Benevolent British foreign policy

["Gilles d'Aymery" <aymery@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The Guardian (London)
May 21, 2003
SECTION: Guardian Leader Pages, Pg. 20
HEADLINE: Comment & Analysis: As British as afternoon tea: By
imposing regime change in Iraq, Blair is not so much following the US as
continuing a national tradition BYLINE: Mark Curtis

Iraqis facing an uncertain future in the wake of forcible "regime
change" have every reason to fear not only US but also British policy.
While past American behaviour in the region is widely criticised,
contributing to fears of real US intentions, Britain's role is often
regarded as more benign. The reality is that overthrowing
governments and backing repressive regimes is as British as afternoon
tea.

Fifty years ago, MI6 and the CIA overthrew the popular, nationalist
government in Iran, which had threatened British interests by
nationalising oil operations. Churchill's government continued covert
operations begun by Attlee, to install what foreign secretary Anthony
Eden called "a more reliable government". Formerly secret files reveal
that our ambassador in Tehran preferred "a dictator" who would
"settle the oil question on reasonable terms". The Shah took control
and ruled Iran with an iron fist for 25 years, while Britain and the US
helped train his secret police. Britain's invasion of British Guiana in the
same year is long forgotten. Democratic elections had resulted in
victory for a popular, leftist government committed to reducing
poverty. Its plans also threatened the British sugar multinational,
Bookers, who pleaded with London to intervene. Britain dispatched
warships and 700 troops to overthrow the government, and ruled out
elections since "the same party would have been elected again", the
colonial secretary stated.

The files also reveal British support for "regime change" in Indonesia in
1965 - one of the worst bloodbaths of the 20th century. "I have never
concealed from you my belief that a little shooting in Indonesia would
be an essential preliminary to effective change," the ambassador in
Jakarta, Sir Andrew Gilchrist, secretly informed the Foreign Office. A
million people were killed when the army exterminated the Indonesian
Communist Party, PKI.

The Foreign Office stated that "we can hardly go wrong by tacitly
backing the generals". London directly aided those engaged in
slaughter by conducting covert operations to "blacken the PKI".
Britain also delivered secret messages to the army promising not to
use its military forces in the region to undermine "the attempts which
they now seem to be making to deal with the PKI".

General Suharto removed Sukarno's nationalist government and
instigated a brutal military regime, which ruled until 1998, with
constant British support.

Syria, Oman, Yemen and Egypt are among other governments
targeted by Britain in the last half-century. By invading Iraq, and
bombing Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, the Blair government is simply
continuing a British tradition of promoting regime change. Looking at
these examples, Iraqis should take little comfort. And they should be
worried about the other side of the coin: equally indefensible current
British policies of promoting "regime support" for favoured
governments.

Turkey has destroyed 3,500 Kurdish villages, made hundreds of
thousands of people homeless and killed thousands more in its war
against Kurds. Atrocities have decreased since the late 1990s but
hundreds of thousands of Kurds are unable to return to their villages.
Ankara-appointed "village guards" occupy much of their lands;
villagers attempting to return have recently been shot dead. Turkish
police torture remains systematic.

Britain has been an apologist for these crimes while conducting
business as usual. Arms exports flow, while Turkish military officers
and the police, guilty of the worst human rights abuses, receive training
in Britain. London aided Ankara by closing down the Kurdish TV
station, MED-TV, in the same month that BAE Systems, Britain's
largest arms company, struck an arms deal with Turkey. Whitehall is
bending over backwards to support Ankara's bid to join the EU.
Another major Blair ally is Russian President Vladimir Putin. It is
instructive that the Foreign Office claims this close official and
personal relationship as a great success since it implicates Britain in
some of the worst horrors of our time.

The invasion of Chechnya in September 1999 was followed by
Russia's flattening of Grozny, killing thousands. British leaders offered
the mildest of protests, while defence minister Geoff Hoon spoke of
"engaging Russia in a constructive bilateral defence relationship".
Human rights atrocities in Chechnya are increasing again, with
thousands of "disappearances".

The government refuses to use bilateral levers to press Russia, such as
aid or military training. Last year, Blair said of Chechnya, "I have
always been more understanding of the Russian position, perhaps,
than many others."

The aim of "regime change" and "regime support" is to en- sure other
governments promote policies favourable to British elites. Basic goals
are to shape economies to benefit private corporations and maintain
Britain's political status in the world. The concept of "human rights" is
generally deployed by leaders as a tool to achieve these objectives. If
the past and present in other countries is anything to go by, Iraqis
would be wise to challenge British plans for their country and region.

Mark Curtis's Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World, is
published this month by Vintage. mcurtis30@xxxxxxx