Pilger latest

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

The Daily Mirror's stance on the war in Afghanistan is most interesting.
There's no question that, under Robert Maxwell, it would have been
slavishly pro-war. However, under the hitherto unpromising editorship of
Piers "Moron" Morgan, it has attempted to recapture some of the
campaigning spirit that characterised its reporting prior to Maxwell's
proprietorship. Chiefly, it has proudly advertised that Pilger was once
its chief foreign correspondent and has given him front page access.


JOHN PILGER: THIS WAR OF LIES GOES ON

The Mirror, 16 November 2001

 There is no victory in Afghanistan's tribal war, only the exchange of
one group of
 killers for another. The difference is that President Bush calls the
latest occupiers of
 Kabul "our friends".

 However welcome the scenes of people playing music and shaving off
their beards,
 this so-called Northern Alliance are no bringers of freedom. They are
the same
 people welcomed by similar scenes of jubilation in 1992, who then
killed an
 estimated 50,000 in four years of internecine feuding.

 The new heroes so far have tortured and executed at least 100 prisoners
of war, and
 countless others, as well as looted food supplies and re-established
their monopoly
 on the heroin trade.

 This week, Amnesty International made an unusually blunt statement that
was
 buried in the news. It ought to be emblazoned across every front page
and
 television screen. "By failing to appreciate the gravity of the human
rights concerns
 in relation to Northern Alliance leaders," said Amnesty, "UK ministers
at best
 perpetuate a culture of impunity for past crimes; at worst they risk
being complicit in
 human rights abuse."

 The truth is that the latest crop of criminals to "liberate" Kabul have
been given a
 second chance by the most powerful country on earth pounding into dust
one of the
 poorest, where people's life expectancy is just over 40.

 And for what?

 Not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has yet to
be caught or
 killed. Osama bin Laden and his network have almost certainly slipped
into the
 tribal areas of the North-West Frontier of Pakistan. Will Pakistan now
be bombed?
 And Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, where Islamic extremism and its military
network took
 root? Of course not.

 The Saudi sheikhs, many of them as extreme as the Taliban, control
America's
 greatest source of oil. The Egyptian regime, bribed with billions of US
dollars, is an
 important American proxy. No daisy cutters for them.

 There was, and still is, no "war on terrorism". Instead, we have
watched a variation
 of the great imperial game of swapping "bad" terrorists for "good"
terrorists, while
 untold numbers of innocent people have paid with their lives: most of
one village,
 whole families, a hospital, as well as teenage conscripts suitably
dehumanised by
 the word "Taliban".

 It is perfectly understandable that those in the West who supported
this latest
 American tenor from the air, or hedged their bets, should now seek to
cover the
 blood on their reputations with absurd claims that "bombing works".
Tell that to
 grieving parents at fresh graves in impoverished places of whom the
sofa
 bomb-aimers know nothing.

 The contortion of intellect and morality that this triumphalism
requires is not a new
 phenomenon. Putting aside the terminally naive, it mostly comes from
those who
 like to play at war: who have seen nothing of bombing, as I have
experienced it:
 cluster bombs, daisy cutters: the lot.

 How appropriate that the last American missile to hit Kabul before the
"liberators"
 arrived should destroy the satellite transmitter of the Al-Jazeera
television station,
 virtually the only reliable source of news in the region.

 For weeks, American officials have been pressuring the government of
Qatar, the
 Gulf state where Al-Jazeera is based, to silence its broadcasters, who
have given a
 view of the "war against terrorism" other than that based on the false
premises of
 the Bush and Blair "crusade".

 The guilty secret is that the attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary.
The "smoking
 gun" of this entire episode is evidence of the British Government's
lies about the
 basis for the war. According to Tony Blair, it was impossible to secure
Osama bin
 Laden's extradition from Afghanistan by means other than bombing.

 Yet in late September and early October, leaders of Pakistan's two
Islamic parties
 negotiated bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the
September 11
 attacks. The deal was that he would be held under house arrest in
Peshawar.
 According to reports in Pakistan (and the Daily Telegraph), this had
both bin
 Laden's approval and that of Mullah Omah, the Taliban leader.

 The offer was that he would face an international tribunal, which would
decide
 whether to try him or hand him over to America. Either way, he would
have been
 out of Afghanistan, and a tentative justice would be seen to be in
progress. It was
 vetoed by Pakistan's president Musharraf who said he "could not
guarantee bin
 Laden's safety".

 But who really killed the deal?

 The US Ambassador to Pakistan was notified in advance of the proposal
and the
 mission to put it to the Taliban. Later, a US official said that
"casting our objectives
 too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort
if by some luck
 chance Mr bin Laden was captured".

 And yet the US and British governments insisted there was no
alternative to
 bombing Afghanistan because the Taliban had "refused" to hand over
Osama bin
 Laden. What the Afghani people got instead was "American justice" -
imposed by a
 president who, as well as denouncing international agreements on
nuclear
 weapons, biological weapons, torture and global warming, has refused to
sign up
 for an international court to try war criminals: the one place where
bin Laden might
 be put on trial.

 When Tony Blair said this war was not an attack on Islam as such, he
was correct.

 Its aim, in the short term, was to satisfy a domestic audience then to
accelerate
 American influence in a vital region where there has been a power
vacuum since
 the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of China, whose oil
needs are
 expected eventually to surpass even those of the US. That is why
control of Central
 Asia and the Caspian basin oilfields is important as exploration gets
under way.

 There was, until the cluster bombing of innocents, a broad-based
recognition that
 there had to be international action to combat the kind of terrorism
that took
 thousands of lives in New York.

 But these humane responses to September 11 were appropriated by an
American
 administration, whose subsequent actions ought to have left all but the
complicit
 and the politically blind in no doubt that it intended to reinforce its
post-cold war
 assertion of global supremacy - an assertion that has a long,
documented history.

 The "war on terrorism" gave Bush the pretext to pressure Congress into
pushing
 through laws that erode much of the basis of American justice and
democracy. Blair
 has followed behind with anti-terrorism laws of the very kind that
failed to catch a
 single terrorist during the Irish war.

 In this atmosphere of draconian controls and fear, in the US and
Britain, mere
 explanation of the root causes of the attacks on America invites
ludicrous
 accusations of "treachery."

 Above all, what this false victory has demonstrated is that, to those
in power in
 Washington and London and those who speak for them, certain human lives
have
 greater worth than others and that the killing of only one set of
civilians is a crime. If
 we accept that, we beckon the repetition of atrocities on all sides,
again and again.

Full article at:
http://mirror.icnetwork.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11427607&me
thod=full