Whoa there, David Cameron! Haste and Rhetoric is
no Recipe for Peace
Reactions to Paris and Mali have been militaristic rhetoric brought
about by ignorance and refusal to understand the injustices of the
Middle East
By Robert Fisk
November 24, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "The
Independent" - Eisenhower famously
sent some brusque advice to Anthony Eden in 1956 when he decided
that Britain’s deceitful war in Egypt should come to an end. “Whoa,
boy!” were his words. And they should be repeated now to the
politicians, historians and other nincompoops who regard themselves
as the soothsayers of eternal war.Each
morning, I awake to find another Hollywood horror being concocted by
our secret policemen or our public relations-inspired leaders.
Germany’s top spy warns us of a “Terrorist World War” – I accept his
expertise, of course, because Germany has itself proved rather
efficient at starting world wars – while a perfectly sane and
otherwise brilliant historian compares Europe’s agony to the fall of
the Roman Empire.
The Paris killings are now supposed to have “changed Paris for
ever” or “changed France for ever”. I would accept that the
collaboration of General Pétain with Nazi Germany changed France for
ever – but the atrocities in Paris this month simply cannot be
compared with the German occupation of 1940. That most tiresome of
French philosophers, Bernard-Henri Lévy, tells us that Isis are “Fascislamists”.
Oddly, I don’t remember the same Mr Lévy telling
us that the avowedly Christian Lebanese killers of up to 1,700
Palestinian civilians in the Beirut Sabra-Shatila refugee camps of
1982 – Israel’s vicious Lebanese militia allies – were “Fascichristians”.
This was a “terrorist” act with which I was all too familiar. With
two journalist colleagues, I walked among the butchered and raped
corpses of the dead. The American-armed and funded Israeli army
watched the slaughter – and did nothing. Yet not a single Western
politicians announced that this had “changed the Middle East for
ever”. And if 1,700 innocents can be murdered in Beirut in 1982
without “world war” being declared, how can President François
Hollande announce that France is “at war” after 130 innocents were
massacred?
Yet, now the poor and huddled masses of the Middle
East, according to my friend Niall Ferguson, are the Goths flooding
towards ancient Rome. Ferguson admits he doesn’t know enough about
fifth century Roman history to be able to quote Romans on the
subject. But the Romans endowed their newly conquered peoples with
Roman citizenship; and Niall might at least have bothered to study
the third century when the new Roman emperor, Caesar Marcus Julius
Philippus Augustus, came from Syria. He was born about 30 miles from
Damascus and was called “Philip the Arab”. But let’s not allow even
modern history to get in the way of our desire for revenge.
Take
Mali and last week’s killings. The French “intervened” there in
January 2013, after Islamists took over the north of Mali and
prepared to advance on the capital, Bamako. “Field Marshal” Hollande,
as he was satirised in the French press, sent in his lads to destroy
the “terrorists”, who were imposing their revolting “Islamic”
punishments on civilians, without mentioning that the violence was
also part of a Tuareg-Malian government civil war. By the end of
January, reports spoke of France’s Malian military allies killing
civilians in a wave of ethnic reprisals. The French defence minister
(then, as now, Jean-Yves Le Drian) admitted that “urban guerrilla
warfare” was “very complicated to manage”.
By September, the Islamists were murdering Malians
who had co-operated with the French. Since France was already
declaring victory against the “terrorists”, few paid attention to
the spokesman for the very same Islamists when he announced that
“our enemy is France, which works with the army of Mali, of Niger,
of Senegal, of Guinea, of Togo, against Muslims … all these
countries are our enemies and we are going to treat them like
enemies.”
Which makes last week’s massacre in Bamako less
incomprehensible. And for those who believe that European soldiers
who go clanking around African countries are not going to provoke
revenge from those of Malian origin, note how we virtually ignored
the background of the Isis killer of the French policewoman and of
four French Jews at the Paris supermarket last January. Amedy
Coulibaly was born in France to Malian Muslim parents.
And now let’s read this report on Mali from early
2013: that French “warplanes are continuing their attacks on
suspected rebel camps, command posts, logistic bases and ‘terrorist
vehicles’ in northern Mali. In recent days, officials said, they hit
targets in the Timbuktu and Gao regions, including a dozen strikes
in a 24-hour period ...” Replace Timbuktu and Gao with Raqqa and
Idlib and this is the same soup we’re being served up today from
Paris (and Moscow) about air assaults on Isis – and into which PR
Dave himself now wishes to lead our miniature air force.
Our reaction? All rhetoric, of course, brought
about by our ignorance, our refusal to understand the injustices of
the Middle East, our idleness in addressing conflict with political
plans and objectives. If we could apply the “whoa, boy” advice
today, it must be with an entirely new approach to the cult mafia
that exists in the Middle East. A world conference on the region,
perhaps, along the lines of the 1945 San Francisco conference where
statesmen created a United Nations that would (and did) prevent more
world wars. And for refugees, an offer like the Nansen refugee
passport for the millions of destitute and homeless after the
1914-18 war, accepted by 50 nations.
Instead we blather on about the apocalypse,
terrorist world wars and Ancient Rome. To our very own PR Dave, I
can only repeat: “whoa, boy!”