Welcome to the violent world of Mr Hopey Changey
As Barack Obama continues his ludicrously overhyped European tour, media gloss cannot disguise the r
By John Pilger Published 26 May 2011
When Britain lost control of Egypt in 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden said he wanted the nationalist president Gamal Abdel Nasser "destroyed . . . murdered . . . I don't give a damn if there's anarchy and chaos in Egypt." Those insolent Arabs, Winston Churchill had urged in 1951, should be driven "into the gutter from which they should never have emerged".
The language of colonialism may have been modified, but the spirit and the hypocrisy are unchanged. A new imperial phase is unfolding in direct response to the Arab uprising that has shocked Washington and Europe, causing an Eden-style panic. The loss of the Egyptian tyrant Hosni Mubarak was grievous, though not irretrievable: a US-backed counter-revolution is under way as the military regime in Cairo is seduced with bribes, and power is shifting from the street to political groups that did not initiate the revolution. The western aim, as ever, is to stop authentic democracy and reclaim control.
Robbers and bombers
Libya is the immediate opportunity. The Nato attack, with the UN Security Council assigned to mandate a bogus "no-fly zone" to "protect civilians", is strikingly similar to the final destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999. There was no UN cover for the bombing of Serbia and the "rescue" of Kosovo, yet the propaganda echoes today. Like Slobodan Milosevic, Muammar al-Gaddafi is a "new Hitler", plotting "genocide" against his people. There is no evidence of this, as there was no genocide in Kosovo. In Libya, there is a tribal civil war; and the armed uprising against Gaddafi has long been appropriated by the US, French and British, their planes attacking residential Tripoli with uranium-tipped missiles and the submarine HMS Triumph firing Tomahawks, in a repeat of the Iraq "shock and awe" that left thousands of civilians dead and maimed. As in Iraq, the victims, including countless incinerated Libyan army conscripts, are media unpeople.
In the "rebel" east, the terrorising and killing of black African immigrants is not news. On 22 May, a rare piece in the Washington Post described the repression, lawlessness and death squads in the "liberated zones" just as the visiting EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, declared she had found only "great aspirations" and "leadership qualities". In demonstrating these qualities, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the "rebel leader" and Gaddafi's justice minister until February, pledged: "Our friends . . . will have the best opportunity in future contracts in Libya." The east holds most of Libya's oil, the greatest reserves in Africa. In March the rebels, with expert foreign guidance, transferred to Benghazi the Libyan Central Bank, a wholly state-owned institution. This is unprecedented. Meanwhile, the US and the EU froze almost $100bn in Libyan funds, "the largest sum ever blocked", according to official statements. It is the biggest bank robbery in history.
The French elite are enthusiastic robbers and bombers. Nicolas Sarkozy's imperial design is for a French-dominated Mediterranean Union, which would allow France to "return" to its former colonies in North Africa and profit from privileged investment and cheap labour. Gaddafi described the Sarkozy plan as "an insult" that was "taking us for fools". The Merkel government in Berlin agreed, fearing its old foe would diminish Germany in the EU, and abstained in the Security Council vote on Libya. As in the attack on Yugoslavia and the charade of Milosevic's trial, the International Criminal Court is being used to prosecute Gaddafi while his repeated offers of a ceasefire are ignored. Gaddafi is a Bad Arab. David Cameron's government and its verbose top general want to eliminate this Bad Arab, much as the Obama administration killed a famous Bad Arab in Pakistan recently.
The crown prince of Bahrain, on the other hand, is a Good Arab. On 19 May he was warmly welcomed to Britain by Cameron with a photocall on the steps of 10 Downing Street. In March, the same crown prince slaughtered unarmed protesters in his country and allowed Saudi forces to crush the Bahraini democracy movement. The Obama administration has rewarded Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth, with a $60bn arms deal, the biggest in US history. The Saudis have the most oil. They are the Best Arabs.
The assault on Libya, a crime under the Nuremberg standard, is Britain's 46th military "intervention" in the Middle East since 1945. Like its imperial partners, Britain aims to control Africa's oil. Cameron is not Eden, but almost. Same school. Same values. In the media pack, the words colonialism and imperialism are no longer used, so the cynical and the credulous can celebrate state violence in its more palatable form.
Keys to the kingdom
As "Mr Hopey Changey" (the name that the great American cartoonist Ted Rall gives Obama) is fawned upon by the British elite and launches another insufferable campaign, the Anglo-American reign of terror proceeds in Afghanistan and elsewhere with the murder of people by unmanned drones - a US/Israeli innovation, embraced by Obama.
On a scorecard of imposed misery, from secret trials and prisons, to the hounding of whistleblowers and the criminalising of dissent, to the incarceration and impoverishment of his own people, mostly black people, Obama is as bad as George W Bush.
The Palestinians understand all this. As their young people courageously face the violence of Israel's racism, carrying the keys to their grandparents' stolen homes, they are not even included in Mr Hopey Changey's list of peoples in the Middle East whose liberation is long overdue. What the oppressed need, he said on 19 May, is a dose of "America's interests [which] are essential to them". He insults us all.
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


80 comments
A brilliant article from John Pilger, I have his excellent book 'Freedom Next Time' which this would neatly fit into.
I, like I imagine most rational, sane people are am quite war weary by this stage. Western forces are involved in a seemingly never ending stream of wars, which as Pilger eludes to are simply a continuation of imperialism and colonialism under another guise - although they of course are always 'just' wars.
It is also sad, as Pilger says that the revolutions in the Middle East are predictably appropriated and controlled by the West. Imperialism and colonialism has evolved throughout the ages to take account of changing factors - the abolition of slavery, the end of the age of physical empire - and yet again, when a oppressed people rise up the chameleon like Western empire alters accordingly to maintain control.
Much is said but the lords of the planet read UK,US,france et.al have caused havoc to many worldwide esp. Muslims. How about this, as Yahweh leaves i am going to punish the america so severe their puppets will shadder. Im going to cripple the US economy. Their will hear from Hans.
Why can't Gaddafi just hold an election and let the Libyan people decide?
John Pilger, a man with a 70s haircut.
Look at the way Pilger attempts to dodge any scrutiny of his very poorly researched articles.
Have a look at the inconsistencies of Pilger's argument:
http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/
@kingfelix: 'Not one of the anti-Pilger commenters has tackled the truth of Pilger's argument and evidence.'
You are wrong. This is what Mr. Danger wrote only a few comments above yours:
"Obama and Cameron want Gadaffi dead and then to have control of their oil. "
That makes no sense. The British were already signing oil deals with Qadaffi, so they hardly needed to overthrow him to get deals they already had. And the first major oil deal Iraq signed after the overthrow of Saddam was with China - the exact opposite of what should have happened according to your logic.
Here's something else Mr. Danger wrote:
'How much research went into references to "depleted uranium tipped missiles"? Because there is no such thing.'
@mr divine
"That makes no sense. The British were already signing oil deals with Qadaffi, so they hardly needed to overthrow him to get deals they already had. And the first major oil deal Iraq signed after the overthrow of Saddam was with China"
I'm so sorry, when I said, tackle the truth of Pilger's argument and evidence, I did mean the case of Libya. I see you think that an irrelevant comment about Iraq counts as pertinent.
You also think simply saying "there is no such thing" counts as 'tackling the truth of Pilger's evidence'
Wouldn't it require, oh, I don't know, but that the clever Mr Danger actually links to some evidence of his own?
I think we have differing notions of erm, reality.
There are some voices claiming that depleted uranium is being used. Pilger may be referencing an RT report.
However, the HDI argument, and how it counters the 'dictator=bad' meme, is what is important. Libya has advanced markedly during the last 30 years, thereby countering the idea that somehow a bright new dawn will arrive once Gaddafi is overthrown. Iraq would quite possibly have developed well, too, without the devastating US-backed sanctions regime and then being pounded in a war, just as Lebanon was doing well until Israel pounded it.
It's up to those supporting this action to explain how, if your belief is that Gaddafi's continued rule is so objectionable, then quite why you take that view. Is it because of saving his citizens from 'genocide' (again, nobody has managed to link to anything that shows that such a claim is warranted), or is it to install somebody more amenable to Western interests (it would be fine to have that as a motivation, just admit it).
And please state if you honestly believe that NATO action is going to lead to an improvement in Libya's HDI indicators in the next 10 years or so, or not, seeing as, if somehow this war will make things better, presumably there will be a way of measuring its success (other than in Western corporate profits and the re-election of Sarkozy)
@kingfelix: 'The British were already signing oil deals with Qadaffi, so they hardly needed to overthrow him to get deals they already had.'
In reply you said ... 'I did mean the case of Libya'. That is Libya he was talking about! So can you refute Mr. Danger's point of fact was that oil is already being supplied by Libya to the UK and France? Tell me why do they need to get the oil when they already have access to it?!
How can Libya's oil be as Pilger claims the motivation for the intervention when they already have access to it?