people . . . that this not only is what they should feel but that it is what they do feel . . ."

Like the European revolutions of 1848 and the uprising against Stalinism in 1989, the Arab revolt has rejected fear. An insurrection of suppressed ideas, hope and solidarity has begun.

In the US, where 45 per cent of young African Americans have no jobs and the top hedge-fund managers are paid $1bn a year on average, mass protests against cuts in services and jobs have spread to heartland states such as Wisconsin. In Britain, the fastest-growing modern protest movement, UK Uncut, is taking direct action against tax avoiders and rapacious high-street banks. Something has changed that cannot be unchanged. The enemy has a name now.

154 comments

DAULAT RAM's picture

When they came for Muslim women who dared to love freedom, Pilger said nothing. He was not a Muslim woman.

When they came for journalists in the Muslim world who dared to criticise Islam, Pilger said nothing. He was not a journalist in the Muslim world.

When they came for the Hindus, Pilger said nothing. He was not a Hindu.

When they came for the Bahaii Pilget said nothing. He was not a Bahaii.

When they came for the gays Pilger said nothing. He was not a gay.

When they came for the Jews Pilger applauded. He was not a Jew.

When they came for the Christians Pilger said nothing. He didn't care.

When they came for trades unionists Pilger said nothing. He didn't care for union causes in Muslim countries.

Finally, they came even for him. He yelped. But it was too late.

martybee's picture

Sliding into becoming a Fascist state??????
see Kent state University.

BiLogical's picture

I wonder how many Israelis, pretending to be all sorts as they do all over the web, are posting here?

papigosh's picture

ENJOY BEING THE MOST POWERFUL WHILE IT LAST

The west appear to support democracy ONLY WHEN IT SUIT HER INTEREST. The most powerful countries get away with the most blatant of crimes and their citizens appear to look the other way.

What happens when the most powerful country becomes one NOT FROM THE WEST?

JP keep up the good work.

Mr. Divine's picture

When they came for Julian Assange
He cried foul
But he couldn't do anything

Tom.'s picture

Daniele - 24 February 2011 at 20:43 :

" Tom:

Are you referring to that "democracy" who ordered the massacre of thousands of civilians trapped in a ghetto?

Some "democracy"! "

Daniele, You'll have to provide me with a bit more detail than that I'm afraid. However, it's a bit daft for a Socialist to keep throwing body-counts at people who take issue with their ideologically over-loaded view of the world. Because, after all, how many people have been killed in pursuit of Socialism so far. Rather a lot, wouldn't you say? You lot are the absolute worst for murder in the modern era.

My point was simply that there is already a well-established democracy in the Middle East. And, as a democracy, it's actually far more accountable to it's electorate than most other democracies, particularly our own. But you can't afford to admit that, can you?

Tom.

qwerty's picture

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Libya: June 1996 Killings at Abu Salim Prison

In the summer of 1996, stories began to filter out of Libya about a mass killing in Tripoli�s Abu Salim prison. The details remained scarce, and the government initially denied that an incident had taken place. Libyan groups outside the country said up to 1,200 prisoners had died.

In 2001 and 2002, Libyan authorities began to inform some families with a relative in Abu Salim that their family-member had died, although they did not provide the body or details on the cause of death. In April 2004 Libyan leader Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi publicly acknowledged that killings had taken place in Abu Salim, and said that prisoners� families have the right to know what took place.

In May 2005 Human Rights Watch visited Abu Salim prison, run by the Internal Security Agency. Head of the agency Col. Tohamy Khaled said the government had opened an investigation into the 1996 incident, but did not provide information on the manner or timing of the investigation. Human Rights Watch subsequently asked the Libyan government for details on the investigation, but the government failed to reply.

Prisoners in Abu Salim prison interviewed by Human Rights Watch in May were unwilling to speak about the incident, apparently out of fear. The interviews focused on their individual cases, and all of them said that conditions in the prison had recently improved.

In June 2004 and again in June 2006, however, Human Rights Watch interviewed a former Abu Salim prisoner who claims to have witnessed the killings. Now living in the United States, where he has applied for asylum, Hussein al-Shafa�i said he spent 1988-2000 in Abu Salim on political charges, but was never brought to trial, and he worked in the prison kitchen in June 1996. Human Rights Watch could not verify his claims, but many details are consistent with a report from an �migr� Libyan group, based on another witness account.

According to al-Shafa�i, the incident began around 4:40 p.m. on June 28, when prisoners in Block 4 seized a guard named Omar who was bringing their food. Hundreds of prisoners from blocks 3, 5 and 6 escaped their cells. They were angry over restricted family visits and poor living conditions, which had deteriorated after some prisoners escaped the previous year. Al-Shafa�i told Human Rights Watch:
Five or seven minutes after it started, the guards on the roofs shot at the prisoners�shot at the prisoners who were in the open areas. There were 16 or 17 injured by bullets. The first to die was Mahmoud al-Mesiri. The prisoners took two guards hostage.

Half an hour later, al-Shafa�i said, two top security officials, Abdullah Sanussi, who is married to the sister of al-Qadhafi�s wife, and Nasr al-Mabrouk arrived in a dark green Audi with a contingent of security personnel. Sanussi ordered the shooting to stop and told the prisoners to appoint four representatives for negotiations. The prisoners chose Muhammad al-Juweili, Muhammad Ghlayou, Miftah al-Dawadi, and Muhammad Bosadra.

According to al-Shafa�i, who said he observed and overheard the negotiations from the kitchen, the prisoners asked Sanussi for clean clothes, outside recreation, better medical care, family visits, and the right to have their cases heard before a court, because many of the prisoners were in prison without trial. Sanussi said he would address the physical conditions, but the prisoners had to return to their cells and release the two hostages. The prisoners agreed and released one guard named Atiya, but the guard Omar had died.

Security personnel took the bodies of those killed and sent the wounded for medical care. About 120 other sick prisoners boarded three buses, ostensibly to go to the hospital. According to al-Shafa�i, he saw the buses take the prisoners to the back of the prison.

Around 5:00 a.m. on June 29, security forces moved some of the prisoners between the civilian and military sections of the prison. By 9:00 a.m. they had forced hundreds of prisoners from blocks 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 into different courtyards. They moved the low security prisoners in block 2 to the military section and kept the prisoners in blocks 7 and 8, with individual cells, inside. Al-Shafa�i, who was behind the administration building with other kitchen workers at the time, told Human Rights Watch what happened next:

At 11:00 a grenade was thrown into one of the courtyards. I did not see who threw it but I am sure it was a grenade. I heard an explosion and right after a constant shooting started from heavy weapons and kalashnikovs from the top of the roofs. The shooting continued from 11:00 until 1:35.

He continued:
I could not see the dead prisoners who were shot, but I could see those who were shooting. They were a special unit and wearing khaki military hats. Six were using kalashnikovs�

I saw them�at least six men�on the roofs of the cellblocks. They were wearing beige khaki uniforms with green bandanas, a turban-like thing.

Around 2:00 p.m. the forces used pistols to �finish off those who were not dead,� he said.

Abu Salim prison held between 1,600 and 1,700 prisoners at the time, and the security forces killed �around 1,200 people,� al-Shafa�i said. He calculated this figure by counting the number of meals he prepared prior to and after the incident.

Cleanup began around 11:00 a.m. the next day, June 30, when security forces removed the bodies with wheelbarrows. They threw the bodies into trenches�2 to 3 meters deep, one meter wide and about 100 meters long�that had been dug for a new wall. �I was asked by the prison guards to wash the watches that were taken from the bodies of the dead prisoners and were covered in blood,� al-Shafai�i said. In 1999 security officials poured cement over the trench, he claimed, although he believed that they later had the bodies removed.

The only other description of the incident comes from a report by the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an opposition political group based outside Libya. Drawing on the account of an anonymous former prisoner who witnessed the incident (not al-Shafa�i), the report largely corroborates al-Shafa�i�s account.

The National Front report says that 120 sick and wounded prisoners boarded buses on June 28 to receive medical care but that many of them were executed, although it provides no details. The next day around 11:00, the report says, �hand grenades were thrown into the crowds of prisoners followed by continuous firing from different weapons like AK-47s, general purpose machine guns, crowd control machine guns. The raining of bullets continued for an entire hour.�

The report does not mention trenches but says that refrigerator trucks from the Meat Transportation Company and the Marine Fisheries Company took bodies away. On June 30, a forklift loaded the last bodies into a container for trains. In total, 1,170 prisoners died, the report says, but it provides no names.

The Libyan government has denied that any crimes took place. In May 2005, Internal Security Agency head Khaled told Human Rights Watch that prisoners had captured some guards during a meal and taken weapons from the prison cache. Prisoners and guards died as security personnel tried to restore order, he said, and the government had opened an investigation on order of the Secretary of Justice.

�When the committee concludes its work, because it has already started, we�ll give a detailed report answering all questions,� Khaled said.

According to Khaled, more than 400 prisoners escaped Abu Salim in four separate break-outs prior to and after the incident: in July 1995, December 1995, June 1996 and July 2001. Among the escapees were men who then fought with Islamist militant groups in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, he said.

A Libyan group based in Switzerland, Libyan Human Rights Solidarity, says that since 2001 the authorities have notified 112 families that a relative held in Abu Salim is dead, without providing the body or details on the cause of death. In addition, 238 families claim they have lost contact with a relative who was a prisoner in Abu Salim.

The organization expressed concern about one of the four prisoner negotiators from June 28, Muhammad Bosadra. According to the group, the authorities transferred Bosadra from Abu Salim to an unknown facility in summer 2005, and no one has heard from him since.

Human Rights Watch spoke with the brother of one former Abu Salim prisoner whom the authorities had informed of his brother�s death. According to Farag al-Awani, now living in Switzerland, security agents arrested his brother Ibrahim al-Awani, 25 at the time, from the family home in al-Bayda in July 1995. The family never heard from Ibrahim again.

In 2002, members of Libya�s Internal Security Agency told the family that Ibrahim had died in a Tripoli hospital due to sickness. A death certificate they provided, viewed by Human Rights Watch, said Ibrahim had died on July 3, 2001, but it gave no cause of death. Despite repeated requests, the authorities never returned the body, as required under Libyan law. It is unclear if Ibrahim al-Awani died in the June 1996 incident or at another time.

�We just want to know what happened and to have the body back,� Farag al-Awani said.

For the Abu Salim report by the National Front for the Salvation of Libya see:
http://www.nfsl-libya.com/Studies/5065-e.htm (English)
http://www.nfsl-libya.com/Studies/5065.htm (Arabic)

For information on Abu Salim by the Libyan Human Rights Solidarity see:
http://www.lhrs.ch/

For Human Rights Watch material on Libya see:
http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=libya

Lox's picture

Well said, Bruce. Perhaps all of the comments allowed should fit the template "I agree with everything it says here because.....".

I guess Hans has you nailed.

Tom's picture

Get out of Libya. Also, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

ivan's picture

There is an important difference between rejecting dictators supported by the US, and the nonsensical idea that Pilger describes as rejecting "western economic tyranny".

Pinochet was a dictator supported by the west. He has been rejected, but it is the adoption of the same kind of economic policies you would find in W Europe that has made Chile the wealthiest and most democratic country in South America. That is something the US supports even more strongly.

When the US supports dictators, it does so generally because it thinks the available alternative is worse, not just for the US but for the locals too. You don't hvae to look at very many communist dictatorships to understand what it feared, even if it wasn't always correct that such was the alternative for those countries. I think that the US's foreign policies are unduly self-centred. But to think that the US has a general approach of keeping middle-easterners poor doesn't bear examination.

Latest tweets