How Britain wages war

The military has created a wall of silence around its frequent resort to barbaric practices, includi

Five photographs together break a silence. The first is of a former Gurkha regimental sergeant major, Tul Bahadur Pun, aged 87. He sits in a wheelchair outside 10 Downing Street. He holds a board full of medals, including the Victoria Cross, the highest award for bravery, which he won serving in the British army.

He has been refused entry to Britain and treatment for a serious heart ailment by the National Health Service: outrages rescinded only after a public campaign. On 25 June, he came to Down ing Street to hand his Victoria Cross back to the Prime Minister, but Gordon Brown refused to see him.

The second photograph is of a 12-year-old boy, one of three children. They are Kuchis, nomads of Afghanistan. They have been hit by Nato bombs, American or British, and nurses are trying to peel away their roasted skin with tweezers. On the night of 10 June, Nato planes struck again, killing at least 30 civilians in a single village: children, women, schoolteachers, students. On 4 July, another 22 civilians died like this. All, including the roasted children, are described as "militants" or "suspected Taliban". The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, says the invasion of Afghan istan is "the noble cause of the 21st century".

The third photograph is of a computer-generated aircraft carrier not yet built, one of two of the biggest ships ever ordered for the Royal Navy. The £4bn contract is shared by BAE Systems, whose sale of 72 fighter jets to the corrupt tyranny in Saudi Arabia has made Britain the biggest arms merchant on earth, selling mostly to oppressive regimes in poor countries. At a time of economic crisis, Browne describes the carriers as "an affordable expenditure".

The fourth photograph is of a young British soldier, Gavin Williams, who was "beasted" to death by three non-commissioned officers. This "informal summary punishment", which sent his body temperature to more than 41 degrees, was intended to "humiliate, push to the limit and hurt". The torture was described in court as a fact of army life.

The final photograph is of an Iraqi man, Baha Mousa, who was tortured to death by British soldiers. Taken during his post-mortem, it shows some of the 93 horrific injuries he suffered at the hands of men of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment who beat and abused him for 36 hours, including double-hooding him with hessian sacks in stifling heat. He was a hotel receptionist. Although his murder took place almost five years ago, it was only in May this year that the Ministry of Defence responded to the courts and agreed to an independent inquiry. A judge has described this as a "wall of silence".

A court martial convicted just one soldier of Mousa's "inhumane treatment", and he has since been quietly released. Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, representing the families of Iraqis who have died in British custody, says the evidence is clear - abuse and torture by the British army is systemic.

Shiner and his colleagues have witness statements and corroborations of prima facie crimes of an especially atrocious kind usually associated with the Americans. "The more cases I am dealing with, the worse it gets," he says. These include an "incident" near the town of Majar al-Kabir in 2004, when British soldiers executed as many as 20 Iraqi prisoners after mutilating them. The latest is that of a 14-year-old boy who was forced to simulate anal and oral sex over a prolonged period.

"At the heart of the US and UK project," says Shiner, "is a desire to avoid accountability for what they want to do. Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary renditions are part of the same struggle to avoid accountability through jurisdiction." British soldiers, he says, use the same torture techniques as the Americans and deny that the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on Torture apply to them. And British torture is "commonplace": so much so, that "the routine nature of this ill-treatment helps to explain why, despite the abuse of the soldiers and cries of the detainees being clearly audible, nobody, particularly in authority, took any notice".

Arcane rituals

Unbelievably, says Shiner, the Ministry of Defence under Tony Blair decided that the 1972 Heath government's ban on certain torture techniques applied only in the UK and Northern Ireland. Consequently, "many Iraqis were killed and tortured in UK detention facilities". Shiner is working on 46 horrific cases.

A wall of silence has always surrounded the British military, its arcane rituals, rites and practices and, above all, its contempt for the law and natural justice in its various imperial pursuits. For 80 years, the Ministry of Defence and compliant ministers refused to countenance posthumous pardons for terrified boys shot at dawn during the slaughter of the First World War. British soldiers used as guinea pigs during the testing of nuclear weapons in the Indian Ocean were abandoned, as were many others who suffered the toxic effects of the 1991 Gulf War. The treatment of Gurkha Tul Bahadur Pun is typical. Having been sent back to Nepal, many of these "soldiers of the Queen" have no pension, are deeply impoverished and are refused residence or medical help in the country for which they fought and for which 43,000 of them have died or been injured. The Gurkhas have won no fewer than 26 Victoria Crosses, yet Browne's "affordable expenditure" excludes them.

An even more imposing wall of silence ensures that the British public remains largely unaware of the industrial killing of civilians in Britain's modern colonial wars. In his landmark work Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses, the historian Mark Curtis uses three main categories: direct responsibility, indirect responsibility and active inaction.

"The overall figure [since 1945] is between 8.6 and 13.5 million," Curtis writes. "Of these, Britain bears direct responsibility for between four million and six million deaths. This figure is, if anything, likely to be an underestimate. Not all British interventions have been included, because of lack of data." Since his study was published, the Iraq death toll has reached, by reliable measure, a million men, women and children.

The spiralling rise of militarism within Britain is rarely acknowledged, even by those alerting the public to legislation attacking basic civil liberties, such as the recently drafted Data Com muni cations Bill, which will give the government powers to keep records of all electronic communication. Like the plans for identity cards, this is in keeping what the Americans call "the national security state", which seeks the control of domestic dissent while pursuing military aggression abroad. The £4bn aircraft carriers are to have a "global role". For global read colonial. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office follow Washington's line almost to the letter, as in Browne's preposterous description of Afghanistan as a noble cause. In reality, the US-inspired Nato invasion has had two effects: the killing and dispossession of large numbers of Afghans, and the return of the opium trade, which the Taliban had banned. According to Hamid Karzai, the west's puppet leader, Britain's role in Helmand Province has led directly to the return of the Taliban.

Loans for arms

The militarising of how the British state perceives and treats other societies is vividly demonstrated in Africa, where ten out of 14 of the most impoverished and conflict-ridden countries are seduced into buying British arms and military equipment with "soft loans". Like the British royal family, the British Prime Minister simply follows the money. Having ritually condemned a despot in Zimbabwe for "human rights abuses" - in truth, for no longer serving as the west's business agent - and having obeyed the latest US dictum on Iran and Iraq, Brown set off recently for Saudi Arabia, exporter of Wahhabi fundamentalism and wheeler of fabulous arms deals.

To complement this, the Brown government is spending £11bn of taxpayers' money on a huge, pri vatised military academy in Wales, which will train foreign soldiers and mercenaries recruited to the bogus "war on terror". With arms companies such as Raytheon profiting, this will become Britain's "School of the Americas", a centre for counter-insurgency (terrorist) training and the design of future colonial adventures.

It has had almost no publicity.

Of course, the image of militarist Britain clashes with a benign national regard formed, wrote Tolstoy, "from infancy, by every possible means - class books, church services, sermons, speeches, books, papers, songs, poetry, monuments [leading to] people stupefied in the one direction". Much has changed since he wrote that. Or has it? The shabby, destructive colonial war in Afghanistan is now reported almost entirely through the British army, with squaddies always doing their Kipling best, and with the Afghan resistance routinely dismissed as "outsiders" and "invaders". Pictures of nomadic boys with Nato-roasted skin almost never appear in the press or on television, nor the after-effects of British thermobaric weapons, or "vacuum bombs", designed to suck the air out of human lungs. Instead, whole pages mourn a British military intelligence agent in Afghanis tan, because she happens to have been a 26-year-old woman, the first to die in active service since the 2001 invasion.

Baha Mousa, tortured to death by British soldiers, was also 26 years old. But he was different. His father, Daoud, says that the way the Ministry of Defence has behaved over his son's death convinces him that the British government regards the lives of others as "cheap". And he is right.

www.johnpilger.com

86 comments

DarylS's picture

Hi tangogirl, who or what is marby's and where is marby's sentiment? And by the way reiterate is not hyphenated. And it means to repeat, often excessively. Is that what you mean. Somehow? Somewhere?

And sketchley old horse, lackey is spelt thus. Also, do you know what an apostrophe is? Or, in fact, does. Simply awful grammar. By any chance did go to Marlborough College or summat.

STARTING A SENTENCE WITH 'AND' . GRAMMATICAL GENIOUS YOU!

Jonny Mac's picture

Take your meds, Daryl, for goodness' sake.

genecrabtree920's picture

"antibloodyleft: you are an idiot. you are wrong. and the sooner you realise that then the more fun you are going to have in the coming years (particularly this next coming year)."
One second, Im wrong how?! "Realising it" would be a lot easier if you were actually able to articulate it! Sounds like you dont have any idea what youre talking about- you just dislike my name. Maybe it's time to learn how to think properly?

Oh and this is typical boneheaded cybertiger:
"But timmyantileft is still wrong, always wrong ... That's it!"
Of course, you don't know what he was talking about either, do you cybertiger? You really cant form your own opinions at all can you? I'd like to see you get into oxbridge! Hahaha or any university for that matter! Id also like to see you try yahoo chat. Maybe you should give it a shot? Take knave with you.

"I didn't say Oxbridge was a bad thing, just to many top columnists, get into top journo jobs because of their connections."
That's not what you said at all! You didnt mention connections gained at university- that has nothing to do with your post. Here it is again:
"Also if you read my post I have nothing but high regard for Pilger. if only for been different than the Oxbridge right wing thatcherite clone that infects modern British journalism"
Typical left-wing, merit-hating nonsense. Yes, people from top universities thankfully "infect" british journalism. People who go to those universities generally tend to be very smart. No, theyre not "clones". If they agree on something, they tend to be right. Like Thatcherism. I know most of you disagree! But then, youve well and truly lost that argument!!! It must hurt! Does it hurt, lefties? Haha yeah I know it does. Must sting that no one listens to you anymore. It must suck that not one single major party is interested in going back on thatcherism. Shame. Maybe it's because youre wrong?

JC2's picture

Hahahahahaha. Oh antileft I like you pal. Got a bit of anger in you. You are most certainly on my team, like it or not. I love it.
JC2

Jonny Mac's picture

nawa - "By the way, the US and its western allies have no right to invade and occupy Afghanistan or for that matter anywhere else in the world. Afghanistan has not done anything to the US and its allies to be invaded." Nothing, that is, apart from harbour and support a terrorist group that had just committed mass murder on American soil to promote its declared 1998 aim of "killing Americans everywhere".

knave - "I think Pilger is good for politics witghout him we would have just one view of the world." I agree with you on this. We do need alternative viewpoints. It's just that Pilger's a fool.

ruth - "To support our lifestyle it's essential we conquer countries and steal their resources, and to subjugate these countries it's necessary to engage in covert operations to bomb opposing factions to divide and rule. It's necessary to murder on a vast scale to reduce population numbers." No, no, no. Conspiratorial crap. It would have been much cheaper and more efficient in capitalist terms not to invade Iraq or Afghanistan but instead to enter free trade agreements to buy their oil, like we do with the despicable Saudi regime.

harp - "Fighting in Afghanistan is a noble cause, why?" (1) After 9/11 and the sheltering of Bin Laden and the promotion of Islamic terrorism, the Taliban needed to be defeated for the sake of peace. (2) Afghanistan under the Taliban was a clerical fascist regime which terrorised and performed atrocities upon its population (executions in football stadiums, rape and murder of women who refused to be veiled etc). In a sane world, the left would see a war to oppose women hating clerical fascists as a noble endeavour. But then they hated the US, and the left hates the US, so by twisted Pilger-esque logic the grotesques of the Taliban become our friends whom it was just awful to depose. Never mind that millions of Afghan girls are now going to school for the first time, etc.

Cybertiger - "We are in Afghanistan to kill people - it doesn't matter who - and thus wreak revenge. That is an American cause ... and not, in any way, a noble one." What's your evidence in support of this?

JC2's picture

G'day Jonny Mac. Are you up for a few cocktails in Piccadilly with John and the rest of us in a couple of weeks, pal?
JC2

ruth4's picture

From my experience anybody who counters a logical and sound argument with 'conspiracy ' is on very weak ground and is more often than not an agent of the state. Jonny Mac's argument that 'it would have been much cheaper and more efficient in capitalist terms not to invade Iraq or Afghanistan but instead to enter free trade agreements to buy their oil, like we do with the despicable Saudi regime.' is ridiculous. When a Western backed govenment takes a line of its own the West is in danger of having its resources cut off. Agreements can be broken at any time and unless the country is controlled by US, UK or Israel their economies are in serious danger. Therefore, anything goes.

harp's picture

To jonny,

"Just because civilians (including children) have been killed by bombs does not mean the war in Afghanistan is not a noble cause. Cf WWII."

First, Afghanistan war is not comparably to world war two, lets make the comparison work...lets say the united states armed and funded a war in Germany against Russia (Because we don't like commies) for a decade which left the country devastated, then left a bunch of fanatics, who they armed (they made sure to arm and give money to the worst ones, ones who throw acid into womens faces and so on.), then after another decade, some lonely bunch of reactionaries decided to bomb America, and incidentally they were located in Germany. So they decided to invade the country regardless of whether they gave up the "terrorists to justice" or not. Yeah that would make more comparable. I think you can deduce why it wasn't a noble cause, because there is nothing noble about it, only that its destroying a nation and using it for America's and NATO's own political ends. killing civilians is the other non noble attribute of the war.

"The Williams case has garnered such publicity precisely because it is so rare."

He listed many more cases just in case you missed it

"They have been hit by Nato bombs, American or British, and nurses are trying to peel away their roasted skin with tweezers. On the night of 10 June, Nato planes struck again, killing at least 30 civilians in a single village: children, women, schoolteachers, students. On 4 July, another 22 civilians died like this. All, including the roasted children, are described as "militants" or "suspected Taliban"."

also heres a website that also gives some interesting legal perspective
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/september11/ihlqna.htm#lawful

3. Read this...

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/28/afghan14684.htm
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/30/afghan14475.htm

There's a Reason that Human Rights Watch is beseeching the world leading western powers because the so called civilized western world seems to take for granted rights of civilians and the accused, which they are so eager to shove in the face of the non-civilized world.

sincerely,
harp

its also great to see Claddach gone and hushed.

Jonny Mac's picture

knave, harp -

I enjoy these exchanges, but blimey, trying to argue with you is like nailing jelly to the ceiling. I made a simple point: let's try it again. Pilger says (a) civilians, including children have been killed in Afghanistan and then (b) refers mockingly to Des Browne describing it as a war in support of a noble cause. The inference he invites us to draw is that a war in which civilians and children are killed cannot be one in a support of a noble cause. That is clearly, clearly balls, isn't it. I only referred to WWII to draw attention to the most obvious counter-example to Pilger's facile argument. But as it happens, I do think that fighting clerical terrorist-supporting fascists and for the liberation of a people, especially girls and women and gay people who suffered the most, is a noble cause.

The Williams case is, as I said, very rare. Serious injuries and death of soldiers from beasting is not, and cannot be, covered up. (I'm talking here about soldier on soldier violence, not soldier on civilian violence.)

There have been undoubtedly been a few horrendous cases of soldiers abusing Iraqi civlians. These are wholly wrong, and absolutely indefensible. But Pliger, of course, has to push it too far and claim that there was some form of official ok for illtreatment from the MoD. I know for a fact that is wrong, wrong, wrong. He's misinterpretated the HRA/ECHR cases that Shiner's told him about. (He also typically slyly suggests that the Mousa court-martial was rigged. Again, that's balls. The court martial system is fully ECHR compliant - in some respects, it's more article 6 compliant that civilian trials. The fact is that the other defendants would also have got off in a Crown court trial. But then Pilger isn't interested in due process for soldiers.)

And JC2, just to shut you up (as if!), I have no idea whether Pilger describes himself, or as have ever described himself, as leftwing. Can't see the relevance myself - he's clearly on the left whether he has ever so described himself or not.

Claddach's picture

There's something that is being overlooked by everyone participating on this thread. The main reason that John Pilger is only published in one reasonably mainstream newspaper. (NS) There's no conspiracy. No boycott. No censorship of his work.Let me capitalise this for emphasis. THERE IS A WIDESPREAD VIEW THAT PILGER'S POLITICAL JUDGEMENTS OF RECENT YEARS ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. (for example his assertion in 2003 that "the current American elite is the Third Reich of our times") His films are loaded and flawed; his political judgements are histrionic; his research is nugatory. These are longstanding characteristics. If I had the time and really cared about it, It would be possible to detect a misleading statement, an unsubstantiated assertion or an outright lie on almost every page he has ever written.
Pilger is well known for the extravagance of his rhetoric and his emotive presentation. But these are less serious deficiencies than the way he treats historical sources. Perhaps it is because he believes so strongly in the notion of official deceit that Pilger disregards historical inquiry when forcing his prespecified conclusions. But whatever the reason, that's what he does, and that's what deprives his work of any redeeming characteristic.

Latest tweets