Blair, Olympic deals and the glimpse of another Britain
By John Pilger
This
is a story of two letters and two Britains. The first letter was
written by Sebastian Coe, the former athlete who chairs the London
Olympics Organising Committee. He is now called Lord Coe. In the New
Statesman of 21 June, I reported an urgent appeal to Coe by the Vietnam
Women's Union that he and his IOC colleagues reconsider their decision
to accept sponsorship from Dow Chemical, one of the companies that
manufactured dioxin, a poison used against the population of Vietnam.
Code-named Agent Orange, this weapon of mass destruction was "dumped" on
Vietnam, according to a US Senate report in 1970, in what was called
Operation Hades. The letter to Coe estimates that today 4.8 million
victims of Agent Orange are children, all of them shockingly deformed.
In
his reply, Coe describes Agent Orange as "a highly emotional issue"
whose development and use "was made by the US government [which] has
rightly led the process of addressing the many issues that have
resulted". He refers to a "constructive dialogue" between the US and
Vietnamese governments "to resolve issues". They are "best placed to
manage the reconciliation of these two countries." When I read this, I
was reminded of the weasel letters that are a specialty of the Foreign
Office in London in denying the evidence of crimes of state and
corporate power, such as the lucrative export of terrible weapons. The
former Iraq Desk Officer, Mark Higson, called this sophistry "a culture
of lying".
I
sent Coe's letter to a number of authorities on Agent Orange. The
reactions were unerring. "There has been no initiative at all by the US
government to address the health and economic effects on the people of
Vietnam affected by dioxin," wrote the respected US attorney Constantine
Kokkoris, who led an action against Dow Chemical. He noted that
"manufacturers like Dow were aware of the presence and harmfulness of
dioxin in their product but failed to inform the government in an effort
to avoid regulation." According to the War legacies League, none of the
health, environmental and economic problems caused by the world's most
enduring chemical warfare has been addressed by the US. Non-government
agencies have helped "only a small number of those in need". A "clean
up" in a "dioxin hot spot" in the city of Da Nang, to which Coe refers,
is a sham; none of the money allocated by the US Congress has gone
directly to the Vietnamese or has reached those most severely disabled
from the cancers associated with Agent Orange.
For
this reason, Coe's mention of "reconciliation" is profane, as if there
were an equivalence between an invading superpower and its victims. His
letter exemplifies the London Olympics' razor-wired, PR and
money-fuelled totalitarian state within a state, which you enter,
appropriately, through a Westfield mega shopping mall. How dare you
complain about the missiles on the roof of your flats, hectored a
magistrate to 86 residents of London's East End. How dare any of you
protest at the "Zil car lanes", reminiscent of Moscow in the Soviet era,
for Olympic apparatchiks and the boys from Dow and Coke. With the media
in charge of Olympics excitement, as it was for 'Shock and Awe' in Iraq
in 2003, now enter the man who played a starring role in making both
spectacles possible.
On
11 July, a so-called Olympics evening – "a coming together of the
Labour tribe", declared the Labour Party leader Ed Milliband –
celebrated its "star guest" Tony Blair and his 2005 "gift" of the Games
and "provided the perfect opportunity for Blair's return to frontline
politics", reported the Guardian. The organiser of this contrivance was
Alistair Campbell, chief spinner of the bloodbath Blair and he gifted to
the Iraqi people. And just as the victims of Dow Chemical are of no
interest to the Olympic elite, so the epic criminality of Labour's star
guest was unmentionable.
The
source of the Olympics' chaotic security is also unmentionable. As
established studies in Britain have long conceded, it was the invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq and the rest of the "war on terror" that served
to recruit new jihadists and bolster other forms of resistance that led
directly to the London bombs of 7/7. These were Blair's bombs. In his
current rehabilitation, courtesy of his Olympics "legacy", there is the
additional spin that Blair's huge post-Downing Street wealth is
concentrated on charities.
The
second letter I mentioned was sent to me by Josh Richards who lives in
Bristol. In March 2003, Josh and four others set out to disable an
American B-52 bomber based at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, before it
could bomb Iraq. So did four other people. It was a non-violent action
faithful to the Nuremberg principles that a war of aggression was the
"paramount war crime". Josh was arrested and charged with planning to
lay explosives. "This was based on the ludicrous idea," he wrote, "that
some peanut butter I had on me was actually a bomb component. The charge
was later abandoned after the Ministry of Defence performed extensive
tests on my Tesco crunchy nut peanut butter."
During
two trials and two hung juries, Josh was finally acquitted. It was a
landmark case in which he spoke in open court about the genocidal
embargo imposed upon Iraq by the British and US governments prior to
their invasion and the false justifications of the "war on terror". His
acquittal meant that he had acted in the name of the law and his
intention had been to save lives.
The
letter Josh wrote to me included a copy of my book, The New Rulers of
the World, which, he pointed out, had provided him with the facts he
needed for his defence. Meticulously page-marked and highlighted, it had
accompanied Josh on a three-year journey through courtrooms and prison
cells. Of all the letters I have received, Josh's epitomises a decency,
modesty and determination of moral purpose that represent another
Britain and antidotes to poisonous Olympic sponsors and rehabilitated
warmongers. During these extraordinary times, such an example ought to
give others heart and inspiration to reclaim this receding democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment